HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1989-03-07 ' FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
Date LUZ9
Clerk •�
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 7 , 1989
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday , March 7 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca ,
New York , at 7 : 00 p . m .
PRESENT : Chairman Montgomery May , Carolyn Grigorov , Robert Miller ,
Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , Virginia Langhans , John C .
Barney ( Town Attorney ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) ,
George R . Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) ,
ALSO PRESENT : Peter Trowbridge , Paul Mazzarella , Gene Ball , Ray
Small , David Klein , E . Austen , Jill Freidmutter , John
Whitcomb , Myrtle Whitcomb , C . Bowers , Bruce Rich , Ann
L . Clarke , David A . McArdle , Steven R . Blust , Kinga
Gergely , Edward A . Mazza Esq . , David M . Axenfeld ,
Rosalind Grippi , Salvatore Grippi , Les Reizes , Krys
Cail , Ben Boynton , David Gluck .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 00 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 February 27 , 1989 , and March 2 , 1989 , 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 Clerk of the Town of
Ulysses , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon
the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on March 1 , 1989 .
Chairman May read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled ,
as required by the New York State Department of State , Office of Fire
Prevention and Control .
NON- AGENDA ITEM :
Andrew Frost distributed to each of the members of the Board a
copy of his February 1989 Report of Building / Zoning Activities .
PRESENTATION OF WEST HILL MASTER PLAN , PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF ITHACA
BY PETER TROWBRIDGE ,
Chairman May opened the discussion on the above -noted matter at
7 : 00 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above .
Mr . Paul Mazzarella , Deputy Director of Planning and Development
for the City of Ithaca , approached the Board and appended a large map
of the West Hill Master Plan to the bulletin board .
• Mr . Mazzarella stated that many of the issues in the Master Plan
have been issues where there needs to be a high level of coordination
between the City and the Town . Pointing to the map , Mr . Mazzarella
Y
Planning Board - 2 - March 7 , 1989
indicated the West Hill portion of the City from the Octopus , west , to
the boundary with the Town of Ithaca . Mr . Mazzarella said that much
of the concern that the City had in the need for a Master Plan
resulted from numerous subdivision proposals received last summer ,
adding that currently there are five proposed major subdivisions in
the West Hill area that are being considered . Mr . Mazzarella noted
that for many years the City has not had , virtually , any subdivision
activity on West Hill , commenting that the five subdivisions range
from 12 lots to 77 lots . Mr . Mazzarella noted that the major issues
dealt with in the City were the design of a street system that made
sense , and coordination of all the new projects , and along with that ,
how the utilities would work , adding , that led directly to some of the
concerns that the City began to have with development in the Town ,
because with the traffic circulation there are many interconnections
between the City and the Town that exist , or could potentially exist
in the future . Mr . Mazzarella said that it particularly became a very
sensitive issue for the City because of all the undeveloped and
potentially developable land that lies just outside the City boundary
in the Town of Ithaca , adding , at that point , the City started working
with Peter Trowbridge , and Town Planner Susan Beeners , to discover
what activities were going on in the Town , and the Town ' s plans .
Continuing , Mr . Mazzarella stated that the major issues examined
were the roads , and the road network , which is shared with the Town ,
noting , the City was very concerned about how that road network works ,
• and particularly , the potential effects of through traffic on West
Hill neighborhoods . Mr . Mazzarella said that the second item of
concern was the utilities , noting that the City and the Town share a
public utility system , which , at the present time , involves the water
supply system , the sanitary sewer system , and potentially involves
other services that may be provided in the future - fire is a good
example of something that has been recently negotiated in a much
different way than previously , and that is a concern , as well . Mr .
Mazzarella said that in conservation areas the City became aware that
the City of Ithaca land is at the bottom of the drainage area , which
is very large indeed , and the effects of development in the Town of
Ithaca are going to be profound on the drainageways that pass through
the City , so various conservation measures have been reviewed that
could be employed . Mr . Mazzarella stated that the last issue was
parks and pedestrian areas , commenting , there has always been a
tradition in the Ithaca area of a sharing of parks , and noted that
this has always been encouraged between the various municipalities .
Mr . Mazzarella stated that the above constituted a brief overview
of what has been done todate , noting that the plan , at this point , is
conceptual in nature , and adding that the plan has been shown to
various boards in the City of Ithaca . Mr . Mazzarella stated that he
has given several presentations to the West Hill Neighborhood to
solicit their input , adding that he is asking the Town ' s input , as
well . Mr . Mazzarella said that when all the comments are received ,
the plan would be refined further , then look to the City of Ithaca to
• formally adopt the plan , and implement it through the various tools
that are available the official map , Zoning Ordinance , and the
Subdivision Regulations . Mr . Mazzarella stated that , hopefully , one
Planning Board - 3 - March 7 , 1989
. of the things that would come out of this would be a greater
understanding between the City and the Town about the common needs and
the things that need to be done in the future to meet those needs .
At this time , Mr . Mazzarella turned the discussion over to Peter
Trowbridge .
Mr . Trowbridge , indicating on the map , pointed out the City of
Ithaca study limits , noting that the " yellow " area is the watershed
that affects the City project area itself . Mr . Trowbridge noted that
anything that happens up in " this " area , the Rose Hill project for
instance , and Perry Farm to a lesser degree , do have an impact on the
City , because in a basin soil bowl like the City of Ithaca it is not
only hydrologic , but it is utilities and traffic , as everything moves
like gravity moves ; from high to low . Mr . Trowbridge said that ,
consequently , major corridors like Route 79 , Route 96 , and Route 89
had to be looked at , along with fire access to West Hill , adding , this
had to be done in a fairly comprehensive way , as well as parks and
pedestrian networks .
Mr . Trowbridge [ indicating on map ] pointed out Cliff Street ,
Hector Street as it goes around the bend and moves out of the City
limits , Elm Street , and Floral Avenue . At this point , Mr . Trowbridge
referred to the PRELIMINARY PROGRAM FOR WEST HILL MASTER PLAN , which
is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 .
Continuing , Mr . Trowbridge said that Elm Street was going to
continue to be a major connection from the Town to the City , perhaps
looking at a cul de sac off Hook Place , but maybe not considering it
as a major through road because of the condition of Hook Place , Mr .
Trowbridge said that the City has been looking , for the last thirty
years , at the possibility of a south bridge along the Town / City limits
that would ultimately connect to Route 13 on the old Elmira Road ,
adding , the intent would be to connect between Haller and West Haven
Roads , connect to West Haven Road or just above West Haven , Mr .
Trowbridge said that there needs to be some kind of coordinated effort
between the Town / City , if this is a reasonable concept to pursue . Mr .
Trowbridge stated that there is still quite a bit of consistent
traffic pattern , no matter what happens with Route 96 . Mr . Trowbridge
said that there are some significant issues in terms of the Town
collector / City collector road . Mr . Trowbridge said that , concerning
conservation , the objectives were to preserve major drainageways and
control run - off from new development , commenting that the Town is
doing an incredible job in terms of surface water detention . Mr .
Trowbridge noted that while the peak discharge on all of the
drainageways is being adequately controlled in the Town , the total
volume of water is going to increase , adding that the concern within
the City limits is maintaining a conservation corridor and adequate
vegetation cover so it does not get into additional volumes of water
that create erosion problems in the City , noting , working back in the
Town , perhaps some of those corridors need to be considered as
• conservation overlays for an area that starts at the top of West Hill
and works its way down through the Town into the City . Again , Mr .
Trowbridge stated that the Town is doing a very good job in looking at
Planning Board - 4 - March 7 , 1989
• those kinds of surface water conditions . Mr . Trowbridge offered that
it was not being suggested that these become publicly owned , it is a
conservation overlay , as it is residents ' backyards , and privately
owned , but there is some level of maintenance or conservation that
would occur within the corridor that would maintain a certain level of
water velocity while the volume is increasing . Mr . Trowbridge said
that he felt work has to be done , not only pertaining to the
free - running water , but storm water as well , since the corridors
[ Linderman Creek , Cliff Park Brook , which runs up to the Rose Hill
project ] , have a significant amount of flow on it . Mr . Trowbridge
noted that there was significant amount of interest in working on a
storm water ordinance in the Town , commenting , whatever kind of
ordinance exists needs to be coordinated between municipalities with
the same kind of performance standards that are required in the Town
as in the City . Mr . Trowbridge stated that another critical issue is
utilities .
Carolyn Grigorov asked Mr . Trowbridge to point out the five
proposed developments . Mr . Trowbridge responded that they are
[ indicating on map ] almost all in the center , noting that it is like a
big doughnut between Hector Street and Warren , Place , with a center
space of about 60 acres that is being considered at once , adding ,
there is one primary development that is picking up about 40 acres in
the center . Mr . Trowbridge said that there is some development on
Floral Avenue , with 17 open acres additional " here " .
• William Lesser mentioned the particular areas of cooperation as
being a possible road and a bridge connection on the south end , also
conservation connections , and the utility systems , particularly the
placement of a water tower . Mr . Trowbridge mentioned the fire house ,
in that he felt there needs to be a larger discussion about routing
that fire truck both to the Town and to the City . Mr . Trowbridge
stated that , in the short run , there are some real critical issues in
terms of conservation zones that might be established in areas where
there are currently no active projects . Mr . Lesser wondered what sort
of limitations of use in these areas were being proposed . Mr .
Trowbridge noted that the limitations would be not putting structures
within a certain amount of distance . Mr . Lesser wondered how the plan
accommodated the three alternatives for the Octopus , with Mr .
Trowbridge responding that the plan could operate with any one of
those schemes , but the one thing that is critical is some kind of
connection between the Town , City , and Cass Park . Mr . Trowbridge
noted that there is a huge resource that sits at the foot of West
Hill , noting , in the B or C schemes there is much interest in having
some continued pedestrian connection . Mr . Mazzarella noted that it
would be ideal to coordinate , as closely as possible , what has been
done in the City on the West Hill Master Plan , and what the Town might
do in a future plan for West Hill . Mr . Lesser wondered if there were
any considerations for any sort of commercial development within the
City part of West Hill , with Mr . Mazzarella answering , no .
• At this point , Chairman May stated that the Board appreciated the
presentation by Mr . Trowbridge and Mr . Mazzarella , noting that there
would certainly be continuing input .
Planning Board - 5 - March 7 , 1989
Ms . Beeners stated that it has been enjoyable meeting with the
Master Planning group . Ms . Beeners stated that , at the present time ,
none of the current development proposals really abut any of this
area , commenting that the Perry farm is essentially north of Williams
Brook . Ms . Beeners noted that anything the staff is doing at the
present time , generally , would reflect what has been learned through
Peter Trowbridge ' s work . Ms . Beeners offered that any recommendations
of anything coming in would certainly acknowledge the work that has
been done . Ms . Beeners noted that the Perry proposal and the road
system they are proposing essentially is compatible with the notion of
having a possible revision of what is mapped on the Town Highway
Master Plan , as far as a north / south connection that would make it
down from the fire station area to the area of West Hill in the City .
Ms . Beeners mentioned that the concept of having pedestrian
connections along natural areas is good , but occassionally it might be
necessary instead to translate that into a pedestrian connection that
is removed for liability purposes , such as a fairly nice sidewalk , but
still with that concept in place . Mr . Trowbridge agreed with Ms .
Beeners ,
Chairman May asked if there were any other comments . There being
none , Chairman May declared the presentation of the West Hill Master
Plan duly closed at 7 : 40 p . m .
Susan Beeners , referring to the West Hill Master Plan , wondered
• if copies of the documents could be sent to Stuart I . Brown ,
Consultant for the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Ithaca .
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the West
Hill Master Plan proposal be sent to Stuart I . Brown , Consultant for
the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Ithaca , for study .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
At this point , Attorney Barney announced that the Supreme Court
dismissed the action that was brought against the Town Planning Board
several weeks ago by Mr . Monkemeyer , on the grounds , basically , that
the action was too late .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - November 1 , 1988
MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by William Lesser :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of November 1 , 1988 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Planning Board - 6 - March 7 , 1989
• Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 21 , 1989
MOTION by Virginia Langhans , seconded by Stephen Smith :
RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of February 21 , 1989 , be and hereby are approved as written .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
NON-AGENDA ITEM :
Susan Beeners , Town Planner , reported that there was a public
information meeting held , regarding the South Hill Trail , on
Wednesday , March 1 , 1989 , and the Town Board will be Lead Agency for
review under SEAR , on Monday , March 13 , 1989 . Ms . Beeners offered
that 60 or 70 persons attended the meeting at NCR , and some of the
concerns included deprivation of existing rights where people are
using the NYSEG right - of -way for snowmobiles and trailbikes . Ms .
Beeners stated that there is a broader need , that being for uses which
do not include those two things , which , actually , are also very
erosive , and degrading to that environment , commenting that that was
one of the main areas of concern . Ms . Beeners noted that there was
some discussion on the parking issue , with regard to the timing of
Town engineering looking at improvements at the Burns Road
intersection , as to whether the current intersection should be raised ,
or relocating it , such as opposite King Road , adding , that type of
work will be sort of timed out with when it is expected to complete
the South Hill Trail to Burns Road , commenting that the section from
Juniper Drive to Burns Road would essentially be 1990 , into 1991 , and
it is expected it would be timely to figure out where additional
parking could be provided , if it is necessary . Ms . Beeners remarked ,
that there is parking available at the present time where the trail
comes out into the City , and she did not see any need to recommend any
additional parking . Ms . Beeners said that there were a lot of people
who attended the meeting from the Pennsylvania Avenue area , where the
trail would come out above Therm , Inc . , adding , these people were
worried about misuse of the trail , problems they have at the present
time with students , and the proximity of the trail to their backyards ,
commenting that it was her recommendation that , not only is there
about a 10 ' - 15 ' grade difference between the railroad bed and the
properties , but that simple wire fencing and plantings would take care
• of the privacy issue . Ms . Beeners stated that she expected the
broadening of the users on the trail , e . g . , getting more families out
Planning Board - 7 - March 7 , 1989
there regularly , would help in monitoring and alleviating some of the
fears that people might have .
Virginia Langhans wondered if a fence would be erected along
everyone ' s backyard , with Ms . Beeners answering , no , only where there
would appear that someone might take a shortcut .
William Lesser asked about the number of people using the trail .
Assistant Town Planner , George Frantz , stated that a number of places
had been contacted where there were a number of trails like the one in
question , and no one has ever counted the users . Mr . Frantz offered
that Cayuga County , at the present time , has almost 20 miles of
bicycle recreation trails . Ms . Beeners stated that the trail would
not get the commuter use on South Hill , but a great number of the
abuting property owners go out regularly , perhaps once or twice a day .
Ms . Beeners stated that the park rules would require that people clean
up after their dogs . Chairman May mentioned the old Game Farm Trail
that goes over the old railroad bridge on Judd Falls Road , noting ,
there seems to be a lot of activity on that trail . Ms . Beeners said
that the South Hill. Trail has been accepted into the community , but it
does need to have the enforceability that would be available as a Town
trail . Ms . Beeners also mentioned the fact that residents wondered if
the trail could be limited in width to six feet , rather than being
eight feet , commenting , the decrease in width appears to be a bad
idea , because from a safety standpoint that whole trail route has a
lot of opportunity for being used for emergency and fire protection
• vehicles to benefit the watershed , if the City wants to pursue a more
aggressive watershed management program . Ms . Beeners offered that the
trail would not be as cleared as the East Ithaca trails ; it would not
appear as road - like as some people think the Game Farm Trail does ,
because there would be a lot more sensitivty , and the clearing would
be limited to about 10 - 15 feet , allow it to grow in , and keep it just
accessible enough for the purposes of management .
Discussion of the South Hill Trail concluded at 7 : 58 p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF A 2 . 016 ± ACRE PARCEL FROM TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 88 . 73 ± ACRES TOTAL , LOCATED ON ELMIRA ROAD
( N . Y . S . RT . 13 ) APPROXIMATELY 900 FEET SOUTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH
FIVE MILE DRIVE ( N . Y . S . RT . 13A ) , AND FURTHER , CONSIDERATION OF SITE
PLAN APPROVAL FOR A PROPOSED 5 , 000 SQ . FT . COMMERCIAL BUILDING , WITH
PARKING AND OUTDOOR DISPLAY , FOR CANNON RECREATION AND SPA OF ITHACA ,
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON SUCH 2 . 016 ± ACRE PARCEL PROPOSED TO BE
SUBDIVIDED FROM SAID PARCEL NO . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT .
EARLAND AND ROBERT MANCINI , OWNERS ; DAVID AXENFELD , APPLICANT .
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 00 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
• Mr . Axenfeld addressed the Board and stated that the proposed
site was a prior cornfield used for agricultural use . Mr . Axenfeld
said that the proposed structure would be used for the purpose of a
Planning Board - 8 - March 7 , 1989
swimming pool business that was established in Ithaca five years ago .
Mr . Axenfeld said that he would market both above - ground and in- ground
pools at his business . Mr . Axenfeld offered that the business had
been located at 361 Elmira Road ,
Robert Kenerson wondered if any outside displays were planned .
Mr . Axenfled stated that there would be an above - ground pool , as well
as an in - ground pool on display .
Robert Miller asked how far back the building was from the road .
Mr . Axenfeld responded that the building is proposed to be 130 feet
from the road . Virginia Langhans mentioned the fact that there is a
20 - foot drop - off on the site , with Mr . Axenfeld agreeing . Ms .
Langhans wondered about signage , with Mr . Axenfeld answering , yes ,
there would be signage , as well as a smaller sign on the building
itself .
George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , commented that tonight ' s
business was to seek a subdivision , and also some Planning Board
comments on the site plan , until more information is gathered on how
to deal with the elevation on the site .
Virginia Langhans mentioned that it seemed to her there were
pieces being taken out of the Mancini property all the time . Mr .
Frantz was in agreement , noting that that was addressed in the SEQR ,
and also in the proposed resolution . Mr . Frantz stated that he felt
• it was time for Mr . Mancini to come forward with some sort of overall
plan for the site, before any more subdivisions are allowed . Mr .
Frantz noted that one of the concerns was access to the interior of
the site .
Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
David Klein , Town Board member , spoke from the floor and stated
that he found it a little hard to comment when there is no material to
comment on . Mr . Klein wondered if something could be appended to the
bulletin board . Mr . Axenfeld appended the currently considered site
plan to the bulletin board , along with the proposed subdivision map .
At this time , George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner , [ indicating
on map ] explained exactly where the property is located . Mr . Klein
inquired as to the outdoor display . Mr . Axenfeld responded that there
would be two swimming pools - one in - ground and one above - ground ,
adding that they would be permanent structures , and also they would be
fenced . Mr . Axenfeld noted that the pools would not be used for
swimming , but would be filled with water .
Town Planner , Susan Beeners , asked Mr . Frantz if he had discussed
the outdoor display matter with the Town Zoning Officer , Andrew Frost ,
Mr . Frantz replied that he had , and it was reported that some sort of
• interpretation had been made that the outdoor display would be
permitted under the Zoning Ordinance .
Planning Board - 9 - March 7 , 1989
• Virginia Langhans wondered if the pools would be left up all
winter . Mr . Axenfeld answered , yes . Mr . Frantz mentioned
landscaping , in that it could help to enhance the outdoor display .
There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 10
p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Mr . Frantz said that the site plan approval would come back
before the Planning Board .
Chairman May stated that the Planning Board would be Lead Agency
for subdivision approval .
Attorney Barney wondered who was making the application in
question , with Mr . Axenfeld responding that he was , Mr . Mancini is the
actual seller of the property . Mr . Axenfeld stated that he has a
Purchase Offer for the property , contingent upon approvals . Attorney
Barney stated that the Board should have something in writing from Mr .
Mancini about subdividing his land , because at this juncture Mr .
Axenfeld is acting as Mr . Mancini ' s agent , plus the controls the Board
wants to insert are not only directed to Mr . Axenfeld , but they are
also directed to future subdivision by Mr . Mancini , Ms . Beeners
offered that there was an old plan back in the mid - 1950s for the
entire Mancini - Brink land that is indicated on the appended drawing ,
• adding , this type of subdivision is generally consistent with Mancini ,
and also , when the parcels in the middle were subdivided it did
present an overall plan which , again , there is some consistency with
the current porposed plan , although at that time , the old plan showed
a 150 ' buffer all the way along Elmira Road , which was strictly Light
Industrial , and not Commercial . Ms . Beeners noted that Commercial
uses have evolved over time with a couple of interpretations by the
Zoning Board that , indeed , any lawful use , except for residential , was
permitted in a Light Industrial District . Ms . Beeners stated that the
proposed development has six acres or so which have been subdivided
out , over time , from the Mancini property , with no reservation of open
space . Ms . Beeners stated , for the record , that it would be her
recommendation that a full evaluation of that subdivision activity
should be considered in any future subdivision , as far as open space
is concerned . The Board was in agreement with Ms . Beeners .
MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson :
WHEREAS *
1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 2 . 016 ± acre parcel from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 88 . 73 ± acres total , located on Elmira
Road ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13 ) approximately 900 feet south of its
intersection with Five Mile Drive ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13A ) .
• 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental
review .
Planning Board - 10 - March 7 , 1989
• 3 . The Assistant Town Planner has recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance for this action .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
That the Planning Board , acting as Lead Agency in the
environmental review of this Unlisted action , make and hereby does
make a negative determination of environmental significance for this
action .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
MOTION by Mrs . Virginia Langhans , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller :
WHEREAS :
1 . This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of a 2 . 016 ± acre parcel from Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 , 88 . 73 ± acres total , located on Elmira
Road ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13 ) approximately 900 feet south of its
intersection with Five Mile Drive ( N . Y . S . Rt . 13A ) .
2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board , acting
as Lead Agency for environmental review , has , on March 7 , 1989 ,
made a negative determination of environmental significance .
3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on March 7 , 1989 , has
reviewed the proposed plat plan and other application
submissions .
THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED :
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive certain
requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval ,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the
Town Board ,
2 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval to the subdivision as proposed , with the
following conditions .
a . That any future subdivision proposals for the remaining
portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 reflect
an overall plan for use of the parcel , including future
• access to the interior of the parcel .
Planning Board - 11 - March 7 , 1989
• b . That any future subdivision of the remaining portion of said
Parcel No . 6 - 33 - 3 - 2 . 2 include the consideration of the
dedication of land for public park and open space purposes
pursuant to Article IV , Section 22 , of the Town of Ithaca
Subdivision Regulations .
c . That , before the subdivision map is signed by the Chairman
of the Planning Board , there be supplied a written request
from the current owners of the property ( Earland and Robert
Mancini ) specifically requesting the subdivision and
agreeing to the conditions set forth in paragraphs a . and b .
above .
There being no further discussion , Chairman May called for a
vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
At this point , Chairman May stated that the Board does not have
enough information with respect to the site plan . Attorney Barney
suggested that Mr . Axenfeld withdraw his request for site plan
approval tonight , and come back before the Board when more preparation
• work has been done .
Chairman May asked Mr . Axenfeld if he would formally withdraw his
request for site plan approval . Mr . Axenfeld responded that he would
request that the site plan approval request be withdrawn at this time .
Virginia Langhans mentioned that some of the things the Board
would want to see on the site plan are landscaping , placement of the
sign , placement of the pools and their size , and type of fencing .
William Lesser mentioned the fact that part of the building would
be occupied by a tenant , adding that it would be useful to the Board
to know what the intentions were , and how long - term the tenant
relationship would likely be , also what kind of traffic the tenant
might generate , and the parking situation . Chairman May mentioned
that the Board would want to know what kind of lighting there would be
on the outdoor display area .
Chairman May declared the matter of Consideration of Subdivision
Approval for Cannon Recreation and Spa of Ithaca duly closed at 8 : 25
p . m .
PUBLIC HEARING : REVIEW OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION SUBMISSIONS
FOR THE PROPOSED " LAKE CAYUGA ESTATES " CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION , PROPOSED
TO CONSIST OF 60 SINGLE - FAMILY LOTS AND PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED EAST OF
ORCHARD HILL ROAD AND WEST OF N . Y . S . RT , 891 ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
• PARCELS NO . 6 - 22 - 2 - 2 . 201 - 2 . 9 , AND 6 - 21 - 1 - 5 , 65 . 9 ± ACRES TOTAL ,
RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 30 , EDWARD J . MCARDLE AND LESLIE N . REIZES ,
OWNERS ; DAVID A . MCARDLE , APPLICANT .
Planning Board - 12 - March 7 , 1989
• Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted
matter duly opened at 8 : 28 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above .
Maps of the project were appended to the bulletin board .
Ann Clarke approached the Board and stated that she was before
the Board representing Lake Cayuga Estates , Ms . Clarke introduced
David A . McArdle who is owner and developer of the project , along with
Steven Blust , Design Engineer for the project .
Ms . Clarke stated that the project was before the Board in
September of 1988 for a very brief , very late , presentation of a
Sketch Plan , adding , that Sketch Plan entailed roughly 58 acres , and
commenting that the current plan is just under 70 acres . Ms . Clarke
said that the major portion of the parcel is zoned R- 30 , and frontage
lots on Route 89 are zoned R- 15 at this point . Ms . Clarke noted that
the developer is requesting a cluster subdivision , but a cluster
requires that a conventional plat be submitted , or be considered
initially , commenting that the conventional plat is appended on the
bulletin board , 65 . 9 acres divided into 59 lots , adding that all lots
would meet the zoning requirements for the district in which they are
located , noting , the roads are laid out such that they could meet the
10 % grade guideline that the Town has in place for subdivision roads .
Ms . Clarke said that there is a 2 . 8 acre parcel proposed to be
dedicated to the Town in the northeastern portion of the site for park
land , noting that , additionally , the NYSEG railroad right - of -way was
proposed to be developed as part of the Town ' s trail system , and as
part of the open space requirement for the conventional plat ,
commenting that , as originally proposed on the plat , there would have
been deed restrictions specifically related to preservation of trees
and mature forest that are located on the site , noting that , since the
time the Sketch Plan was presented that substantially conformed to
that . Ms . Clarke stated that there has been a vegetation study done
by Robert Wesley , a local expert in flora and fauna review ,
commenting , his study indicated that there are portions on the site
that have significant covering in a 100 year old and better
undisturbed mature forest , mainly in the ravine to the north on the
property . Ms . Clarke noted that the ravine was a concern that the
Town had for a conventional plat . Ms . Clarke offered that another
area on the plat has forest that is estimated in a 60 - 70 year range ,
and the third area is , in the majority , covered with significant
forest in a 40 - 50 year range . Ms . Clarke said that the remainder of
the site consists of mainly brush , old farm fields , and not really
significant forest growth . Ms . Clarke stated that , given this
vegetation report , and the concern the Town had with crossing the
ravine , the site has been re - evaluated , along with the proposal ,
adding that the developer suggests a cluster provision that allows
them to cluster smaller lots , more of them in the areas where there is
not significant tree growth , and provide for larger lots in the areas
where there is mature forest , including a large , better than five acre
. parcel " here " that also extends through the full length of the ravine
5 . 4 acres to be dedicated to the Town as open space , noting that it
adjoins the NYSEG right - of -way which under the proposal would be
Planning Board - 13 - March 7 , 1989
• developed as a park . Pointing to map , Ms . Clarke said there is
another small " out " parcel " here " that is about 3 . 5 acres , adding , in
total there would be just under six acres of land dedicated to the
Town for open space . Ms . Clarke stated that the layout provides for
minimal disturbance with the road system of the older mature forest
areas , and allows the developer to use back lot lines , which would be
reserved or protected by conservation easements , along with the lots
themselves , adding , lots 7 through 35 , and 43 through 46 would all
have restrictive covenants that would limit the amount of clearing on
the site , on a particular lot , to 50 % , and would also set a minimum
set - back or buffer to the rear lot line that could not be disturbed .
Continuing , Ms . Clarke stated that the roadway alignment allows
or proposes a connection to Route 89 , and about 450 ' of that
connection is the only section of road proposed out of the 6000 lineal
feet that would not meet Town grade . Ms . Clarke noted that the
developer is proposing a 12 . 5 % grade in that vicinity , for the
specific reason that , in order to get a safe alignment with Route 89 ,
and still cross the proposed trail system , without creating
significant cut and elevation changes along the trail , the developer
needs that type of a slope . Ms . Clarke remarked that the area is also
an area that has some of the soils on the site that are not as good as
some others . Ms . Clarke noted that the developer can provide , with
the cluster provision , a 30 - foot buffer , a 50 - foot drainage easement
to protect Indian Creek , and with " these " perimeter buffers , the
• dedicated open space , and the conservation easements , come up with
about 17 - 1 / 2 % open space dedication . Ms . Clarke stated that the
developer estimates that there might be another 7 - 8 acres , if one took
into consideraton the 50 % restriction on the clearing on the site .
Ms . Clarke commented that the developer has platted 59 lots to
meet Town codes , adding , 59 lots by definition in the R- 30 and R- 15
zoning would allow up to 118 dwelling units with use of the accessory
apartments . Ms . Clarke stated that the developer is proposing 60
lots , all of which would be deed restricted to a one - family dwelling .
Ms . Clarke mentioned water , sewer , and drainage . Ms . Clarke said
that the water is proposed to be provided from Orchard Hill Road , but
there would need to be 3 - 4 pressure reducing devices along the system
to make it function properly , adding , the developer is proposing to
tie in , at Route 89 , to provide a loop that would improve pressure
along Taughannock Blvd , Ms . Clarke noted that the sewer is proposed
to be gravity , noting that gravity flow would be provided from the
site to Route 89 , and then to the Town interceptor . Ms . Clarke
remarked that there is a concern from the City about capacity ,
commenting that the developer is proposing that a holding tank be
established in the vicinity of this " out " parcel that would hold the
average daily flow from the proposed development , and be able to bleed
it into the system in off - peak , so that the rate of flow would not
significantly change in that interceptor . Ms . Clarke stated that to
provide sewerage to the Hospital line would require four separate lift
• stations , all of which are not only expensive to put in , but expensive
to maintain , and they would be dedicated to the Town . Ms . Clarke
noted that , in this situation , when this line is improved , or a new
Planning Board - 14 - March 7 , 1989
• interceptor is run , and the development is on line , the storage tank
can be filled in and ignored from that point on . Ms . Clarke indicated
that there are seven sub - drainage areas , and one can see a number of
small swales that cross the parcel , and the developer is proposing to
intercept some of them with the road system , adding , with the seven
drainage areas there is only one area down [ pointing to map ] " here " in
the vicinity of Indian Creek where there will be an increase in
run - off due to the development , commenting , in all of the other points
of discharge , which are essentially culverts under the railroad
tracks , the run - off would be reduced from those rain basins by the
diversion . Ms . Clarke said it is proposed that through " this " swale a
storage capacity would be created . Ms . Clarke stated that both NYSEG
and DOT have been contacted regarding the access on Route 89 , noting
that both of the agencies are agreeable , but the developer cannot get
anything in writing , or any commitment , until there is an actual
alignment or approval from the Town that this is , indeed , the
alignment . Ms . Clarke stated that , in terms of the actual layout , and
how the cluster might vary from the conventional plat , the smaller
lots range in the 20 , 000 square foot size , and the larger lots range
from 1 to 1 - 1 / 2 acres . Ms . Clarke stated that , with the cluster plan
before the Board , front set -back and rear set -back requirements can be
met for the R- 30 and R - 15 zoning . Ms . Clarke said that the developer ,
in the cluster proposal , would be asking to vary the sideyard
requirements down to 10 - 15 feet .
• Chairman May noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if
there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions .
Edward Austen of 255 DuBois Road spoke from the floor and
wondered how the developer proposes to cross the gorge on the north
side . Ms . Clarke responded , it would be crossed with a culvert that
would be put in in a manner that would protect the stream and
embankment . Mr . Austen stated that he felt that was not a very
attractive approach in crossing the gorge . Steven Blust , Design
Engineer for the project , offered that it would be more of a stone
bridge .
Bruce Rich of 253 DuBois Road appeared before the Board and
wondered about the price range of the homes , and also wondered if the
depth of the soil , in relation to the bedrock , had been checked . Ms .
Clarke replied that no test borings have been done on the site todate ,
but the soil survey indicates that there are not significant
limitations . David McArdle stated that the price of lots to local
builders would be somewhere around $ 50 , 000 . 00 . Ms . Clarke offered
that there is a requirement in the deed that the minimum square
footage dwelling area would be 1 , 800 square feet .
Rosalind Grippi of 423 E . Seneca Street spoke from the floor and
wondered if it was allowable to build near gorges . Ms . Grippi
wondered about the cluster concept of the development . Ms . Grippi
stated that she had spoken with Mr . Grout of the DOT , because she was
• concerned about the development . Ms . Clarke responded that Mr . Grout
is the local maintenance supervisor for DOT , and he is the individual
that would review a permit , and initially review specification plans
Planning Board - 15 - March 7 , 1989
• to build that intersection with Route 89 . Ms . Clarke said that DOT
does have a number of culverts under Route 89 , and Mr . Grout has
identified that the drainage to those various culverts cannot be
changed ( increased ) significantly . Ms . Clarke noted that the proposed
plan would not increase the drainage through those culverts . Ms .
Grippi mentioned sanitary sewers , and also an application to the City
of Ithaca .
Ms . Clarke , responding to Ms . Grippi ' s comments , stated that
there has been no specific application to the City of Ithaca that has
been denied for sewage disposal , adding , the sewage disposal option in
either instance would be running into Town lines , commenting , the
alternative would be four lift stations on the site , and connection to
an interceptor line that is by the Hospital , noting that the sewer is
within the sewer district and is capable of being sewered through the
Town lines one way or the other . Ms . Clarke said that , in terms of
the access to Route 89 , the state does require a perpendicular access .
David Klein , Town Board member , spoke from the floor and stated
that he felt the plan before the Board was significantly improved from
the earlier plan , but he thought there was still a long way to go .
Mr . Klein mentioned the natural drainage courses , in that there are
quite a few houses in the southern end of the site where the drainage
courses would go right through the houses . Ms . Clarke noted that , the
way the drainage was proposed to be handled , as was originally
• proposed on the conventional plat , is when the roads are constructed ,
the grades are going to change on the site , and in a number of
instances the roads intercept those drainage swales , such that those
swales would direct flow to another major swale . Mr . Klein wondered
what the various grades of the roads would be . Ms . Clarke [ indicating
on map ] said that there is a 1 % grade coming in , approximately 30 feet
off Route 89 .
Bruce Rich of 253 DuBois Road again approached the Board and
wondered about the water pressure . Mr . Rich mentioned that the
property in question adjoins the Poyer property at the northern end .
Mr . Rich stated that he was concerned that all the property in the
area would be developed , and he is totally against it . Ms . Clarke
responded that , in terms of the water , the developer had discussed the
issue with , at that time , Town Engineer Robert Flumerfelt , and he did
not express any concerns on the water , except for the fact that the
developer would have to provide pressure reducing devices , because the
tanks are higher . Ms . Beeners stated that the Town is in the process
of selecting a consulting engineer to evaluate the West Hill water and
sewer improvements that may be necessary , noting that all developers
coming in may be required to contribute a fair share toward
improvements , such as to the Cliff Street pump station .
Edward Austen of 255 DuBois Road again appeared before the Board
and stated that he is very familiar with the property in question as
it abuts his property . Mr . Austen said that there is very shallow
• topsoil on the land .
Planning Board - 16 - March 7 , 1989
Chairman May wondered if the homes would have conventional
basements , or slab on grade , with Ms . Clarke responding , slab on
grade , given the height requirements .
Les Reizes of 1061 Taughannock Blvd . spoke from the floor and
stated that he had a concern about the Town having a preference for
the sewer to pump uphill . Mr . Reizes mentioned the use of the old
sewer , which then Town Engineer Robert R . Flumerfelt had stated was
one of the worst and oldest sewer lines in the entire Town . Ms .
Beeners offered that the Assistant Town Engineer , Erik Whitney ,
thought that on a preliminary basis the holding tank idea would be an
appropriate one , noting , it would set the stage so that in the future ,
if there were the necessary improvements down in the Inlet area , then
there could be gravity flow . Ms . Beeners said that one marginal item
would be , if the holding tank was located within the proposed " Outlet
B " , she was not sure that land could be considered part of the public
open space system . Chairman May questioned whether or not the Town
would accept the dedication of the holding tank . Ms . Beeners said
that that would require City approval , as well as Town , to have that
type of arrangement .
Krys Cail of 337 DuBois Road approached the Board and wondered if
the developer intended to blast bedrock to site the homes . Steven
Blust replied that no extensive borings have been done , or anything of
that nature . Mr . Blust said that approval is needed as to where to do
• the borings .
Salvatore Grippi of 423 E . Seneca Street spoke from the floor and
wondered about an environmental impact study of that area . Ms .
Beeners responded that this meeting was a Public Hearing to have a
review of the material that has been submitted for this project ,
adding , staff is still in the process of reviewing the material . Ms .
Beeners stated that it was her recommendation that input be received
at tonight ' s meeting , and also some answers to items she had written
down , before asking for an EAF , Long Form ,
Ben Boynton of 33 Wilkins Road approached the Board and asked if
the Town of Ulysses had given any formal opinion , as they are an
adjoining municipality . Attorney Barney replied that the Town
notified them as a matter of course . Ms . Beeners stated that she had
not received any response to the Public Hearing Notice .
Eugene Ball of 1317 Trumansburg Road spoke from the floor and
wondered if the developer was aware that there were a lot of heavy
thunderstorms in this area . Mr . Ball inquired as to whether the
developer had any knowledge of the flooding problem . Ms . Clarke
answered , no , we are only dealing with the requirements within the
Town Subdivision Regulations . Mr . Ball distributed pictures of the
1935 flood to the Board , and pointed out the " wash " in the area being
discussed . Ms . Clarke said that both the conventional and cluster
plat is designed to meet the Town ' s specifications for storm water
• management on the site . Attorney Barney stated that the Town
requirement for a development , from an engineering standpoint , is a 25
year storm design .
Planning Board - 17 - March 7 , 1989
Myrtle Whitcomb of 233 Troy Road addressed the Board and stated
that , up until tonight , she thought she had a fair idea of what the
concept of a cluster development was . Ms . Whitcomb stated that she
was concerned about the discussion of this particular plan , and its
phraseology that it is a cluster development , because from her
understanding of what a cluster development is , this one does not fit
that . Ms . Whitcomb wondered if this was really a cluster development .
Ms . Whitcomb ' s idea of a cluster development is that one takes a
particular piece of property and clusters the homes within a small
area , keeping the large area intact as green space . Ms . Clarke
responded with , in terms of how this plat approaches a cluster , the
developer has positioned a majority or significant number of the lots
in a small space where there is not vegetation . Pointing to the map ,
Ms . Clarke said that " this " area is to be reserved :from development ,
but the developer has chosen an approach which is also used in cluster
development , not to dedicate the land that is being reserved as open
space , and in the green area specifically to the parcel as a whole ,
but to reserve it in conservation easements , adding , it stays on the
tax rolls , and it is within an independent development lot , rather
than a common area assessment . Ms . Clarke offered that lot sizes are
allowed to vary within clustering , and the layout is allowed to vary .
Attorney Barney stated that the Town Subdivision Regulations
specifically defines cluster as basically a development where the lot
sizes are less than normally required , but that the density in the
entire subdivision cannot exceed the density that would otherwise be
. allowable if it were developed conventionally .
Chairman May wondered about the conventional plot , and whether or
not it meets the Zoning Ordinance , and also whether or not it could be
built in several areas . Ms . Clarke responded that those comments had
been addressed with the staff , adding that the developer agreed there
were some areas that needed to be amended .
Rosalind Grippi of 423 E . Seneca Street wondered if , and when ,
this particular , project was brought back before the Board , should
there be more topo studies completed , because Ms . Grippi believes that
gorges are protected in some ways . Ms . Clarke responded that the topo
represented on the site is a site topo and is provided at 10 - foot
contour intervals .
Virginia Langhans asked about fire protection . Ms . Clarke
answered that probably the fire protection would be achieved from
Route 89 . Chairman May mentioned coming up the 12 - 1 / 2 % grade and then
turning on the private driveway , adding , this would have to be checked
with the Ithaca Fire Department ,
Bruce Rich of 253 DuBois Road wondered if the electric service
would be above or underground . Ms . Clarke answered , electric service
would be underground . Carolyn Grigorov wondered what the total
acreage was , with Ms . Clarke answering , 65 . 9 acres .
• There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to
speak to this matter , Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9 : 25
p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion .
Planning Board - 18 - March 7 , 1989
At this time , the Board discussed the conventional plot plan .
Ms . Clarke noted that there were a number of questions raised by
the Town staff relating to the conventional plat and the
buildabilities , specifically , of Lots # 15 , # 43 , # 50 , # 46 , and # 47 ,
adding , as those lots appear now , with the existing swales , it could
be considered difficult to build on those lots . Ms . Clarke offered
that , as orginally proposed on the conventional plat , the drainage
swales are being intercepted such that , " this " swale is being brought
to " here " . M:; . Clarke noted that the swale between Lot # 43 and Lot
# 50 would be in place , but " this " swale would not , noting that there
is adequate depth " here " to build and meet the requirements of the
Town . Ms . Clarke noted that " this " swale is also redirected back into
" this " lot line , and there is adequate depth on both of those to meet
the set - back requirements ; " this " swale has roughly 165 feet from the
swale to the property edge , and there is more than adequate room to
meet the requirements for a dwelling . Ms . Clarke stated that the
planning staff was addressed as to the fact that those five lots could
be considered :buildable , adding , a couple of other points addressed by
the staff that affect the layout are related to the access and
provisions for additional access off the site , and a secondary access
to the site . Ms . Clarke stated that , as proposed on an earlier plat ,
there was a tentative access to Route 89 , and it will be provided back
on the current plat . Ms . Clarke stated that the Town planning staff
had also suggested that a 60 - foot right - of -way needs to be reserved to
Happy Lane , and a 60 - foot right - of -way, needs to be reserved to the
Fiser property , adding , it definitely meets the Town ' s requirements
that a right - of -way be provided to existing unsubdivided lands , and ,
indeed , that Fiser parcel is landlocked , commenting that that can be
accommodated on the cluster plat and also on the conventional plat .
Ms . Clarke stated that the dedication of the right - of -way to Happy
Lane needs further study . Ms . Clarke pointed out that the Town had
completed a study of cluster developments in place now , on a Townwide
basis , and that on the average , cluster developments have 12 %
dwellings with accessory apartments .
Chairman May wondered if the 1000 - foot cul de sac met the
requirements , with Ms . Clarke answering , no , that would be part of the
provision with the additional right - of - way . Chairman May wondered how
many lots were really unbuildable , with the gorge going through them
in the upper section . Chairman May noted that the gorge is being
crossed three different times . Chairman May wondered if the developer
had talked with NYSEG concerning the trail , with Mr . McArdle
responding that he had discussed it briefly with NYSEG , and they
indicated that it would have to be coordinated with the efforts of the
Town . Ms . Clarke stated that the Town Subdivision Regulations offer
either dedication of land or payment in lieu of land . Ms . Beeners
noted that the developer is asking , in the clustered plat , that the
Town accept a larger natural area as a park site , with Ms . Clarke
agreeing . Ms . Beeners said that it is the Planning Board ' s
prerogative as to whether that improvement in lieu is appropriate in
considering the hypothetical conventional plat , or if it is a desire
to see , instead , a hypothetical park site , which would equal the 100 .
Planning Board - 19 - March 7 , 1989
Attorney Barney asked about the common area . Ms . Clarke
responded that there is no major dedication of common area proposed on
the cluster plat , at this point that common area designation is in
there because there may be a provision for some sort of monument or
name of the subdivision at the entrance , and if that were the case
that would be the common area maintained by the Homeowners '
Association ,
Virginia Langhans asked about an apartment over the garage for
domestic help . Ms . Clarke responded that there is wording in the
Restricted Covenants that states one can have a two -car garage , and
that there would not be any dwellings in it , except that it was stated
as living quarters for domestic help , not an apartment per se , adding ,
those living quarters would fall within the one - family definition .
Ms . Clarke stated that it is not proposed to be separate living
quarters . Attorney Barney asked Ms . Clarke to define living quarters .
Ms . Clarke responded with , bedroom , bath , or sitting area , it is not
intended to be a dwelling unit . Ms . Clarke stated that the intention
is to have single - family lots .
At this point , William Lesser stated that he was rather concerned
about a use of a cluster plan to put open space in someone ' s backyard ,
adding that , at this point , he does not see what that off - set amenity
is . Ms . Clarke mentioned that , in all the cluster plans before the
Town , all the common area has been dedicated to the Town or to the
public . Mr . Lesser said that , generally , it is a matter of preserving
some larger open areas , not open areas that are a portion of a lot .
Ms . Clarke stated that , at the present time , the lines of the
Restrictive Covenant are not drawn on a plat , but , essentially , " this "
back lot area " here " tying in to " this " , " this " and " this " , along with
a portion " hese " , dedicated with the easement , would be blocks of
natural open space that would be preserved . Ms . Clarke noted that it
is not proposed to be public access , but proposed to be preserved for
the Town ' s concern to protect and preserve the natural qualities of
the site .
Ms . Clarke stated that there is a requirement in the Restrictive
Covenants that a licensed professional architect develop the plans on
any individual site , and that the developer has oversight in review of
the plans for each site on the development , adding , there is also a
provision in the Covenants that the Town is also named in conservation
easements in making sure that they are maintained as conservation
easements , and that they do stay in open space .
Chairman May stated that he would like to see some more
protection , and availability of the northern gorge . cMs . Clarke noted
that there is 250 feet dedicated to the Town that encompasses the
gorge .
Ms . Langhans stated that she would like to see the 6 " tree
diameter reduced to 4 " . Mr . McArdle said that he had talked to a
• number of experts in the tree business , and they felt that a 6 " tree
was significant enough to keep .
Planning Board - 20 - March 7 , 1989
Ms . Beeners wondered how the Board wants to deal with open space
in the hypothetical conventional plat , commenting , should there be a
hypothetical 10 % park space dedication shown on the plat , in order for
the Planning Board to work toward determining what the density should
be in the alternate clustered plat , or should the Board accept the
proposal that there be an acceptance of a trail improvement on the
right - of -way ? Chairman May responded that , in looking at it
hypothetically , he would like to see the 6 . 6 acres set aside .
Stephen Smith wondered about the scheduling on the road
construction . Ms . Clarke responded that the developer plans to put in
all of the improvements on the site in one phase .
Virginia Langhans asked if any homes would be built , or was this
just for lot sale . Mr . McArdle replied that he had talked to some of
the local builders and an arrangement might be made as to a joint
venture , i . e . , the developer would carry the lot for the builder .
William Lesser stated that , with any redrafting , he would like to
see the reservation of a right - of -way as to the hook -up with Happy
Lane .
There appearing to be no further questions or comments from the
Board , Chairman May asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion .
MOTION by William Lesser , seconded by Virginia Langhans :
RESOLVED , by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , that the Public
Hearing in the matter of Preliminary Plat review :for " Lake Cayuga
Estates " be and hereby is adjourned sine die , pending revision as
discussed at tonight ' s meeting , and pending receipt of additional
information .
There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote .
Aye - May , Grigorov , Langhans , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith .
Nay - None .
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously .
Chairman May announced that , for everyone ' s information , the
above matter will be re - advertised in the newspaper , and also there
would be a mailing of individual Notices .
Chairman May declared the matter of the Review of Preliminary
Plat application submissions for the proposed " Lake Cayuga Estates "
clustered subdivision duly adjourned at 10 : 18 p . m .
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion , Chairman May declared the March 7 , 1989 , meeting of
• the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 20 p . m .
Planning Board - 21 - March 7 , 1989
Respectfully submitted ,
Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary ,
Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary ,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board .
i
i
I
Po" Ko" '' LIi " NARY PROGRAM FOR WEST HILL MASTER ILM
• PROGRAM ELEMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS
CRITERIA
COORDINATLON WITH TOWN
Criteria : Recommendations:
PARKS & PEDESTRIAN SYSTEMS
Maximize access to 1 . Provide pedestrian connection to
and connections Williams Brook natural area .
between City and 2 . Provide pedestrian connection to Flood
Town recreation and Control Channel Linear Park ,
open - space systems .
ROADS
Provide logical i . Develop new crossing at south end in
movement between coordination with the Town ,
City & Town . 2 . Tie a major collector road coming from
the Town Into the new south crossing .
3. Develop other street connections in
coordination with the Town .
• CONSERVATION
Preserve existing major 1 , Work with Town on development of
drainage ways ; prohibit stream preservation corridors in upper
reduction in capacity watershed areas . Encourage Town to
andlowering of water adopt preservation corridors upstream
qua 11 ty , I from the City on designated streams .
2 . Encourage Town to adopt Storm Water
Control run - off from new Control Ordinance now under
developments in the Town consideration by the Town , requiring
from adversely impacting detention and metered discharge .
the City. 3 . Work with Town to extend woodland
protection into upper watershed areas.
UTILITIES
Maintain adequate water I . Coordinate location of new water tower
supply and pressure for fire on West Hill with Town of Ithaca ,
hydrants for existing and 2 . Address long term issue of water supply
planned developments in the for West Hill .
City & Town , 3 . Coordinate extensions of sewer lines .
• Allow for logical
movementof sewage from
the Town through the City .
EXHIBIT 1
1
REPRODUCTIONS FOR WEST HILL MASTERPLAN
Photographically reduce originals to 50 % ( Reduced scale : 11" - 400 ' )
Final Products : • 13 Composite acetate slicks
• 9 Single sheet acetate slicks
• 13 Reductions to 1 1x17 paper, one of each composite
( wiII be used for xeroxing )
COMPOSITES :
Composite Title Overlay Components ( see index on sheets )
1 . 1971 Plan 1971 Plan
Title
2 . 1954 Plan 1954 Plan
Title
3 . . Existing Land Use Land Use
Property Lines
Roads ( Labeled )
Title
• 4. Proposed Development Proposed Development
Topography
Roads ( Labeled )
Property Lines
5 . Potential Development Potential Development
Topography
Roads ( Labeled )
Property Lines
Buildings
b . Street Hierarchy Street Hierarchy
Topography
Roads ( Labeled )
Property Lines
Buildings
7 . Open Space Systems Open Space Systems
Topography
Roads ( Labeled )
Property Lines
Buildings
EXHIBIT 1
v
0
Composites , cont .
# Composite Title Overlay Components ( see index on Af:ets )
8 . Utilities Utilities
Topography
Roads ( Unlabeled )
Property Lines
9 . Neighborhood Character Neighborhood Character
Title
10 . Zoning Zoning
Topography
Roads ( Labeled )
Property Lines
11 . Slope , Road Gradients & Slope , Road Gradients & Emergency Access
Emergency Access Topography
Roads ( Unlabeled )
12 . Existing Woodland Existing Woodland Vegetation
• Vegetation Topography
Roads ( Labeled )
Property Lines
13 . Base Information Topography
Roads ( Labeled )
Property Lines
Buildings
S1Mb t b ti SLICKS ( see index on sheets ) :
1 . Topography
2 . Roads ( Labeled )
3 . Property Lines "
4. Land Use
5 . Potential Development
b . Buildings
7 . Utilties
5 . Zoning
9 . Existing Woodland Vegetation
EXHIBIT 1
41P 1.
AJPF1DA % 61 ". a ? VBUCATIOX
'
JOURNAL.. *
i
C.I- L TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING
BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC
E
H ARINGS TUES. MARCH 7 '89 -
.3�_ ahc - ...._. . _..._._ - _ . .___ . .. . ._.. ..__ _ biro " da0t rt-CrM, drPOSCS IBy direction of the Chairman `.
p
at the Planning Board, NOTICE
IS HEREBY GIVEN, that Public
rt ,. ^� � _ l i ^ .7 .t Hearings will be held b the
ft \7t t.8t bt: TCSl ., G• L. 1 �.3 ^1., Wei ' L'] f`.ZtC L _ �^� il . i:. 0 Planning Board of the Town of ,•
: ..
Ithaca on Tuesday, March '7; ;'
_ �. 1 :. 4LGr�!►_ ..• •_ —._ __ _,___ _ _ _ __ . __• __ . .- _• _ -. •__. ___ _
1989, in Town Hall, East :
Seneca
N. Y. ;a Street, Ithaca, N. dt'.
the following times and on the
. - -.. . - . . . . . _ _
following matters: • •
L,1 ; o 0
Cr'r Tam Irs �+cs: gvPoiAL. a b�U: neM a -sntrd Lad s. . g
- - -- - p • g _. - -
_ 8:00 P. M. Consideration of ..
Subdivision Approval for the
ro osed subdivision of a'
{ � - of � � the s;nel � u it tree[;_ 2. 016 plus or minus acre par
��ck t and ' cel from Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-33-3-2. 2, 88. 73
plus or minus acres total, to
Z" C
'1 �_ . . �_. . __ ._ .__ . __,-_ . ._r _..._ Gated on Elmira Road (N. Y. S.
V
(y
et
st. ) approximately
s intersection plction w 900 i
south with.
—• �!�:
C. _._._ � — __. __. _. Five Mile Drive (N. Y.S. � Rt.
- 13A), and further, Consider-
ation of Site Plan Approval for
^ - . . _ — . . .- ----y.-.. ._. ._ . . - - - ... —.. _ ..._ ._.
_ _ a proposed 5, 000 sq. ft. com-
mercial building, with parking '
and outdoor display, for Can-
al tom ! uv! Lst � �i: =if Or S _' D w � op tt [ non Recreation and Spa of
e Ithaca, proposed to be locatedr
�7 Q on such 2. 016 plus or, minus . .
t Q - . • sed to be
u �. . subdi subdivided parcelcre from said Parcel
No. 6-33-3-2. 2, Light Industrial
District. Earland and Robert
�-- - �� /� Mancini, Owners; David Ax-
- - L -�, . . . . _.. . . . . . . _.. . . . _ . enfeld, Applicant.
8: 30 P. M. Review of Prelimi-
� _ .^•^ ' � � nary Plot application submis-
sions for the proposed "Lake
Cayuga Estates" clustered
: subdivision, proposed to con-
.. . . . . . 111. . sist of 60 single-family lots
and proposed to located
east of Orchard Hill
Road and
west of N. Y. S. Rt. 89, on Town
- - -: . _ . . _. .— . . - . .. . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . ... .. .. . . .. .— __._ . ... _ ... . . _ . . . .. .. _ of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-22-
1 CsG,2'Z f S1r s; . 2-2. 2, -2. 9, and 6-21 - 1 -5, 65.9
j plus or minus acres total , Resi.
JEAN FORD dente District R-30. Edward J.
McArdle and Leslie N. P.eizes,
Notary Public, State Of New York Owners; David A. McArdle,
Applicant.
No. 4654410 Said Planning Board will at
said times and said place hear j
Qualified in Tc = < ; ns CoUrliy all ptersonsor in suptsuchhereto.
eta.
Commission expires ,May 31 , 19 . , , Persons may appear by agent :
or in person .
Jean H . Swartwood
Town Clerk
273- 1721
March 2, 1989 I
I