Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1988-02-02 .Y 41LED TOWDate 3 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk FEBRUARY 2 , 1988 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , February 2 , 1988 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , James Baker , Robert Kenerson , David Klein , William Lesser , Robert Miller , Virginia Langhans , John C . Barney , Esq . , ( Town Attorney ) , Robert R . Flumerfelt , P . E . ( Town Engineer ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Andrew Frost ( Town Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer ) . ALSO PRESENT : Sue Centini , Kinga Gergely , C . Gerard , Donovan Benninger , Donna J . Burun , Stanley L . Burun , Illa Gergely , Zoltan Gergely , Milton Zaitlin , Robert J . Smith , Harry Fertik , Robert Hines , Esq . , Franklin Butler , Mike Porter , Patty Porter , Peter Gergely , Joan Horn , Robert Horn , Cynthia Herzing , Sadie Benson , Aafke Steenhuis , Tammo Steenhuis , Ron & Bonnie Simpson , Fred T . Wilcox III , Edward A . Mazza , Esq . , Lawrence P . Fabbroni , Orlando Iacovelli , Earl B . Stanley , Dorothy Buerk , Clare Nicholetti , Lynn Smith - Lovin , Miller McPhezor , Frank Shipe , Margery Shipe , Karen Baum , Peter Stace , James L . Gulledge , Bruce Brittain , David J . Kuckuk , Terry Nicholetti Garrison , Mary Ann Oyer , Randi Beckmann , Bill Tomek , Slade Kennedy Jr , Roger W . Garrison , Donald Seifert , William J . Petrillose , Lucille Schneider , Edward Bosworth , J . W . & Anna Gebauer , Mildred Brammer , Joe Salino , Joseph M . Salino , Frank Eldridge , Mary Eldridge , Marlee C . Barry , Einar Holm , Margaret Holm , Jennifer Greene , Carla Muskat , Joseph L . Jeraci , Paula Sidle , Thomas H . Johnson , David C . Auble , Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 30 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of. the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 25 , 1988 and January 28 , 1988 , respectively , together with the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion , as appropriate , upon both the Clerk and the Building Commissioner of the City of Ithaca , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants on January 26 , 1988 . FIRE SAFETY NOTIFICATION Chairman May read aloud the Fire Safety and Exit Notification Regulations as required . ; Planning Board - 2 - February 2 , 1988 PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED " KLONDIKE MANOR " , A 16 - LOT SUBDIVISION PLUS OPEN SPACE , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 53 - 1 - 17 . 1 , - 17 . 2 , - 51 AND - 10 , 9 . 63 ACRES TOTAL , ON CODDINGTON ROAD , NORTHWEST OF JUNIPER DRIVE . ORLANDO AND RALPH IACOVELLI , APPLICANTS . ( ADJOURNED FROM JANUARY 19 , 1988 . ) Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 34 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Messrs . Orlando and Ralph Iacovelli , Engineering Consultant Lawrence Fabbroni , and Attorney Edward A . Mazza were present . Attorney Mazza addressed the Board and stated for the record that the Public Hearing regarding " KLONDIKE MANOR " was closed at the January 19 , 1988 Planning Board meeting , ' and requested that information at tonight ' s meeting be additional information . Mr . Fabbroni appeared before the Board and appended several maps to the Bulletin Board . Mr . Fabbroni said that the major revision was to create a 30 - foot green space or open space adjacent to a 60 - foot right - of -way [ pointing to map ] . Secondly , another revision was to develop a 20 - foot access to the park and this lot [ indicating on map ] . Mr . Fabbroni stated that the above two items have been accomplished . Another request was a concept of what the final grades of the road would be . Mr . Fabbroni pointed to the map and stated that the solid • contour lines depict the change in contour to accomplish the road in the location opposite Spruce Way which the Board requested , and which results in a road , as the developer depicted it , as generally coming from Coddington Road around to this point [ indicating on map ] , opposite where Lots No . 6 and 5 come together , of roughly 7 % grade , adding that the road continues on in " this " area at 512 % grade , or if you view the contours , it is matched to the existing grade as close as possible . Continuing , Mr . Fabbroni stated that from this point on down it would be 71 % . Mr . Fabbroni , noting another subject that was discussed was the lots , stated that in moving the right - of -way 30 feet north the developer redistributed the lines around and provided a 20 - foot right - of -way , and still provided lots well in excess of 15 , 000 square feet . Mr . Fabbroni pointed out that there is a lot of history and a lot of similar lots that Planning Boards have permitted as they look at current curvilinear type patterns , as compared to grid patterns . Mr . Fabbroni remarked that the lot on the corner of Northview Road and Coddington Road is smaller than the much discussed triangular lot . Mr . Fabbroni noted that in discussions with Ms . Beeners [ indicating on map ] this particular lot shown as going through Pennsylvania Avenue is one that the County has taken over . Mr . Fabbroni stated that these lots are questionable title lots at the moment because of the hanging history of this paper street right - of -way , adding that without the Town ' s condemnation of these rights - of -way the titles may never be cleaned . up . Mr . Fabbroni discussed the possiblity of the road intersection on Coddington Road being aligned opposite Spruce Way , Mr . Fabbroni noted that the topography , land use , and ownership is being dealt with for this proposal . , Planning Board - 3 - February 2 , 1988 • At this time , noting that the Public Hearing had been closed , Chairman May asked the Board for any questions or comments . Chairman May directed that the petition received from the surrounding neighbors be entered into the record . [ Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . 1 Mr . Lesser wondered what arrangement had been made with the Grays as to the right - of -way . Mr . Iacovelli responded that he had spoken with Mr . Gray and a tentative agreement had been reached , based on the outcome of tonight ' s meeting . Mr . Miller wondered if the proposed structures were the same as those next to the Coddington Restaurant . Mr . Mazza responded that those structures are in the City and belong to Mr . Iacovelli ' s brother , James . The proposal tonight is to subdivide this land in the Town . Mr . Lesser , referring to the area with the triangular lots , asked if the developer was proposing that the road at that point was going to be 107 feet wide . Mr . Fabbroni said that the road could be brought back to what is required for the 60 - foot right - of -way . Mr . Lesser wondered about the access to the other triangle of land , if indeed there is no road . Mr . Lesser asked if the buffer strip [ indicated in blue on map ] was going to be turned over to the Town as a park . Mr . Fabbroni responded that it makes the most sense to deed it as open • space . Attorney Mazza stated that , essentially , it is land that would be unusable other than to the Town or the neighbors on that side , however it provides more space between the street right- of -way and the back end of those lots . Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt stated that in regard to the plan under discussion , it is favored that the intersection remain on Coddington Road opposite Spruce Way , Continuing , Mr . Flumerfelt stated that the roadway grades are certainly within the Town standards , adding that the length of the road ( 1200 feet ) is slightly longer , which would result in a cul de sac longer than the Town ' s 1000 - foot standard . However , in recent conversations with personnel at NYSEG , Supervisor Desch has found that NYSEG is willing to sell parts of the right -of - way for uses such as highway purposes . The suggestion was mentioned that it would be an excellent idea to require the purchase of a piece of that NYSEG right -of-way extending southeasterly for eventual connection to Juniper Drive , as this would provide an alternate outlet , not only for this area , but also for the Juniper Drive residents . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that NYSEG wants to maintain the right to use that land for possibly an electric transmission line from Milliken to Candor . Chairman May asked if there were any other questions or comments from the Board . Carolyn Grigorov wondered what type of buildings are proposed , as that seems to be what the neighbors are concerned about . Attorney Mazza stated that the proposal is to subdivide the land into lots . Planning Board - 4 - February 2 , 1988 • The proposal in the cluster was for rental , which is no longer being considered by the Board , and the present proposed plan is for a traditional subdivision plan . Robert Miller asked if the developer had plans of the types of duplexes proposed , with Mr . Mazza responding that he did not see anything in the Subdivision Regulations which makes that an issue for subdivision of the land . Mr . Lesser wondered about the arrangement of connections to develop the lower portion . Mr . Fabbroni said the developer would go along with the Board ' s recommendation . Ms . Beeners asked Mr . Iacovelli when he anticipates building on the northern section . Mr . Iacovelli answered that he probably would build two houses a year , starting from Coddington Road and working down . Virginia Langhans inquired as to the width of the NYSEG right - of -way , with Mr . Fabbroni answering , 66 feet . At this point , the Board discussed the construction of a connection between the proposed new road and Juniper Driver prior to the issuance of any building permits for any dwellings on lots north of the NYSEG right - of -way . • David Klein wondered about the 20 - foot right - of •-way between lots No . 2 and 3 . Mr . Klein noted that the right -of -way crosses land ( the Gray parcel ) the developer does not own . Attorney Mazza stated that the developer will enter into negotiations and have a tentative agreement with Mr . Gray , Chairman May referred to the petition [ noted as Exhibit 11 signed by the neighbors . Mr . May noted that there are roughly 40 homes represented in the petition , adding that almost all of them seem to be contiguous to this project . Mr . May stated that he is concerned whether the issue of public controversy had been addressed or any mitigating factors had been provided to the public controversy . Mr . Fabbroni commented that , in fairness to the developer , the Board requires the completed form either at Sketch Plan Approval or prior to Preliminary Subdivision Approval , adding that some things have to be perfected as you go along , and if there is public controversy the developer will make note of it . Mr . Fabbroni noted that the discussion has to do with the mitigating factors . Mr . Miller remarked that he felt the problem was that the neighbors do not want their property devalued because they do not know what is going to be built . Town Attorney Barney stated that the length of the cul de sac is a subdivision regulation , not a State law , so the Board is empowered • in the granting of Premliminary and Final Approval to waive various requirements of the subdivision regulations . Mr . Barney felt that the Town would not have any great liability if they chose to approve a Planning Board - 5 - February 2 , 1988 ® subdivision which had a longer than 1000 foot cul de sac . Mr . Barney stated that , on the other hand , that is a policy decision and there is nothing incumbent upon the Board obliging them to approve such a subdivision . Ms . Beeners offered that that waiver would be reported to the Town Board , Mr . Lesser wondered about a couple of aspects regarding the subdivision . Mr . Lesser noted that the owners of the land do have the right to develop the land within the subdivision regulations . However , Mr . Lesser felt that the developer is before the Planning Board with requests for fairly substantial exemptions from the regulations . Mr . Lesser felt that the 1000 foot cul de sac is for fire safety , and the access to Lot No . 16 is on a road that does not meet most of the requirements required . Mr . Lesser stated that the subject proposal strains at the very bounds of what would be minimally acceptable for a subdivision in this area . Ms Beeners asked that the proposed number of cars be clarified . Ms . Beeners noted that the EAF was submitted when cluster was under discussion , adding that the maximum potential development , as development is permitted in the R- 15 zoning , would be the 32 units , and noting that it is shown on page three of the EAF that 96 parking spaces are proposed . Ms . Beeners said that that number should probably be corrected to be in line with what would be the permitted occupancy on each lot . Mr . Fabbroni responded that the off - street parking would be 48 and the maximum vehicular trips per hour would be 48 . Attorney Barney wondered if he were understanding correctly in the presentation to the Board that if the developer constructed two - family houses on these lots that they would be occupied by no more than three unrelated persons or by two families or by one family and two unrelated persons , as presently specified in the Ordinance , with Mr . Fabbroni responding , that is correct , and adding that the developer will abide by the Zoning Ordinance . There appearing to be no further comments or questions , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mrs . Virginia Langhans : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for proposed " Klondike Manor " , a 16 - lot subdivision plus open space , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 53 - 17 . 1 , - 17 . 2 , - 5 , and - 10 , 9 . 63 acres total , on Coddington Road , northwest of Juniper Drive , 2 . This is a Type I Action for which the Planning Board has been • legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . Planning Board - 6 - February 2 , 1988 • 3 . The Town Planner has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance , subject to certain requirements of further project approval . 4 . The recommended conditions set forth in the Full Assessment Form , Part II - A , prepared by the Town Planner , dated January 29 , 1988 , and revised February 2 , 1988 , have been adopted by the applicant as part of the applicant ' s proposal and request for approval . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review of this Type I Action , make and hereby does make a negative determination of environmental significance . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Ken erson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Mr . James Baker : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for proposed " Klondike Manor " , a 16 - lot subdivision plus open space , proposed to be located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No . 6 - 53 - 17 . 1 , - 17 . 2 , - 5 , and - 10 , 9 . 63 acres total , on Coddington Road , northwest of Juniper Drive . 2 . This is a Type I Action for which the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , has made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on February 2 , 1988 , has reviewed -the following material : " Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Klondike Manor " , dated January 21 , 1988 , by L . Fabbroni , P . E . , L . S . Full Environmental Assessment Form , dated January 7 , 1988 . 4 . The applicant has represented to the Planning Board that occupancy of any dwelling erected in the proposed subdivision will be as presently defined in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance unless the Ordinance is changed . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board waive and hereby does • waive certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval , having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of Planning Board - 7 - February 2 , 1988 • subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board , 2 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as herein proposed , with the following conditions : a . The provision of runoff calculations with plans and specifications for drainage improvements as a requirement for final subdivision approval , b . Because the Town Engineer has recommended that the road intersection on Coddington Road be aligned opposite Spruce Way , the Planning Board recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that , with respect to Lot No . 8 , a variance of Article IV , Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , to permit a lot 65 ± feet wide at the front yard setback , and , a variance of Article IV , Section 14 , of said Ordinance , to permit a side yard setback of 8 ± feet , be granted , the Planning Board having determined that : i . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . ii . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be located will not be adversely affected . iii . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . c . The construction of a connection between the proposed new road in the Klondike Manor subdivision and Juniper Drive prior to the issuance of any building permits for any dwellings on lots north of the NYSEG right of way . d . The granting of a variance for Lots No . 2 , 6 , and 7 with respect to lot depth . e . Lot No . 16 , as shown on said map , will not be used as a building lot , and no building permit shall be issued for same , unless and until it is combined with another parcel or parcels in a manner and with access approved by the Planning Board , and a restrictive covenant to that effect , in form and substance satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town , is recorded in the Tompkins County Clerk ' s Office . f . The construction of a minimum 12 - foot -wide , paved or oil and stone , path / driveway to the 0 . 8 - acre park site , g . The provision of a 20 - foot -wide potential trail easement between Lots No . 12 and 13 . Planning Board - 8 - February 2 , 1988 • h . The provision of a landscape management and supplementation plan for the 30 - foot buffer area , as a requirement of final subdivision consideration . i . Provision of a deed , or other evidence satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town , assuring that a conveyance will be available , at the required portion of the NYSEG easement , to the Town for road purposes , before final subdivision plat approval . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser . Nay - Klein , Miller . The MOTION was declared to be carried . [ FULL ASSESSMENT FORM , PART II -A ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT 2 . 1 Chairman May declared the matter of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for KLONDIKE MANOR duly closed at 9 : 43 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 1 . 32 ± ACRE PARCEL ( GROSS ) , LOCATED AT 228 FOREST HOME DRIVE , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO , 6 - 66 - 3 - 16 , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , INTO TWO LOTS OF . 65 ± ACRES EACH . JAMES L . GULLEDGE , • OWNER / APPLICANT . ( ADJOURNED FROM JUNE 16 , 1987 ) . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9 : 45 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Gulledge was present , along with his Attorney , Richard Stumbar . Mr . Gulledge appeared before the Board and read out loud a letter for the record addressed to the Planning Board from Mr . Gulledge , dated February 2 , 1988 . [ LETTER ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT 3 . 1 Chairman May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak . Bruce Brittain , President of the Forest Home Improvement Association , spoke from the floor and presented a petition on this issue to the Board , Virginia Langhans wondered what percentage of the neighborhood signed the petition . Mr . Brittain responded that there were 60 signatures or more . Paula Sidle of 215 Forest Home Drive stated that she was concerned with trees being removed . • Mrs . Steenhuis of the Forest Home Nursery School spoke from the floor and stated that she was concerned with the proposed plan , as it would only leave a 20 ' to 25 ' X 30 ' play yard . Mrs . Steenhuis also Planning Board. - 9 - February 2 , 1988 • stated that she is concerned about the increased traffic , and exhaust fumes . Ms . Beeners stated that there has been informal use permitted by the owners of the subject property regarding the play yard , and does not know of any formal agreement for this use between the Forest Home Chapel and the owners . Attorney Stumbar stated that there is no legal right by the Nursery School or request from them to Mr . Gulledge to use his property . Mr . Stumbar noted that , whether or not there is a subdivision , Mr . Gulledge ' s property has been used without permission , remarking that Mr . Gulledge has not opposed it , but the nursery school has no legal right to use the area . Mr . Stumbar felt that most of the traffic in that area is , in fact , day care traffic . Continuing , Mr . Stumbar noted [ indicating on map appended to the bulletin board ] that the subject lot is a very odd shaped lot , adding that this parcel is by far the largest parcel in the neighborhood . Mr . Stumbar felt that the lots that would be created by the proposed subdivision are very much in keeping with the character of the neighborhood as far as size and depth , commenting that both lots will be much larger than most of the small lots along Forest Home Drive , Mr . Stumbar stated that the architectural design of the proposed residence will be in keeping with the Forest Home neighborhood , and it will not be student housing . Mr . Stumbar said that three of the larger trees will have to be removed . • Bill Tomek , of 190 Pleasant Grove Road , wondered about trespassing as far as the Chapel day care is concerned . Attorney Stumbar , noting that a member of the Planning Board owns property contiguous to the property in question , stated that there could be a possible conflict of interest . Mr . Stumbar wondered what the precedent was for withdrawing on the vote . Virginia Langhans stated that there have been other members on the Board who have been adjacent to other developments and they had not excused themselves . Mr . Barney noted that there is not an ethical description that states the Board member should withdraw from voting ; that it is up to the Board member , in this case Mrs . Langhans , Mrs . Langhans stated that she would consider abstaining at the time of the vote . Chairman May asked if there any more comments from the public , and , there being no response , closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 10 p . m . Chairman May turned the matter over to the Board for discussion . Virginia Langhans wondered about the interested buyers for the property . Mr . Gulledge responded that the buyers would prefer not to buy the entire lot , adding that he would like to build on a portion of the lot , and is not really interested in selling the entire property . Mr . May felt that there is considerable public disagreement to this proposal in the form of a petition . Also , Mr . May noted that there is considerable impact to the Chapel , and there are a large number of • variances which are required in order to make the subdivision work . Planning Board. - 10 - February 2 , 1988 Mr . Gulledge stated that the house is approximately 30 - 40 feet away ( uphill ) behind the Church offices . David Klein referred to the Zoning Ordinance , Article XIII , General Provisions , Section 68 , which states , " When there is more than one principal building on a lot in any district the space between such buildings must be at least equal to the sum of the side yards required by such buildings or the sum of the rear and the front yards as the case may be . " Chairman May stated that it cannot be ignored that the proposed house is quite close to a public facility . There appearing to be no further comments or questions , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . MOTION by Mr . Montgomery May , seconded by Dr . William Lesser : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of a 1 . 32 ± - acre parcel ( gross ) , located at 228 Forest Home Drive , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 66 - 3 - 161 into two lots of . 65 ± acres ( gross ) each . 2 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on February 2 , 1988 , has reviewed the following materials : • Application materials dated January 22 , 1988 , including SEQR Full Environmental Assessment Form , Site , Topographic , and Building Plans and Building Elevations . Correspondence and petition received from residents since the proposal was first reviewed by the Planning Board on June 16 , 1987 . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board deny and hereby does deny the subdivision as proposed , on the grounds that the proposed subdivision would be contrary to the intent of the subdivision regulations to guide , promote , and protect the community ' s physical , social , and aesthetic development in order to preserve the character of the Town , as set forth in Section 2 of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations , 2 . Further , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to ' the Zoning Board of Appeals that a request for variance of the requirements of Article IV , Section 16 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance pertaining to front yard dimensions , be denied , the Planning Board having determined that : a . There is no evidence of need for the proposed subdivision in the proposed location . • b . The existing and probable future character of the Forest Home neighborhood may be adversely affected by the addition Planning Board - 11 - February 2 , 1988 • of a new house on a lot irregular in topography and dimension . c . The proposed change is not in accordance with a comprehen - sive plan of development of the Town . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Klein , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . Abstain - Langhans . The MOTION was declared to be carried . Chairman May declared the matter of the Gulledge subdivision request duly closed at 10 : 35 p . m . [ Secretary ' s Note : At the request of the Chairman , let the record show that Mr . Felix Friedmann appeared at the Town of Ithaca Offices , Planning Department , and requested that his name be removed from those signatories of the Petition in opposition to the Gulledge Subdivision . See attached Exhibit 4 . 1 PUBLIC HEARING_ : CONSIDERATION OF THE REAFFIRMATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON JULY 31 1984 , FOR THE SUBDIVISION INTO TWO LOTS OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 56 - 3 - 6 , APPROXIMATELY 1 . 6 ACRES , LOCATED AT 1526 SLATERVILLE ROAD , PETER A . STACE , OWNER / APPLICANT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 10 : 36 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Stace was present . Mr . Stace addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to separate the existing property for potential sale . Mr . Stace stated that the proposal was approved previously , but was not properly recorded with the County Clerk . Chairman May wondered if the lot was a legal building lot , with Mr . Stace answering , yes . Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 38 p . m . , and brought the matter back to the Board . Susan Beeners stated that a negative declaration was granted by the Planning Board on July 3 , 1984 , adding that the Planning Board approved the subdivision contingent upon having the final subdivision plat submitted for approval by the Town Engineer . • There being no further comments or questions , Chairman May asked for a motion . Planning Board - 12 - February 2 , 1988 • MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov , seconded by Mr . James Baker : RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board reaffirm and hereby does .reaffirm the Subdivision Approval as granted by the Planning Board on July 3 , 1984 , for the subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 56 - 3 - 6 , ( approximately 1 . 6 acres ) , also known as 1526 Slaterville Road , into two lots , subject to the submission , in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer , of a final subdivision plat for the approval of the Town Engineer , and further subject to the filing in the Office of the Tompkins County Clerk of such final subdivision plat , as approved by the Town Engineer , within ninety days . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of consideration of the Reaffirmation of the Stace Subdivision Approval duly closed at 10 : 40 p . m . PUBLIC HEARING_ : CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONVERSION OF " JOHNNY ' S SUPER SERVICE " , LOCATED AT 1103 DANBY ROAD , TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 43 - 2 - 1 , FROM GASOLINE SERVICE AND VEHICLE REPAIR TO SELF - SERVICE GASOLINE SERVICE AND CONVENIENCE STORE . JOHN C . AND KIM KLEIN , OWNERS ; JOSEPH SALINO , APPLICANT . Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 10 : 41 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . Mr . Salino was present . Mr . Salino addressed the Board and stated that he is proposing a Convenience Store and Gas Station . Mr . Salino said that to accomplish this the overhead doors would have to be removed , and a double door constructed for an entrance into the convenience store . Continuing , Mr . Salino said that a wall would be removed between the service bay and the existing store to enlarge the convenience store area . Ms . Beeners stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals examined the proposal on December 16 , 1987 , adding that the Zoning Board of Appeals was acting as Lead Agency in the environmental review . The original proposal included a laundromat in the south end of the building . Virginia Langhans wondered what happened with the laundromat proposal . Mr . Salino responded that the Zoning Board of Appeals limited the proposal to seven washers and seven dryers . Mr . Salino stated that that limitation was not financially feasible . • Chairman May wondered if the Negative Declaration could be accepted for the conversion including a laundromat . Ms . Beeners noted Planning Board - 13 - February 2 , 1988 • that the laundromat was proposed in addition to the convenience store use . Ms . Beeners stated that Mr . Salino actually received a negative declaration for more uses than what is intended at this time . Chairman May , noting that this was a Public Hearing , asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to this issue . No one spoke . Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 10 : 43 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board . David Klein wondered about a site plan . Ms . Beeners stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals placed certain conditions on granting approval for the convenience store , gas , and laundromat use . Ms . Beeners commented that those conditions are in the Zoning Board of Appeals resolution of December 16 , 1987 , adding that one of those conditions was that there be a presentation to the Planning Board of the site layout . Also , signage and striping would be placed to indicate where there would be no parking and parking for compact vehicles . Ms . Beeners stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals conditions would stand on any use that would be developed on the property . Mr . Klein stated that the site plan is hard to read , and that he was not particularly opposed to the concept , but the site plan is quite sketchy in nature . Continuing , Mr . Klein remarked that the plan is not dimensioned , and does not show clearances where the highway ends and where the property starts . Mr . Klein felt that he had nothing to base the site plan review on , and that a more accurate drawing should be submitted . Ms . Beeners stated that there are at • least ten different versions of the plan in the file showing exactly what Mr . Klein was referring to . Mr . Klein wondered if the entire area was covered with blacktop . Ms . Beeners responded that the north side does run into the blacktop of East King Road , and the South side of the property is a driveway that Mr . Salino has not been able to gain access to . Mr . May stated that he was confused about the parking spaces . Mr . Salino responded that the parking spaces are all basically the same size , but a couple are designated for compact cars to give more space in between . Mr . Flumerfelt stated that he and Ms . Beeners had viewed the proposed parking arrangement and it is feasible as shown on the site plan . Mr . Klein stated that if the Town Engineer is satisfied with the layout as proposed that he would withdraw his request for a new site plan . There appearing to be no further comments or questions , Chairman May asked if anyone cared to make a motion . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed conversion of " Johnny ' s Super Service " , located at 1103 • Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 43 - 2 - 1 , from gasoline service and vehicle repair to self - service gasoline station and convenience store . Planning Board - 14 - February 2 , 1988 • 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Zoning Board of Appeals , acting as Lead Agency for environmental review , made a negative determination of environmental significance on December 16 , 1987 , subject to certain conditons . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on February 2 , 1988 , has reviewed the following materials : Site Plan , entitled " Proposed Site Plan for Convenience Store and Self- Service Gas - - Joseph M . Salino " , dated January 20 , 1988 . Floor plan dated January 20 , 1988 . Building elevation plan dated January 20 , 1988 . Site location map . The Minutes and Resolution from the December 16 , 1987 , Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing , THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Site Plan Approval for the proposed conversion of the existing facility into a convenience store and self- service gasoline station , with the understanding that any development of a laundromat in the existing building will require site plan review by the Planning Board , and may also be subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals . • There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Grigorov , Baker , Klein , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman May declared the matter of Site Plan Approval for the proposed conversion of " Johnny ' s Super Service " duly closed at 10 : 54 p . m . SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED REZONING OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 45 - 2 - 14 , 67 ± ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED ON RIDGECREST AND TROY ROADS , BACKLOT OF EAST KING ROAD , FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R15 , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION OF SAID PARCEL INTO 99 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 38 CONVENTIONAL LOTS . DAVID C . AUBLE , OWNER/ APPLICANT . Chairman May opened discussion on the above - noted matter at 10 : 55 P . M . Mr . David Auble was present , along with Landscape Architect , Mr . Thomas H . Johnson , Mr . Auble appeared before the Board , introduced his Landscape Architect , Tom Johnson , and gave a brief description of the property . • Mr . Johnson addressed the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Johnson stated that the total acreage of the project was 65 . 5 acres , adding that the land slopes down toward the City of Ithaca Planning Board. - 15 - February 2 , 1988 with views of Cayuga Lake , Mr . Johnson commented that the developer would like to preserve the view as much as possible , and that would be accomplished with an open space system . Continuing , Mr . Johnson offered that -the central area will be single family attached homes , with single detached family homes surrounding the property . Mr . Johnson noted that the clusters will be patterned on the types of buildings that are normally seen in a rural landscape . The buildings will be Greek Revival style farmhouses . Mr . Johnson noted that the site is basically an open site , but the developer plans to plant trees around the single family homes for a wooded atmosphere . Indicating on the map , Mr . Johnson stated that the little black dots are retention ponds , and noted that they are not placed with engineering accuracy at this time , as this was a sketch plan . Mr . Johnson said that there will be a semi - private trail system through the open space . Mr . Johnson stated that there are 99 condominiums and 38 single family lots proposed ,. adding that the sketch plan was drawn as R15 zoning , with 150 ' X 100 ' lots , and nine acres of open space . The density would be approximately 2 . 1 units per acre . Mr . Lesser wondered where the park land was located . Mr . Johnson responded that the boundary lines between the clusters and the park land is not defined as a precise line on the sketch plan , but would be approximately at the edge of the trees around the clusters , noting that there would be a homeowners ' association . Ms . Beeners stated that in discussions with the developer it was concluded that perhaps some of the open space that is shown on the King Road end of the • property as being public open space for a park site might be the best place for a public trail . Mr . Johnson , pointing to the map , stated that Ms . Beeners and the developer discussed bringing in a little driveway and having a couple of parking spaces so that people would have access to this very large natural area . Mr . Lesser asked why the access to Ridgecrest Road is limited to service , remarking that there is a great distance between the road access and the farthest house , and noting that that is a lot of traffic to pour out on a single road . Mr . Johnson stated that the formal entrance to the development would be more appropriate here [ indicating on. map ] . Mr . Johnson offered that the developer , because of the steepness of the grade , is looking at the possibility of a secondary access to Ridgecrest Road , Mr . May stated that the Board would definitely require a second access . Mr . Klein stated that he felt the plan has a nice feel , particularly using the single family homes along the perimeter . Ms . Beeners stated that , since these homes would be owner - occupied condominium units at a very low density , and combined also with the peripheral lots or buffers , it was recommended that the developer consider the R15 cluster . Mr . Kenerson asked about the plans for building the project . Mr . Auble responded that the plans are to sell the single family home sites , and hopefully , design - build the homes on those sites . Mr . Auble commented that this project is a long - term development approach . Ms Beeners asked the Board if the conventional plat as shown looks conceptually in a format that the developer should proceed in Planning Board - 16 - February 2 , 1988 preparing a Premliminary Conventional Plat to establish density . Mr . May stated that what is shown is satisfactory . Chairman May asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairman May declared the matter of the Auble Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 11 : 19 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - December 17 , 1985 MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov : RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of December 17 , 1985 , be and hereby are approved as presented . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - May , Baker , Grigorov , Miller , Lesser , Langhans , Klein , Kenerson . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . At this point , Attorney Barney noted for the record that his law firm is representing Mr . David Auble , as well as Mr . Jones . However , Mr . Barney stated that neither Mr . Auble nor Mr . Jones is being represented in conjunction with any application before any of the Town of Ithaca Boards . The firm is only involved in the purchase of the land in question . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the February 2 , 1988 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 25 p . m . Respectfully submitted , Mary S . Bryant , Recording Secretary Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary Town of Ithaca Planning Board yy A r NAME ADDRESS -- w Ufto k6A loV& 11W Te*224c6- eIF — - - --- - -- -- - Ak t 1�WJ�4 ����-►�' �- - ter" ._ _. f_[ � . . . _ P,t - - - - - - - - -.. . �-�"�- - � - .. /0.3 1041 &4a z-- loz. J /v[)e C-�- 13 EXHIBIT 1 - NAME ADDRESS _ � - -- - ---- -moi c�- or ck N �1 14135, ( ce lill�( c� 1IDY _ --- - - - _ - _3 -. _ _. .- je •�.. _- r� �4�::70 J d r I Id / � ✓7�/'2�-�r/ . _. . .. . �."�J��.. .. _ . . . . . . . _ ... _ .. . . . . _ . _ �.`�✓ . . . .�- " KY/ ti's... \ . . I ._ . . . . .._ . . . ._ _-__ _ _ . . . . .. - _ _. . Cie lw NAME ADDRESS. -DfuLjF. At y JV i A small to moderate impact as a result of construction on slopes ranging from 5 to 20 per cent is expected to be controlled in the process of project implementation . Site soils are typical to the northwestern end of the Coddington Road corridor with shallowness to bedrock and seasonal wetness posting moderate constraints to site development , which impacts are expected to be controlled through adequate drainage design , erosion control , and revegetation . Any blasting that may be required during excavation is expected to be routine and of no significant adverse impact to adjacent residents . s - .. T A. PACT ON W.S?., a Site drainage as - proposed on the preliminary plat , is adequate in the minimization of impact to drainage patterns . Some existing. site drainage which currently collects near Pennsylvania Avenue " Extension " would be diverted northeasterly and should assist in alleviating drainage problems on the - " EXPtension " . Drainage outfalls near lots 12 through 15 would be into a largely undevelopable area 50 - 75 feet from a N . Y . S . U . E . C . protected stream . Subject to further drainage design as would be required for final plan C no significant adverse impact is expected to that- stream . IMPACT ON PLA ITS Ar1D_ANIMA 'I�S The proposed subdivision would involve substantial clearing of a 1 1 / 2 to 27acre mixed evergreen stand in the area of Lots 10 through 13 . This stand has apparently been (absent of mariagemcnt for several • years . No sig i -f icant adverse impact is expected from the clearing that would be necessary , provided that selective clearing is practiced where possible , and that revegetation is conducted . IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREAmION No significant adverse impact is expected in this regard . The site is 750 - feet at its northeast corner from , % City Watershed lands and the former D . L . & W . switchback where trails both exist and are being planned . The park lands proposed , while not conforming to Subdivision. Regulations requirements with respect -to frontage and dimension , are generally consistent with the concept of a linear park system linked by a planned trail along the NYSEG right of way , as was approved in concept by • the Town Board in 1984 . The southeastern . 2 + / - acre park site is generally usable as a trail spur / sitting area and EXHIBIT 2 - Col. native plant preserve , and might be expanded in the future to include approximately 1 / 3 acre or more of undevelopable • land on the adjacent lands of Sincebaugh along the D . E . C . protected stream . The northwestern 8 + / - acre park site , with grades of approximately 10 per cent , would have limited field potential but could be developed with a play/ exercise structure and sitting area . A 20 - foot wide potential trail right of way between lots 12 , and 13 is proposed as a requirement for final subdivision consideration . bQI QN TRANa�Q TATIOj� The traffic generated by the proposed development is within the capacity of the existing and proposed road system , however .,_:he proposed road(_Collegeview Lane " exceeds , at 1260 + L- feet . the 1000foot maximum_ lengt; h for Attltcqlde sac Permitt in tha _Subdiv_ isior� Regulaons , It is . recommendrd. that the develo er cony ru t onnection P t-_c—ec---------- betweenl' Collegeview Drive " and - JuniperIDrivato -mitigate thi__ s _exce _ssive lena'th and to provide both a second means of access into Klondike Subdivision and an outlet for Juniper Privye Prior to the issuance of any cert 9ficates of compliance for the lots north of the NYSEG right of way_ The potential extension of " Collegeview Lane " northerly or easterly , if adjacent vacant .lands are developed , may reduce future traffic volumes on Juniper Drive . The provision of a 30 - foot buffer between " Collegeview Lane " and the back yards of certain houses on Juniper Drive , if eAxistin g vegetation is illd n;, ained and supplemented , should assist in mitigating impacts to these residences , Which would be 10 to 20 feet higher in elevation than the finished grade of " Collegeview Lane � �rI ^ hA r4 77 L . f� Oi1-1di. E. En— S�[�SLstLlUstlYd..0 Ther; would be a modeTate impact as a result in the change in lard use from vacant land to housing . The addition of 32 dwelling units ( 16 'Lots , 3 . 32 dwelling units per acre ) is within permitted R - 15 densities and typical area densities , and is generally within site development and municipal service capacities , subject to the further requirements of project approval . Variance of certain Zoning Ordinance requirements may be needed as follows : a . Lot 8 : 100 ' lot width required , 65 ' proposed ; 10 ' side yard required , 8 + / - feet proposed ( note that the configuration of this lot is. due in part to the road location opposite Spruce Way as required by the Town Engineer . b . Lot 16 may need variance from the requirements of N . Y . S . Town Law 280 - a , and variance of Zoning Ordinance • requirements pertaining to frontage on a public road . ( 2 ) a�s C , Lots 2 , 6 , and 7 may not meet minimum requirements for lot depth , unless the Planning Board can interpret them as legal building lots . 19 . There has been some public controversy from residents adjacent to -the project site on Juniper Drive , related to concerns about traffic impact , the location of " Collegeview Lane " , and development intensity . RECOMM_ENDAUQbl Site engineering as proposed at time of review indicates that any potential localized impacts with respect to land and drainage are expected to be controlled . Traffic volumes are within existing and proposed road capacities , with_r adi culation -deguate provided that a connection is constructed . betwse , �' Coilegeview " Juniper Drive . The provision of a 30 - foot buffer between " Collegeview Lane " and the residential properties on Juniper Drive is expected to substantially mitigate the impact of " Collegeview Lane " on these . properties , provided that existing vegetation - within this ' buffer ' is supplemented by new plantings . A negative determination of environmental significance — is recommended for the proposed I. londike Manor Subdivision subject to certain requirements of further project approval which are proposed to include the following : L a . Runoff calculations and specific drainage design shall be included as a requirement for final subdivision approval . b . Eecause the Town Engineer recommends that the road intersection on Cuddington Road be aligned opposite Spruce Way , it is recommended that the Planning Board recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a variance of lot width requirements ( 1U0 ' required , e5 ' proposed ) and sideyard setback ( 10 ' required , 8 + / - feet proposed ) be granted for Lot 8 . c . The construction of a connection _betwee_n Collegeview_I, ar�e " and_Juniper Drive _ rior to the issuance of any certificates _of comp lance or lots north of the NYSEG right o wa d . Interpretation of Lots 2 , 6 , and 7 as legal building lots , or the granting of variances for these lots with respect to lot depth . e . The granting of variance , for Lot 16 , from the requirements of N . Y . S . Town Law 280 - a , and from the Zoning Ordinance requirements with respect to frontage on a public road . f . The construction of a minimum 8 - feet wide , paved ( or oil and stone ) path/ driveway to the 0 . 8 acre park site . ® g . The provision of a 20 - feet wide potential trail right of way between Lots 12 and 13 . ( 2 ) it$-. . "l R• , . : 4r�(y�� ar ,!'rp-! t _ : r. r • -:'� � tia > tRlv>; h� .'Y` � r • i. 3Ytp �7;r � .�:.t� Ysl4- 4i i � ' 1; ' t J• S �. '.r I' rr i ei . e 4 ^ yy h rFti t , . ] ,t , :7.jjS, ki Sr1,. r:.n j{ s. _ .� etr✓a'ir , Hluj Y 'a , dihp^ r . . 9 : r Tilt. IttFlj i` ` .: i . ,� . r c. 5 ,r '' 3•+.,. .g..4- ,lit. . / , q �f h . The provision of a landscape management and supplementation plan for the 30 - foot buffer area , as a requirement of final subdivision consideration . I James L . Gulledge 168 Pleasant Grove Road Ithaca , New York 14850 ( 607 ) 257 - 6393 February 02 , 1988 T0 : Town of Ithaca Planning Board SUBJECT : Comments regarding my proposal to subdivide 228 Forest Home Drive . You have all recieved a packet of material from the Town Planner which includes my proposal to subdivide the 1 . 3 acre parcel known as 228 Forest Home Drive . Some of these materials and this commentary have been distributed to those present here tonight . There is little more I wish to add at this point to the specific information that I have submitted in the proposal . I would like to clarify one document , however . This is in reference to attachment 2 , the survey map that I have used as a base upon which to show a possible lot dividing line and house posi - tion , along. with distances to relevant boundaries . The survey map was prepared by Mr . George Schlecht for the sale of 228 Forest Home Drive by Mr . Jon Reis to me . It is the most recent survey available . However , all nota - tions regarding the proposed new house and the possible lot line plus dimen - sion lines from the proposed new house to property bounderies were added by me . . Mr . Schlecht is not in any way responsible for these . At the June 1987 hearing , a number of issues and concerns were raised by this ers of the Forest Home Community . These have been addressed board and by memb in the revised and expanded proposal being considered tonight . The town plan - ner has reviewed all of the material presented . In her report , ( part 2 of the SEQR form , " Project Impacts and their Magnitude " ) , she considered the proposed subdivision ' s impact on land , water , air , plants and animals , aesthetic resources , historic and archaeological resources , open space and recreation , transportation , energy , noise and odor , public health , and , finally , growth and character of the community or neighborhood . She concluded that : "From an environmental standpoint , upon review of the proposal and the new information submitted by the applicant , no significant adverse impact is expected from the proposed subdivision and new dwelling that would not be mitigatible in the process of further design development and as subject to certain other requirements . " I would like to comment further on certain aspects of these matters as they have to do with aesthetic resources , historic and archaeological resources , and growth and character of the community . During the course of developing the concept sketches of the proposed ® residence , the topographic map and other information presented in the proposal EXHIBIT 3 - ( 2 ) before you , I have talked with a number of concerned citizens . Other than individuals , I have talked with leaders of the Forest Home Improvement Associ - ation and of the Forest Home Chapel ' s administrative board . My responses to technical concerns regarding drainage and potential environmental disturbance as well as concerns for size and design of the new residence are before you in the submitted proposal . However , I realize that there is still concern over several issues that some feel that I have not yet adequately addressed . I am anxious to do so in a complete and forthright manner . I think Mr . David Kuckuk ' s letter to the planning board outlines the community ' s central concerns . Let me consider each of these : 1 . Impact on existing residence : A number of residents have expressed con - cern that subdividing the property will significantly lower the desireability of the present house on its reduced lot . In testing the real estate market , although the house has not been advertised or - formally put " on the market " , I have found that this is not so . There are at present at least two parties seriously interested in purchasing the renovated 19th century dwelling . One of these parties is ready to proceed to the purchase offer stage: as soon as we have resolved the subdivision issue . This party , a couple , both professors at Cornell are found of old homes and in fact while at their last university restored an 18th century country home . They have been fully briefed on my plans for the subdivision and in fact feel that an appropriately designed new residence placed as proposed will be a positive addition to Forest Home . A note : In Mr . K.uckuk ' s letter he states that the proposed subdivision will ® reduce the front yard below Zoning Ordinance requirements . As the Town Planner notes in her SEQR report , "The exisgint Pond House would , after the proposed subdivision have a total of 255 +J - feet of frontage along the Forest Home Drive right of way , of which between 60 and 100 feet could be interpreted as front yard . Reducing the southwestern side yard width from the current 80 ' to the proposed 20 ' feet will not change the way or degree in which the old house does or does not conform to the current zoning ordinance , which of course practically no Forest Home Residence does . 2 . Front yard development of the proposed new lot . I agree with Mr . Kuckuk that this is an extremely important question . It is as important as the design of the new house itself . How it is resolved will have a major esthetic impact on the Chapel , the present and new residences , and of course , the entire neighborhood . At this stage , I have not attempted to address the prob - lem . The sketched in driveway access on attachment 3 , the topographic map , is by no means meant to be final and fixed . If preliminary subdivision approval is given , I would expect to work with an appropriate Forest Home committee and a landscape designer to settle on a mutually satisfactory solution . 3 . Appropriateness ( of the new residence ) to the neighborhood . As is apparent in the concept sketches , attachments 5 & 6 in the present proposal , I want the the new residence to reflect the traditional design motifs of Forest Home and our area . I am particularly fond of two of our traditional regional styles : namely the Greek Revival , best reflected in Forest Home , I think , by David Bates ' home and the Italinate as simply reflected in 228 Forest Home ® Drive . I feel that design elements echoing the simple and restrained classic nature of the Greek Revival will work best in the new residence . ( 3 ) ( 3 ) • A particular point has to do with the present stone retaining wall which will be partially removed . I plan to salvage the stones and use them to face the terrace at the front of the new residence . This will , I feel , help integrate the new house with its site . The visual. result will be to connect the founda - tion of the new residence with the remainder of the retaining wall which extends over into the upper hillside garden area of 228 Forest .Home Drive . As with the problem of front yard development , I would like to discuss and refine solutions to these matters with an appropriate Forest Home committee . On the issue of quality I will put it in terms of financial committment . Using building costs for quality structures obtained from . a builder of custom homes ( who did the renovation work at 228 Forest Home Drive ) and with whom I have developed the concept sketches , I expect the building costs of the 1800 finished square foot residence to be between $ 135 , 000 and $ 140 , 000 or between $ 75 and $ 77 per square foot . Financing will be a combination of private and bank . Before commencing , the financing package for the project will be completely arranged and committed . If deemed necessary , the financial package can be reviewed by appropriate Town of Ithaca officials . 4 . Assurance of performance and compliance . This is a most difficult problem to address at this stage because there is , to my knowledge , no body properly constituted to deal with such matters . Perhaps the ultimate control rests _ with the Town of Ithaca Building Inspector who must give a certificate of occupancy before the new residence can be used . However , at that stage it is late to change many things . In conjunction with appropriate persons and my attorney , I would like to discuss ways to give the planning board and Forest Home residents confidence that agreed to design and planning concepts are adhered to while I proceed with the project . I am open to any reasonable sug - gestions as to ways to address this problem . 5 . Although not mentioned by Mr . Kuckuk , another subject that I feel is of concern and one that has been mentioned by others is "What happens to the properties when they are sold ? Can they be converted to uses not in keeping with the present character of Forest Home ? " I , too , feel that such an eventuality would most be undesireable . Therefore , if subdivision of 228 Forest Home Drive and building of a new residence is approved , I will , when the properties are sold , include restrictive covenants in the transferring deeds to prevent their use other than as single family residences . This , I might point out , is unusual in an older neighborhood . In order to preclude undue future hardship on new owners in the event other Forest Home property owners are not so concerned with such matters and the neighborhood does shift to a majority of non - single family , owner occupied residences , the restrictive covenants will provide for the release of the owners of the subdivided 228 Forest Home Drive from the restrictions . At this point I feel that I should stop and respond to any questions that you have . After hearing from members of the community , my attorney , Mr . Richard Stumbar would like to make a few remarks . • ( 3 ) PETITION To be presented to the Town of Ithaca concerning the proposed subdivision at 228 Forest Home Drive December , 1987 We , the undersigned , respectfully but urgently request that the Town of Ithaca not grant a zoning variance to James Gulledge for the construction of a house at 228 Forest Home Drive . Zoning is enacted for a purpose , and we see no extenuating circumstances that would justify an exception to the law . Neighbors to the proposed building site might be more affected by the project than would James Gulledge himself , who has no intention of living in our community . Building on this nonconforming lot would detract from the historic character of Forest Home , increase housing density , add to an already congested traffic situation , decrease neighboring property values , negatively impact the Forest Home Nursery School , and perhaps be a disservice to the eventual owners of both the existing and proposed houses at this site . We therefore ask that the zoning variance be denied . NAME ADDRESS Ala 04 a p� w OMAM oil .� aAA-PU) A4-V .�.•�.Q .o.�:,� Z #4 W/40�t. �� • n Planning Board - 1 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) David Klein wondered about the 20 - foot right- of - way between lots No . 2 and . 3 . Mr . Klein noted that the right - of -way crosses land ( the Gray parcel ) the developer does not own . Attorney Mazza stated that the developer will enter into negotiations and had a tentative agreement with Mr . Gra:y . May - That is an also an area I have trouble with . Lot ' 16 , I do not believe belongs as part of the proposal . Klein - But if that is the only way to get there it seems to me that you have to have something definitive that you control that parcel or something in writing . Mazza - I would suggest that that be a condition on a building permit for that lot . Klein - I guess you can get there going through the NYSEG right - of -way , or move it between lots 3 and 4 . Iacovelli - we have kind of a verbal agreement with the Grays . If you had requested that the last time I would have had it in writing for you tonight . Klein - I have some feelings that I kind of want to share about this thing . In sort of a perverse way the subdivision issue has kind of boomaranged , and I guess I personally feel that we have been sort of boxed into a what I find both alternatives not being terribly attractive . Obviously , you have the right to develop land in accordance with the subdivision and zoning ordinances and I guess we as a Planning Board have to try and deal with how we interpret those regulations . I think here we have a situation that the neighbors in single family homes feel either prospect of the traditional subdivision or the cluster might , in fact , negatively affect their community , and since this is so close to Ithaca College and there is a high pattern of student housing in that area , lots of cars and big parking lots ,, and not too attractive buildings . I really view their concerns in terms of that ' s going to happen in their backyard . They do have nice views to the lake and the surrounding area , and I think and I mentioned this the last time , I think you didn ' t give us an alternative by showing us like an attractive cluster . You never really showed me , at least , something that would sort of sell the cluster , and kind of put us in a position , well if that is what you are going to give us for the cluster we ought to look at a traditional subdivision , which is really the reverse of , in a sense , the intent of the cluster regulations . You show us a grided subdivision and in lieu of that we might ask to look at a cluster which uses the land better and perhaps is more sensitive to the neighborhood . Still , as I go back to this thing this is reasonably literal to what we have discussed , but if you see 15 plus double potential double units with parking for 6 cars . Fabbroni - I think really we just did away with all that because the sentiment of the Board was no rental in cluster . EXHIBIT 1 Planning Board - 2 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) Klein - What. I am saying is we still didn ' t see a cluster layout that , other than in one of these letters that we received , they look kind of sketchy and haphazard , and I think we have others better looking . Fabbroni - Correct me if I am wrong , but that was not the sticking point , so what was the sense of another layout . Klein - As :L say , I guess I am still somewhat ambivolent in terms of what might be . If we are looking at a situation and we ' re all guessing that this is still going to be rental housing . Even though Eddie is technically correct , on a subdivision we have no control , he is absolutely correct , not technically correct , we have no control over what you build there other than the zoning requirements , with set - backs and one or two family houses and whatever limits that has on 50 % dwelling units or stack dwelling units or whatever , the cluster gives us some control . Fabbroni - If the Board as a consensus said , alright we would be willing to look at 24 rental cluster units , we want you to come back with elevations , landscape plans , well thought out site plan design and all this . That is something . to proceed from , that is a message to us from the Board . We never got that message . We got the message no cluster if it ' s rental . Klein - OK , I guess maybe I am getting some mixed signals from the people that are around there . I don ' t know . We can ' t stop a development , there is every right to develop , but I think we wanted to try and hit what is the best alternative . Grigorov - There are some variances they are asking for though . Klein - Lot No . 16 . The subdivision , our subdividing the parcel did not create the configuration . It always had a very small neck at the back of the Gray parcel . I can see it being part of the park space . We can treat. it as part of lot 4 - that is where it is contiguous . How else do you deal with it ? What are the requirements for open space ? May - 10 % . Miller - 10 $ . Klein - Lot 16 and the park land , if it is a separately mapped lot it could be withdrawn from the subdivis n . Is that correct ? May - Oh sure . Lesser - But then they have no parkland . Klein - Then park land could be found somewhere else in the southern part of the site . EXHIBIT 1 Planning Board - 3 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) Fabbroni - If you don ' t approve , we go to the ZBA and quite openly discuss with them what we would like to do with that parcel in the way of a building lot and we could come back with a recommendation from them that we are entitled to a variance on that parcel , and yes they recognize it as going to be split and the balance given as open space . At least it gives us an opportunity to speak to that hardship which noboby wants to hear about . But . . . Barney - This Planning Board as a matter of policy has to sort of determine whether they are going to accept the subdivision of those two lots assuming you get the variance , lets assume anyway you are gonna get the variance in order to get the access to get up there , and I sense some hesitation here . Fabbroni - The alternative of coming back here would be either way . Barney - Supposing they give you the variance . You get your shot at the ZBA and they give you the variance and say fine , we don ' t care , subdivide . But the actual subdivision is governed by this Board , so you have to come back to this Board , so you come back with a variance . Of course , right now we are assuming you are gonna get the variance in the first place , but I think we are going through an excerise here that does not make any sense . Fabbroni - My understanding here is that Monty does not want to prejudice it by saying he is in favor of it or the Board , they don ' t want to send it with a recommendation to the Board of Appeals . They don ' t want to deal with hardship which you don ' t usaully deal with . Mazza - The :issue with hardship with the whole parcel exists now , and what we are doing is , that issue is still gonna remain , except that we are taking part of the land that would be a portion of that hardship , and creating open space to the Town contiguous to this linear green space that the Town hopes to have . We are not creating a new issue , that issue is there now . The only . difference being , we are trying to take part of that and dedicate it as open space in an area which I understood from the Board last time they thought that was a nice place to have some green space next to the linear green space . May - I think somebody is misinterpreting my concern . No . 1 , it does not seem to fit the subdivision , but most importantly there is not decent access to it . The access isreally very poor , and therefore , it is not a good lot . Langhans - I should think the Fire Dept . would have problems with it also . May - I guess I could live with a recommendation to the ZBA that it not be granted a variance for reasons of 280 - a , and they decide they want to grant it . Barney - If they grant it over your objection Monty then it is going to come - back here and you are going to have to make a determination at EXHIBIT 1 Planning Board - 4 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) that point whether you are going to approve it or not . I find this kind of going around the barn . May - At this point , I don ' t see much of an alternative , I guess is my problem . Just taking it out of the . subdivision is somewhat difficult to do , Barney - By doing that you also remove your parkland . Miller - Couldn ' t this property be developed so there are not variances . Couldn ' t a plan come up so you would not have to ask for all the variances . Fabbroni - Not on the piece we are talking about , Bob . May - There is just no way . Fabbroni - I guess what we are trying to say is , there would be more if one owner did not consolidate the four parcels . Miller - Right now you couldn ' t go up and build a house on it . May - Could not get a building permit . Klein - I know we have not resolved the issue of Lot 16 , but in terms of the other 2 , 6 , and 7 , I guess I could live with 2 and 6 , but actually I have a real problem with 7 , because that lot is only 90 feet deep . If I ' m reading the reduction right . It seems that the house on that lot is gonna be 60 feet closer to the person behind it , than if it were a 150 foot lot . May - Gimme the dimensions again , and I . . . Klein - Even though it ' s 18 , 000 feet , looks like the boundary the depth of the lot between 7 and 8 is only 90 feet . And a house built on that meeting the front yard set -backs is gonna have an extremely shallow rear yard and be i in essence , 60 feet closer to the lot just south of that , the border lot , and that ' s one of those things that you may not think about until that ' s built and realize that that ' s , you know , really made a 60 foot encroachment in terms of the open space . Beeners - There is a house position shown on that lot on 7 , and the plan that ' s up on the board , and that ' s , I scaled out by imagining the house to be tilted so it was straight up and down , lets say on there that we would. have 100 x 120 foot lot on that lot , I mean where is the front yard , I guess is the big problem we are trying to calculate this . Fabbroni - If you look at that top map on the board , again that 90 feet comes from moving the road to be opposite Spruce Way . If you look at that top map you don ' t have the problem with the four lots that fall in the alternative , for what it ' s worth . Beyond that , again , I keep harping on it , there are 15 lots in traditional EXHIBIT 1 Planning Board - 5 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) subdivision that over the years , different strokes for different folks , I guess were approved as part of the subdivision . Lesser - Just because some modifications have been accepted does not mean all of -them are . May - I think we need to made a final determination here . Klein - Well , can they withdraw 16 in the open space , and accept 7 as open space ? May - Is that what we are hearing from them . Mazza - If tie makes it as part of his proposal that that not be a building lot . Langhans - Then it would be . open space . Mazza - Not .necessarily . If he conveys it to somebody else , he does not have to give it to the Town , maybe he can sell it to one of the neighbors and pick up some of his investment . That ' s not the only alternative . Lesser - You ' re saying , you don ' t want the option to go to the ZBA , is that what your saying ? Iacovelli - That would suit me . Lesser - But suppose one of the neighbors didn ' t want to buy it . Iacovelli - But it doesn ' t hurt to sit there , in other words I can ' t build on it and will be back here for an option . I won ' t go to the BZA to ask for a separation of that lot . I just don ' t want an open space at this time . Lesser - Would you like perhaps a another postponement and come back at some time in the future with a statement that a neignbor is interested in buying that property , and that could be part of the condition ? Iacovelli - At the present time there is . a house that is encroaching on that lot . My first option would be go to that neighbor and see if he would buy that lot . Lesser - You put yourself in an odd position because if he knows you said you can ' t build on it you can ' t do anything else . Orlando - It doesn ' t hurt to sit there either . Barney - There has to be an explicit condition that something is going to happen to that lot , Mr . Iacovelli , I don ' t want to put you in a box , but today you gotta say I ' m gonna sell to my next door neighbor because . . . EXHIBIT 1 Planning Board - 6 - February 2 , 1988 ( Verbatim Transcript ) Iacovelli - I can ' t say that . Iacovelli - I don ' t want to build on it . I think that at some point in time one of the neighbors would buy it , yes , and there are 2 or 3 people that abut against it , . and I don ' t have that answer for you tonight . Barney - What kind of time frame would you feel comfortable in making some sort of determination on that ? Mayr Really only one neighbor Iacovelli - No , 2 or 3 neighbors . Barney - What time frame .) Mazza - I don ' t know the answer to that . Make it a fairly long period of time , to give him an opportunity . Fabronni - I mentioned , there is a 96 year old lady who lives in that house . Things could change very quickly or they could be 10 years from now . Iacovelli - There is a very stong possibility that if Mrs . Benninger were to pass away and they were to sell her land , I have talked with one of the owners of that , that I would purchase that property , and then I could put a decent house in there and redo that lot . Now that would be my idea of what should happen to that lot . Now whether it ' s me doing it or someone else that ' s what should happen . May - read the draft resolution . Klein - My only objection is the inclusion of lot 7 . I can see the BZA going for 2 and 6 , but 7 I still have a lot of problems with . I guess I would rather see it as part of a buffer . Grigorov - Then there would be normal access to that . Iacovelli - There is already a house there so I assume there is already access there . You can put on the deed that I will not ask for a building permit or that that ' s restricted so there would be no building allowed on that lot unless it ' s combined in some way with another parcel of land . May - Are we pretty much in agreement with all of the other changes with this addition ? Klein - I ' m not in agreement with lot 7 . EXHIBIT 1 AFFI DAIF17 OF PUBLJCA71ON THEITHACA JOURNAL TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING , BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, TUESDAY, FEB- RUARY 2, 1988 By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board, NOTICE j IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public 'I / Hearings will be held by the { Planning Board of the Town of __ .1 :._.._.:...... ..__..L . ! . _. 9 duly sworn, deposes Ithaca on Tuesday, February ; 2, 1988, in Town Hall , 126 E6;;t Seneca Street, Ithaca, N. Y. , at and says , that he resides in Ithaca, Court and State aforesaid and the following times and on the' h' following matters: - � 7: 30 P. M. Consideration of x, Preliminary Subdivision Ap --=»••-- •---�= •: •.. - .. ... .._.__..__.... ....__.__. ._.. _..... .._. ......, proval for proposed "Klondike' that he is _ Manor", a 16-lot subdivision j pplus open space, proposed tot of Tim ITHACA JotmNAL a public newspaper printed and published be located on Town of Ithaca 1 Tax Parcels No. 6.53. 1 - 17. 1 , :` 17. 2, •5, and • 10, 9. 63 acres' in Ithaca aforesaid, and that a notice, of which the annexed is a true total , on Coddington Road, northwest of Juniper Drive Orlando and Ralph lacovelli; Appy, Was published LII said Applicants. (Adjourned from _�'C.7� o .. _.... . ....... ..... Januar 19, 1988. ) paper . _..._.. yy 8 :00 P. M. Consideration of the., ..._....... .._.._. .... ._. . Reaffirmation of Subdivision ... ... ... ..-............ . , • ••»---•••• Approvalgranted byy the P on-' ning Board on_July 3, 1984, for : the subdivision into two lots 'of ..._..__...................... . . . ........ ... . . .......... . . ... ......... . ...._... _.._...:.. ..»._. Town of -Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-56-3-6, approximately" 1 .6 acres, located at 1526 Slater- ' and that the fust public ion of said notice was on the .. .......... . vole Rood. Peter A. 'State;_ .) Owner/Applicant. r . 8 : 10 P. M. Consideration of day of ..._...... .. .._..-• -- �L c �-t �� 29 !y Subdivision Approval for the ;. . " •' • ' --" • • '• proposed subdivision of a 1 . 32-acre plus or minus parcel . cam , (gross), located at 228 Forest ._._......... ...... ....... ..__... .... L�.Y` � -f_.:, name Drive, Town of Ithaca OTax Parcel No. 6-66-3- 16, Resi- dence District R- 15, into two Subscribed tnd sworn to before me, this .._ _ -__ ... day lots of . 65 plus or minus acres . each. James L. Gulledge, Owner/Applicant. (Adjourned . .... I9.____..... from June 16, 1987. ) 8 :45 P. M. Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the pro- ', posed conversion of "John- _. . .. ............. . .................. .. ._ . ....••.... ... ny's Super Service", located ; Notary Public• at 1103 Danby Road, Town of :1 Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-43-2-1 ; JEAN FORD from gasoline service and ve- ? hicle repair to self-service Notary Public, State of Ne .,/ York gasoline service and conve- 't nience store. John C. and Kim No. 4654410 Klein, Owners; Joseph Solino, j Applicant. Qualified in Tompkins County Said Planning Board will of said times and said place hear I Commission expires May 31 , 19 • all persons in support of such j ` matters or objections thereto. i Persons may appear by agent or in person . Jean H . Swartwood I Town Clerk . , 273- 1721 i January 28, 1988 I O �.