The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 1989-03-21 C TOWN OF ITHACA Date PQ TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk MARCH 21 , 1989 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , March 21 , 1989 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , Robert Miller , Stephen Smith , Robert Kenerson , William Lesser , Erik Whitney ( Assistant Town Engineer ) , George R . Frantz ( Assistant Town Planner ) , Susan C . Beeners ( Town Planner ) , Richard P . Ruswick , Esq . ( Town Attorney ) . ALSO PRESENT : Stephanie Bryant , Gerald Rau , Bob & Ginny Powers , Nancy Krook , Martha A . Turnbull , Heinz & Ellen Biesdorf , Harrison Rue , Rick Holt , George Schlecht , David C . Auble , Sandra Rogers , John Whitcomb , Myrtle Whitcomb , Arthur Howser , Jean Brockway , Edwin Hallberg , John W . LeVau , Thomas Niederkorn , Charlotte Bosworth , Robert Marion , Edward Bosworth , Slade Kennedy Jr . , Laura Marks , Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 36 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 March 13 , 1989 , and March 16 , 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 Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , and upon the applicants and / or agents , as appropriate , on March 16 , 1989 . Chairman Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled , as required by the New York State Department of State , Office of Fire Prevention and Control . PUBLIC HEARING : CONSIDERATION OF A REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE IV , SECTION 11 , PARAGRAPH 31 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE , FOR THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO A PLACE OF WORSHIP FOR THE FIRST ITHACA CHINESE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED AT 1462 SLATERVILLE ROAD , ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 3 , 1 . 22 ± ACRES , RESIDENCE DISTRICT R- 15 , FIRST ITHACA CHINESE CHRISTIAN CHURCH , OWNER ; GERALD RAU , AGENT . Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 37 p . m . and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above . At this point , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz announced for the public present that a copy of the site plan was available , if anyone was interested . a: Planning Board - 2 - March 21 , 1989 • Mr . Gerald Rau approached the Board and passed out pictures of the proposed project to members of the Board . Mr . Rau stated that , currently , the land is zoned R- 15 . Mr . Rau remarked that the existing building is a single family residence , and has a large 271X27 ' room . Mr . Rau offered that they propose to use the building as a church , using that large room as the main sanctuary or main meeting room . Mr . Rau said that there are three -bedrooms which would be used for meeting rooms , Sunday School classes , or whatever . Mr . Rau noted that the current congregation size is about 30 persons , plus children , adding , the room would hold , comfortably , 50 .people . Mr . Rau said that there is room for expansion , up to that number , adding , if the congregation grew beyond that point ,- then they would need to consider whether to come before the Board again , and ask for permission to expand the building , or more likely , move to a different location . Mr . Rau commented that the only proposed modification would be anything that might be required by the ZBA in terms of exit signs , fire extinguishers , or such , that might be required for a church structure . Mr . Rau noted that the only proposed external change would be the expansion of the gravel parking lot , in order to accommodate more cars . Indicating on the map , Mr . Rau said that it would extend around the side of the building , leaving still most of the area in the back free . Chairman Grigorov noted that this a Public Hearing and asked if • there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions . Robert Marion of 1463 Slaterville Road spoke from the floor and stated that his property is located kitty - corner from the proposed project . Mr . Marion voiced his objection about the church making revisions to the existing building , and also voiced a concern regarding the parking . Mr . Marion commented that he was willing to see the structure become a church residence , rather than a family residence . Heinz Biesdorf of 702 Hudson Street approached the Board and stated that he owns the property next door to the proposed project . Mr . Biesdorf stated that he was in favor of granting approval for the church . Robert Powers appeared before the Board and stated that he was the next door neighbor on the other side , at Video Sound , 1458 Slaterville Road , Mr . Powers stated that he has no objection to the proposed project , adding , the parking problem seems to have been addressed . Mr . Powers said that cars sometimes park alongside the road , which he did not think was a good idea . Mr . Powers offered the use of his parking lot on Sunday . mornings , until the church is able to make permanent arrangements . Martha Turnbull of 118 Pine Tree Road spoke from the floor and pointed out that the two speakers who preceded her are not residents • in the area of the proposed church , noting that they have a business and a rental property . Ms . Turnbull , speaking as a resident of the area , expressed a concern about blacktopping a parking area . Ms . S V Planning Board - 3 - March 21 , 1989 • Turnbull also expressed a concern about the additional traffic , as Pine Tree Road comes in on a diagonal at that intersection , and noted that she felt it was a rather dangerous intersection to begin with , adding , to have that additional traffic pouring out onto that intersection would be a concern . Mr . Rau responded that they have no plans to blacktop the parking lot , it would be gravel and could very easily revert to grass if it were to return to a residential structure in the future . Mr . Rau stated that there is very little traffic on Sunday morning in that area . Mr . Rau offered that , within the foreseeable future , up to a congregation of 50 persons , there might be 25 cars at a time when there is very little traffic on that road . Chairman Grigorov wondered how far it is from the intersection on Pine Tree Road , Mr . Rau replied that it is approximately 455 feet . Nancy Krook of 113 Pine Tree Road spoke from the floor and stated that she has absolutely no objection to the church , as she thinks it is wonderful that the house would be occupied and cared for . Ms . Krook commented that the thing that concerns her is that it be landscaped , and not look as it has looked in the past , where it had no care in the yard . Ms . Krook offered that the house was never finished , because the previous owner was very , very old when he built the house . Ms . Krook stated that everyone should be cautious when these things are allowed , to make sure that the people who secure the zoning variances understand that this area is primarily a residential • neighborhood . There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to this matter , Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 7 : 45 p . m . and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion . William Lesser wondered if the subject building was used during the week at all , adding , are there any plans or is it only one or two services a week ? Mr . Rau responded that the only thing they have currently , and would like to continue , would be a Sunday morning Bible class and worship service . Mr . Rau offered that it is not currently used during the week , but there would be a few special meetings , adding , there are no current plans for any regular weekly use . Mr . Rau mentioned that no one would be living in the building . William Lesser wondered if there would be much likelihood that the building would also be used for a Day Care center . Mr . Rau replied that that has been discussed , but not at any great length , and some of the parents in the church have mentioned it as a possibility . Mr . Rau mentioned , if that were the case it would be mostly run by and for the church members , it would not be set up as a Day Care facility that would be advertised . Robert Kenerson wondered if the building was presently being used as a church headquarters , with Mr . Rau answering , yes . Mr . Kenerson wondered on what basis , and if there had been an exception to the R- 15 zoning . Mr . Rau offered that they do own the structure , commenting • that there had been some misunderstanding , when the church moved in , between the church , the lawyer , and the Town people that visited , adding that he was not there at the time , but there was a misunderstanding about what was required . Mr . Rau stated that they Planning Board - 4 - March 21 , 1989 • began using the building without knowing that they had to appear before the Board . Mr . Lesser asked , how long ago was that ? Mr . Rau replied that it was January 1989 , but as soon as they were aware they had to appear before the Board , and within that week , he discussed it with the appropriate people . Chairman Gr_igorov wondered if the R- 15 zoning would be specific to the church , or if it was rezoned , then any church could be there . Attorney Ruswick responded that it could be any church . Ms . Beeners stated that she thought a Special Approval could be made personal to the applicants . Attorney Ruswick offered that he remembered , from last year , the issue being brought up as to variances , noting that there was a new court decision that stated variances could not be made specific to an individual , i . e . , if that individual moved , then the use could be continued , whether that individual owned it or not . Attorney Ruswick stated that he would have to research as to whether or not it applies to Special Approval . Chairman Grigorov stated that , if anything were done as to any expansion , they would have to come back before the Board for a building permit . George Frantz , Assistant Town Planner noted that the site is really the limiting factor , as far as the size of any church that would locate there , and also traffic considerations would be involved . William Lesser , referring to the proposed resolution , wondered about the existing plan , and whether it includes the area of expansion • for parking spaces , or would that be a separate action , if indeed , the church moved ahead to convert that to parking . Mr . Kenerson stated that it was not being requested at this time . Mr . Rau commented that he thought it would be better to have permission to expand to that area , in that the parking would be expanded somewhat anyway , and it would be easier to do it at one time , rather than coming back in another year to request another 20 feet . Chairman Grigorov inquired as to the proposed landscaping around the parking lot . Mr . Rau responded that there would be some relatively easy - care flowering shrubs around the front of the yard . Mr . Rau mentioned that the landscaping has not yet been considered in too much detail . Mr . Rau offered that on the side of the subject building between them and Video Sound there is a line of small pine trees and other trees , which are growing . Mr . Rau noted that the lot tapers toward the street . Mr . Rau commented that the other side of the building , on property owned by Dr . Biesdorf , is wild vegetation , which makes an effective screen on that side . Mr . Rau said that they would be willing to consider some landscaping around the back as well . Ms . Beeners questioned how one would insure that the parking does get expanded to meet the possible growth of the congregation . Mr . Rau [ indicating on map ] stated that the size that is drawn would accommodate 25 cars , and noted that that should be sufficient for fifty people , which would be about the maximum capacity of the structure . Mr . Rau stated that they plan on constructing the entire parking lot this summer , which would be as soon as the ground thaws • sufficiently to do it . Ms . Beeners mentioned the record site plan and stated that , as it would be taken to the ZBA , if needed , some kind of a note could be added with respect to that parking area . Mr . Frantz i Planning Board - 5 - March 21 , 1989 • mentioned that , perhaps , the plan could simply be revised . Mr . Rau commented that he has already given copies , so it would be easier to just strike it . Robert Kenerson wondered if Mr . Rau had any details concerning the proposed signage . Mr . Rau responded that they propose to repaint the current sign with the name of the church and plant a few shrubs to define and partially screen the parking lot . Mr . Rau commented that , as far as external lighting there are no evening meetings to warrant external lighting . Mr . Kenerson wondered about lighting the entrance to the parking lot , with Mr . Rau answering that there is no one there in the evening . Mr . Rau remarked that they do not have any plans for lighting , but if it is required then he would see that it is done . Mr . Kenerson noted that it would certainly affect the neighborhood if that were done . Mr . Rau explained that there is a lamp at the bottom of the driveway , and there are outside lamps on the house , but they are simply house lamps . Ms . Beeners stated that it would be appropriate to add the landscaping item to the resolution . Attorney Ruswick wondered if Mr . Rau had determined if there were going to be any changes to the building as far as fire code requirements . Mr . Rau replied that there should be no major changes , there are two exits from the main room , but there might be a need for one or two more smoke detectors which would be internal . Mr . Kenerson wondered if the structure would require sprinklers , with Attorney Ruswick answering that it might . Mr . Kenerson noted that the use has to be changed , adding , if there is a change in use , the building has to conform to that use . Mr . Frantz stated that he did consult with Andrew Frost , Building Inspector / Zoning Enforcement Officer , as far as capacity is concerned , adding that Mr . Frost did not see any problems with it from a fire standpoint . Mr . Frantz said that Mr . Frost stated that he believed up to fifty people would be allowed under the existing fire code , with the existing number of exits . Mr . Lesser wondered if the resolution should refer to the number that this is approved for . Mr . Frantz remarked that the capacity would be set by Mr . Frost , Attorney Ruswick noted that the capacity is set by the Building and Fire Code , with Mr . Kenerson responding , " Code " , not " Officer " . Mr . Kenerson wondered if a Certificate of Occupancy needed to be issued , which , in issuing a Certificate of Occupancy what the complying would be in terms of the change in status of usage , commenting that the Town should be covered . Ms . Beeners stated that that was the Zoning Officer ' s interpretation , once the use is approved , with Mr . Kenerson commenting , if the certificate is issued , it has to be issued under the conditions that relate to the new usage . Mr . Frantz stated that Mr . Frost would be presenting the matter before the ZBA . Mr . Kenerson offered that all the Planning Board is recommending to the ZBA is that there be a change . There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board , Chairman Grigorov aked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : Planning Board - 6 - March 21 , 1989 WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval , pursuant to Article IV , Section 11 , Paragraph 3 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , for the conversion of an existing residence into a place of worship for the First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church , proposed to be located at 1462 Slaterville Road , on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 58 - 2 - 22 . 3 , 1 . 22 ± acres , Residence District R- 15 . 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in coordinated review . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is an involved agency in coordinated review . 3 . The Planning Board , at Public Hearing on March 21 , 1989 , has reviewed the proposed site plan , environmental assessment form and review , and other submissions related to this proposal . 4 . The Town Planning Department has recommended that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : • 1 . That the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that a negative determination of environmental significance be made for this action . 2 . That the Planning Board , in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals , determine and hereby does determine the following : a . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location . b . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected . c . The proposed change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . 3 . That the Planning Board report and hereby does report to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the request for Special Approval for the proposed conversion of an existing residence into a place of worship for the First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church be approved , subject to the following conditions . i . That the parking spaces as shown on the site plan be • completed by December 31 , 1989 . ii . That any outdoor lighting be downcast . Planning Board - 7 - March 21 , 1989 • iii . That the landscaping in front and in back of the Church be completed to the satisfaction of the Town Planner . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of Consideration of a Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval for the proposed First Ithaca Chinese Christian Church duly closed at 8 : 02 p . m . CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR CHASE FARM SUBDIVISION , LOCATED ON EAST KING ROAD , SAID MODIFICATION CONSISTING OF A CHANGE AT THE INTERSECTION OF PROPOSED LAGRAND COURT WITH CHASE LANE . AUBLE HOMES , APPLICANT . Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at 8 : 04 p . m . and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above . Mr . David Auble approached the Board and stated that he was before the Board tonight because his planner had recommended that he • design a centerpiece in the intersection of Chase Lane and LaGrand Court on the Chase Farm Subdivision . Mr . Auble offered that the centerpiece would basically serve two functions - one would be to make the street scene more attractive , and secondly , to force traffic to reduce speed . Mr . Auble stated that he felt a nice centerpiece could be designed that would not affect the line of sight , adding , obviously , that would be reviewed with the Town Planner , prior to final implementation of the materials that would go into the centerpiece . Mr . Auble mentioned that this kind of request is not one that should be taken lightly , because it is done at considerable expense by his planners , engineer , and staff persons . Mr . Auble commented that he felt the centerpiece would be important to enhance the project . At this point , Mr . Auble introduced Mr . Rick Holt , Mr . Holt , following up on some of Mr . Auble ' s comments , stated that he came from a national homebuilding background from the Midwest and noted that the issue before the Board was quite commonplace in a lot of areas that provide a nice visual improvement . Mr . Holt thought that one of the things the Planning Board , hopefully , has noticed , is the work that has gone into trying to add extra details to Chase Farm with a nice set of deed restrictions . Mr . Holt commented that the architecture was being controlled through architectural guidelines and review . Mr . Holt stated that , along those lines , Auble Homes wanted to , with their planners , come up with something that provided that • visual extra that separated this project from a standard subdivision , or plat , remarking , in doing that a lot of expense has been generated . Mr . Holt stated that he thought , at the same time , a lot of issues Planning Board - 8 - March 21 , 1989 • need to be dealt with that the Town staff and the Planning Board might have , such as traffic flow . Mr . Holt commented that he thought the Town has worked quite hard to keep standards that emit a rural feel , adding that he felt this modification enhances that by trying to bring about a change from a typical straight road , in a typical straight intersection , and providing a nice visual centerpiece to the intersection , commenting , in doing that , speed limits have to be considered , along with traffic flow around the centerpiece , adding that Mr . George Schlecht , Engineer for the entire project , will speak to that specifically . Mr . Holt stated that he realized this request was not necessarily commonplace to the Town of Ithaca or this area , but Mr . Schlecht can speak to the specific guidelines for traffic design around a center island , such as the one proposed . Continuing , Mr . Holt mentioned sight distance . Mr . Holt said that for cars in the intersection it does not make any change for sight distance , noting , if cars are sitting at that intersection they can see each other just as clearly as if it were a straight intersection . Mr . Holt stated that he felt most people pay much more attention to visual barriers , and with an island such as the one requested , people will naturally slow down to 15 - 20 mph to proceed through the intersection , where they may not obey a sign indicating 20 - 25 mph , commenting , from that standpoint it actually improves the safety more than lowering speed limits . Mr . Holt offered that he did not think plowing and drainage had any other impact , but noted that • Mr . Schlecht would speak to that . At this time , Mr . Schlecht approached the Board , and indicated on the appended map the main Chase Lane , the alignment of which has not been changed . Mr . Schlecht explained that a car coming up from East King Road would see a yield sign , and a sign located in the circle indicating that he has to go around , as this would be a one - way circle . Mr . Schlecht said that a car coming up Chase Lane that wants to continue on Chase Lane would see the yield sign , come around the circle and continue on , adding , a car coming out of LaGrand Court wanting to go down Chase Lane would again see a yield sign , an arrow directing him around the island , and then on down the hill , commenting that that eliminates , to a large extent , a conflicting traffic movement . Mr . Schlecht noted that the most critical conflicting traffic movement would be a car coming up Chase Lane wanting to go through and meeting a car from LaGrand Court who wants to go around , adding that the minimum sight distance with a [ indicating on map ] car " here " seeing a car in the intersection is 175 feet , commenting , coming down LaGrand Court going east one can see 220 feet to the northwest , and over 250 feet from the south going north . Mr . Schlecht said that , from Chase Lane , going northwest , the sight distance is in excess of 350 feet for any car coming around the intersection . Mr . Schlecht stated that it has been suggested that " this " yield sign be , changed to a stop sign , adding that , certainly there is nothing wrong with that , but he did not believe it is warranted , and to illustrate that point further , they looked at what the minimum stopping distance • should be , adding , if this were a through intersection , the sight distance of 175 feet would warrant an uncontrolled , unsigned intersection at a speed of 25 - 30 mph . Mr . Schlecht offered that , with Planning Board - 9 - March 21 , 1989 • the current sight distance , if the speed limit were 30 mph , there would not be an obligation to erect any yield signs or stop signs . Mr . Schlecht noted the question of emergency vehicles , in that the critical turning radius is in the northeast area of -the rotary , which has been designed to handle a 50 - foot long semi - tractor trailer , which is the largest vehicle with the longest turning radius of any standard vehicle , adding , the pavement there is in excess of 20 feet in width . Mr . Schlecht noted that the question of drainage has been worked out , so that the overall drainage plan is compatible with the particular change , as already designed . Mr . Schlecht noted one last feature - the circle itself is designed with mountable curbs , which gives a little extra factor of safety . Mr . Schlecht pointed out that he has not had a chance to talk with Erik Whitney , Assistant Town Engineer , about the technical elements . Robert Kenerson asked about the bikepath . Mr . Schlecht responded that the bikepath was not shown , but [ indicating on map ] it would continue to come down along Chase Lane , brought around , cross LaGrand Court , but not cross the circle . Mr . Schlecht , pointing to map , said that the lots which appear " here " have been looked at in light of the Town ' s latest requirements . Mr . Holt commented that , even if there were maintenance on one side of the circle , with the 20 - foot pavement width two vehicles could • still pass on one side or the other , and not worry about closing the road . Stephen Smith wondered if it would be better to make the circle slightly larger and force a vehicle to see that it is a one -way road , with Mr . Holt responding that , with the signage , and the visual appearance of the circle , he thought that would be a rare occurrence . Mr . Holt noted that probably the last issue , and maybe of most concern to the Town Planner , Planning Board , and staff , is one of plantings in the middle . Mr . Holt offered that , with it being a 30 - foot circle , plantings would consist of something appropriate , as the Town would be concerned with appropriate plantings that would not be a maintenance issue . Mr . Holt asked the Board to approve this , conditional upon it being approved by the Town Planner , as to what plantings were placed there . Mr . Holt summarized that they have gone to quite a bit of expense to create something new and different there , adding , it is common to other parts of the country , commenting that it does provide a functional visual impediment that slows traffic down , and gives one that place of community , instead of a place to race through with a car . Robert Miller stated that he thought the centerpiece looked good . William Lesser wondered if the land would be deeded to the Town , with Mr . Holt answering , yes , it will be part of the right - of -way . Ms . Beeners wondered if that meant the island would be deeded to the Town as well , with Mr . Holt responding , yes , the Town would be maintaining it , and along those lines , that is why he suggests reviewing the plantings as to exactly what goes there . Ms . Beeners stated that , if • the Board does see fit to approve this she would not want to be solely responsible for approving the plantings , noting , she thought it would also need approval by the Town Engineer , and the Highway Planning Board - 10 - March 21 , 1989 • Superintendent , because there might be long - term maintenance and also liability problems . Mr . Holt responded that that was fine , because they want to make sure those plantings are acceptable to all the parties . Town Attorney Ruswick asked if it had been determined if any traffic warning signals were required stating an intersection was being approached of this type . Mr . Schlecht answered , no , yield signs and the go - around signs are required . Robert Kenerson wondered about the next section , as there is the same kind of intersection at the other end of the project . Mr . Holt stated that when the specifics were brought in they would want to come in again stating exactly what would be done there . Assistant Town Engineer , Erik Whitney , pointed out that without the traffic circle it is a simple three -way intersection , controlled by one stop sign . Mr . Whitney noted that , with the circle there would be six signs erected ; three guide signs in the middle and three yield signs , noting that also the Town is taking the responsibility for liabilities for possible obstruction in the middle of the road , although it does look nice , and probably would have the desired effect of slowing people down . Mr . Whitney said that the Town does go to great lengths on the sides of roads to make guardrails safe and ditches safe , etc . Mr . Whitney commented that this would almost be equivalent to putting a tree in the centerline of the road , because it will slow people down , adding that he thought something potentially dangerous was being placed in the middle to slow people down , and make them think twice . Robert Kenerson wondered what the grade was through there , shallow or a steep part of the property ? Mr . Whitney responded that it was not steep , and a yield sign would be set back about 40 feet from the edge of the road , whereas if it were not that design , there would be a stop sign set back about five feet from the edge of Chase Lane , commenting , sight distance would be increased . Mr . Whitney stated that he would have no objection for this sort of arrangement if a road were put in with a median down the middle . Mr . Whitney stated that the above were concerns , and also maintenance of the island was a concern . Mr . Whitney mentioned that , if the Town ' s Parks Department were involved with 20 - 30 of those " tuffets " in the middle of roads to maintain , then it would be a substantial undertaking and cost to the Town . Mr . Holt commented that it was very common for subdivisions to have signs , walls , and things like that near their entrances , adding , those are usually maintained by the resident who lives near there , and certainly there would be one person willing to pull weeds to maintain it , without maintenance to the Town . Ms . Beeners noted that the Subdivision Regulations call for a minimum of 350 ' sight distance on roads with a wider right -of -way . Mr . Schlecht responded that what one is talking about is a stopping sight distance , which is relevant to the sight distance around a horizonal curve or a vertical curve for prudent movements , explaining that it applies to a case where someone driving down the road and there is a child lying in the street , a driver wants to be able to see • 350 ' ahead of him so there is ample time to stop . Mr . Schlecht offered that the case in question , where the intersection sight distance is , that is a different measure , and the distances come out w Planning Board - 11 - March 21 , 1989 to be stated as less . Ms . Beeners referred to the Subdivision Regulations , Section 23 , Paragraph 8 , which states : " For thoroughfares having a right - of -way width of more than 60 feet , longitudinal profile grades shall be connected by vertical curves of a minimum length equivalent to 20 times the algebraic difference between the rates of grade , expressed in feet per hundred „ For all other thoroughfares , the vertical curves shall be equivalent to ten times such difference . At any point , the minimum sight distance shall be 350 feet . " Ms . Beeners wondered if Section 23 , Paragraph 8 , pertained to a requirement that was pertinent to this issue . Mr . Schlecht answered that it was two different measures , adding , the sight distance that was being referred to in Section 23 , Paragraph 8 , is stated as being a minimum of 3501 ; it is a very specific type of sight distance ; one would measure it 4 - 1 / 2 feet above the ground , at the driver ' s eye , to a point six inches above the ground , and it refers to a certain type of hazard . Mr . Schlecht said that when one talks about an intersection sight distance , it would be two objects 4 - 1 / 2 feet in height , those sight distances are 1751 or 2001 , and the requirements are met for those sight distances , adding , the 350 - foot sight distances are met , as well , coming into the intersection , adding that the island has no effect on it . Chairman Grigorov mentioned that it would be an expense to the Town , with Ms . Beeners responding , yes , the Assistant Town Engineer has safety and long - term maintenance concerns , commenting that she has • the same concerns , even though she appreciates the idea of putting senses of place in subdivisions . Ms . Beeners stated that she was not sure if this was something that was really needed , when one considers negotiation of emergency vehicles , maintenance , and safety factors . Ms . Beeners noted that there are 82 lots that would be potentially using the intersection , adding , the lots are located to the south of the intersection . Ms . Beeners offered that there had been discussion earlier that it was expected that all the landowners of the 82 lots would be using Chase Lane , rather than Ridgecrest Road , Mr . Lesser inquired as to how the intersection would be illuminated . Mr . Holt responded that one of the deed restrictions for the subdivision calls for the requirement that every homeowner have a 100 Watt photocell operated postlight within ten feet of the property line , which would provide some illumination . Mr . Lesser wondered if the Town had its own illumination stipulations , with Mr . Whitney answering that not all the Town ' s intersections are lighted , although major intersections are . Mr . Schlecht , making one last pitch for safety , noted that most Town specifications have a built - in latent assumption that there is a design speed of something like 35 mph . Mr . Schlecht said that the sight distance of 350 ' referred to by Ms . Beeners , the minimum radius is 1501 , noting , they all have a built - in assumption that there is a design speed of 30 - 35 mph , yet it is inconsistent , as one ends up with a road that people want to drive 50 - 55 mph on that really is only safely designed for 30 - 35 mph . Mr . Schlecht stated that he realized that this may cost the Town a little something , but not very much , if the planning is done right . Mr . Schlecht felt that the safety • benefits far outweigh the slight potential for an additional hazard . Mr . Holt offered that many times he hears about towns and cities expressing their views that it may be a liability to have some object c Planning Board - 12 - March 21 , 1989 • out there , especially which someone coming home late might run into , commenting that he felt that was an opposite way of looking at it , if anything it would slow people down . Mr . Auble mentioned that if there was a concern about the expense of the signage from the Town ' s standpoint , then his group would be willing to bear that expense . Mr . Auble stated that he felt Auble Homes , Inc . was going way beyond the normal lengths in trying to address the situation , noting that he has a little bit of a problem with some of the technical drawbacks expressed . Board Member Robert Miller again stated that the project looks good . Mr . Whitney stated that he liked the design concept , but his only question was - if someone does hit that tree or curb at a high speed , even though high speed is their fault , is it the Town ' s liability if there is a tree in the middle of the road ? Attorney Ruswick responded that he was not going to say the Town was not liable . Board Member Smith stated that he did not see a problem with the tree idea in the middle of the road so much , because the road is wherever the road ends up going , and the fact that it is in the middle of what used to be considered a path is no longer a path . Mr . Smith stated that he felt it was no different from a curve around a tree , adding that he , perhaps , would like to see the circle a little larger just to be sure that it is a one -way system . At this point , Mr . Auble stated that , in trying to move forward , • he would be willing to work with the Town Engineer and Town Planner on both the size and nature of the plantings . Chairman Grigorov wondered if there was some kind of DO NOT ENTER sign , so that no one could cut across the left side . Mr . Auble answered that the signage on each point would have a directional arrow . Mr . Auble offered that the signs are the normal standard reflective signs , and in addition to the lighting from the houses , the signs themselves will be reflective . Mr . Lesser noted that , having spent a lot of time in Rhode Island , which has lots of roundabouts , he was not really deterred by the idea , but he did recognize that speeding on secondary roads is becoming a real issue in the Town , noting that he sincerely supports something that would help reduce speed . Mr . Lesser suggested that once it is in place , the Town at least consider the possibility of lighting it , if indeed , the secondary lights are not adequate , adding that perhaps the developer would agree to help defer some of the costs . Ms . Beeners stated that there is a section in the Subdivision Regulations that deals with minor modifications , and -the Town Engineer is empowered to approve minor modifications , then make a report to the Planning Board , commenting , the involved area neighborhood association was notified . Board member Miller stated that he thought the proposal was better than what they had . Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any . other comments . There being none , Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a Motion . T Planning Board - 13 - March 21 , 1989 • MOTION by Mr . Robert Kenerson , seconded by Mr . Robert Miller : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of approval of a minor modification to the subdivision plan for Chase Farm Subdivision , located on East King Road , said modification consisting of a change at the intersection of proposed LaGrand Court with Chase Lane , 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency for environmental review . 3 . The 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 - Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . At this point , Chairman Grigorov , directing her comment to Ms . Beeners , asked if it was up to the Planning Board to decide on this matter . Ms . Beeners responded that Section 17 of the Town Subdivision Regulations allows the Town Engineer to approve minor practical modifications on behalf of the Planning Board , and then make a report to the Planning Board on it . Ms . Beeners stated that it appeared to her , part of this deal relating to timing , when this was received , and other things , that because it involves a change to a public right - of -way the Town Board would have to approve it . Continuing , Ms . Beeners said that this is a change to a road right - of -way , and because of the reservations the Assistant Town Engineer , Erik Whitney , has expressed , as well as the gut reactions that she [ Ms . Beeners ] has about having a roundabout thing that someone is going to have to maintain . Ms . Beeners commented that it is a new feature that has not been seen at an intersection like this . Ms . Beeners stated that she thought the Town Board would have to approve it . Attorney Ruswick responded that he did not have a firm opinion on that . Attorney Ruswick wondered what the current approval of the street• was , at it stands . Ms . Beeners responded that on the earlier plat submitted it did receive approval of its location by the Town Board . Ms . Beeners offered that before the Board tonight was a modification to what is proposed to be dedicated to the Town ; it is Planning Board - 14 - March 21 , 1989 • not like modification of a lot line which would not involve Town dedication . Attorney Ruswick stated that , since the Town has already approved the street as it was already existing and if that needs to be modified , the Town Board needs to approve it . Mr . Auble wondered if this was brought up to his staff during discussions with Town staff . Ms . Beeners replied that the Town staff would like to receive these types of requests , when there is an urgency implied on the developer ' s part for construction , well in advance of any meeting where the developer would like to have it come in . Mr . Harrison Rue stated that he had a meeting , along with presenting a sketch , with the Town Planner two weeks ago , adding , at that point , he was led to believe it was appropriate for the Town Planning Board to rule on it , and the reason for going to the Planning Board was that it was a modification that seemed a little bit more involved than the engineer would pass on . Mr . Rue said that he was informed that the material for the request was submitted in time for mailing on Friday . Chairman Grigorov remarked that it probably would have gone to the Planning Board , as well as the Town Board . Mr . Rue offered that the final version was brought in today , March 21 , 1989 , but that it was just the clean drafting done by George Schlecht , Engineer for the project . Mr . Rue commented that they were in somewhat of a rush to do this , as it is about a two week old plan , adding , in the initial. conversation it appeared to be a minor modification . Ms . Beeners agreed , and noted that when time was available for engineering staff to actually take a look at it , then that is the way things have proceeded , adding , maybe • she should not be speaking for Erik , but it is a nice concept . Mr . Whitney stated that it is a new animal , and did not know if it was going to bite or not , commenting that staff would like another week to get used to it . Mr . Auble stated that his concern was that they have fairly expensive expertise involved in this to have them come to multiple board meetings , when , in fact , it appears to be an improvement on the site and a relatively minor modification . Mr . Auble stated that he would like to have the game plan laid out for him , as to procedures , so they can make sure these expenses are taken into account in their future planning . Ms . Beeners responded that she thought that was done to the best of staff ' s abilities in the short timeframe in which the material came in . Mr . Whitney offered that they had three working days_ to look at it , between a number of other things , noting , right now the Town engineering staff is short - handed . Mr . Whitney stated that their initial gut feeling was that it is a nice idea , but they just do not have any experience with it . Mr . Auble stated that they were asking just to be able to move forward and be able to work with the staff , continue the process , and work out a good plan . Mr . Auble stated that he felt the Planning Board was in favor of the basic approach , adding that he was perfectly willing to cooperate on the details of it . Mr . Auble said that they need to know the steps and procedures . • Mr . Lesser stated that it would be helpful to him , because it seems very possible that proposals of this nature could well come Planning Board - 15 - March 21 , 1989 • before the Board again , to have some sort of reading from the Town Board , as to their view about safety and the maintenance aspects , etc . Mr . Lesser wondered if the Town Board would like some sort of sense from the Planning Board as to whether the Planning Board approves the resolution or not . Robert Miller wondered , are we the wrong Board , is that what you are saying ? Attorney Ruswick commented that because there is also a change in the roadway , it has to be made conditioned on Town Board approval . Chairman Grigorov stated that she hates to go ahead and approve it because of the reservations expressed by the professionals . Mr . Auble remarked - why do we have a Board ? Mr . Holt stated that they do need approval of the plat change , independent of the road . Robert Kenerson said that we are really talking procedural as to what else are we supposed to do that would be helpful ; we have only , so far , made a negative determination of environmental significance , we have not talked about the plantings , etc . , to be approved by the Town staff . Mr . Kenerson wondered if the Planning Board should do that as a part of this or not . Attorney Ruswick answered , yes , if the Board wants to phrase the resolution to approve it , the Board would want to condition it on the plantings meeting approval of the Town Planner and the Engineer , and the design changes as presented . Robert Kenerson wondered if that was the feel of the Board . Chairman Grigorov responded that she did not know if there was a safety • problem , lighting , etc . Mr . Auble commented , if anything , they are saying the total objective is to improve the safety , adding , it could not be any less safe on Ridgecrest Road or Troy Road , Mr . Holt stated that having been president of two other civic associations that have gone to a town and specifically asked for something to be placed as a visual barrier in a " T " :intersection like that to slow traffic down that was doing an average of 45 mph in a 25 mph speed limit , speed limit signs do not do it . Mr . Whitney offered that the best thing to do in the Town ' s interest is to have the neighborhood association own the island , and therefore , an accident happens , the Town would not be liable at all . Chairman Grigorov wondered if that was a possibility . William Lesser wondered if there was a neighborhood association , with Mr . Auble responding , no . Chairman Grigorov mentioned that she would not count on a neighbor weeding the roundabout . Mr . Auble said that there are several types of plantings that eliminate weeds , with Mr . Holt stating that that would be reviewed with the Town Planner and others . Mr . Lesser stated that his view was that the Town is going to have to be spending some time and money maintaining the trail anyway , and , perhaps , in conjunction with that , this area could be maintained , adding , he thought this was somewhat of a different situation than if the Town had really no reason to enter that area , except on occasion . • Ms . Beeners stated that the trail is mitigating some of the impact of the potential for high speed on that road . Mr . Holt responded that he did not agree with that . Planning Board - 16 - March 21 , 1989 • There appearing to be no further discussion , Chairman Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion . MOTION by Dr . William Lesser , seconded by Mr . Robert Kenerson : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the consideration of approval of a minor modification to the subdivision plan for Chase Farm Subdivision , located on East King Road , said modification consisting of a change at the intersection of proposed LaGrand Court with Chase Lane , 2 . This is an Unlisted action for which the Planning Board has , on March 21 , 1989 , made a negative determination of environmental significance . 3 . The Planning Board has , on March 21 , 1989 , reviewed the modified plot plan and other submissions related to this proposal . THEREFORE , IT IS RESOLVED : That the Planning Board approve and hereby does approve the modified plot plan as presented , conditioned upon the following . • 1 . That the final design of the proposed roundabout be approved by the Town Engineer and the Town Highway Superintendent , 2 . That the planting design for said roundabout be approved by the Town Planner , the Town Engineer , and the Town Highway Superintendent , 3 . That the lighting at the intersection of Chase Lane and LaGrand Court be at the discretion of the Town Engineer . AND FURTHER , IT IS RESOLVED : The the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board that the road system modification be accepted subject to the conditions hereinabove set forth . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none , Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of intersection modification at Chase Farm duly closed at 9 : 01 p . m . • SKETCH PLAN REVIEW : PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF DEER RUN SUBDIVISION , PHASE III , PRELIMINARY PLAT , TO REPLACE 71 TOWNHOUSE UNITS WITH 54 Planning Board - 17 - March 21 , 1989 • SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING UNITS , LOCATED NEAR EAST KING ROAD AND TROY ROAD , DEER RUN INVESTORS , . L . P . , OWNER /APPLICANT . Chairman Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted matter at 9 : 02 p . m . and read aloud from theAgenda as noted above . Mr . Niederkorn , Agent for the project , approached the Board and appended maps to the bulletin board . Mr . Niederkorn stated that they came up with a plan that was presented some time ago , noting that that is the plan that is basically being developed , and built , at the present time . Mr . Niederkorn offered that the project consists of 180 units , and all but 27 of them were single family townhouses in larger structures , such as indicated on the map , adding that these are 3 , 4 , and 5 unit buildings . Mr . Niederkorn noted that there is a Homeowners ' Association that is responsible for the maintenance of all the common lands , and maintenance of the buildings themselves on the outside . Indicating on the map , Mr . Niederkorn said that the developer has built " this " much of the road , and has built " these " units along Whitetail Drive , up to " this " point , with some of " these " being under construction right now . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the developer is getting ready to go into Stage III . Mr . Niederkorn stated that , for a variety of reasons , . the developer would like the Planning Board to consider the possibility of switching the dwelling type . Mr . Niederkorn commented that , specifically , the developer wants to switch from single family townhouses in 3 , 4 , and 5 unit clusters to single family units . Mr . Niederkorn offered that the reason , from an aesthetic point of view , and a functional point of view , is that it decreases the density , and as one can see , the farther up the hill the denser these units are . Mr . Niederkorn said that by switching to a single family unit , the developer does lose a number of units , commenting that it reduces the density from 180 to 161 , but it also gives a little bit of visual diversity , and it makes it seem less congested than it might have been . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the developer is suggesting a redesign of [ pointing to map ] " this " upper portion of the subdivision . Mr . Niederkorn stated that , basically , the developer is looking at 54 single family dwellings , commenting that a majority of them would be zero lot line dwellings . Mr . Niederkorn said that the dwellings would not be the conventional zero lot line houses because the lots are bigger than one would get in normal zero lot line housing , noting that what it does mean is that one of the yards is eliminated so that the house itself is built right over on the property line ., Mr . Niederkorn [ pointing to the map ] stated that the developer is pulling apart " these " two roads [ Saranac Way and the upper part of Whitetail Drive ] and getting more space between the two roads , therefore , more space between the rows of structures . Mr . Niederkorn offered that , by going to somewhat smaller units it would free up the site considerably , in terms of density . Mr . Niederkorn stated that he suggests these • features on the length of the road primarily as an aesthetic point , noting that it gives one a visual diversion . Planning Board - 18 - March 21 , 1989 • Mr . Niederkorn , referring to the zero lot line dwellings , noted that the smallest lot , of which there are two , have a frontage of 60 feet , and an area of 9 , 000 square feet each , adding , the lots are pie - shaped , and as they widen back to the building line , the lot would be closer to 70 feet in width , commenting that the lots are about 150 ' X 701 . Mr . Lesser wondered what the approximate dimension of the proposed yard would be , with Mr . Niederkorn replying , a minimum of 30 ' between structures . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the developer intends to build all the houses . At this time , Mr . Niederkorn distributed xeroxed pictures of the style of housing proposed . Mr . Hallberg , developer of the project , addressed the Board and stated that he wanted to make the change of housing for a couple of reasons . Mr . Hallberg noted that one of the reasons would be to bring them in line with the height variation , commenting , the second floor of the house would be incorporated within a roof line , so a number of them will look like single story houses , noting that on the downhill side of the road there would be walk - out basements . Mr . Hallberg stated that the second reason was because of the Sprinkler Law , which makes it absolutely not feasible to build attached houses . Mr . Hallberg offered that the third item would be the neighborhood groups , and their concerns , in that he intends to bring the development into character with the neighborhood . Chairman Grigorov wondered if the • houses would be single family , with no subsidiary apartments . Mr . Niederkorn responded that there would not be apartments in the houses . Mr . Niederkorn offered that the homes would be 1200 -11500 square feet on two levels . Mr . Hallberg mentioned that all the grounds would be maintained by a Homeowners ' Association , adding , in terms of the exterior maintenance that would probably be done via the Restrictions . Mr . Hallberg offered that the homes would be cedar - stained . Mr . Kenerson asked about the landscaping , with Mr . Hallberg answering , it will be very similiar to the townhouses . Mr . Smith wondered how the cost of the proposed houses would relate to the townhouses . Mr . Hallberg responded that the low end of the houses would be the top end of the townhouse price , commenting that the average price of a townhouse right now is probably in the neighborhood of $ 110 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Hallberg remarked that the houses would start at about $ 115 , 000 . 00 to $ 125 , 000 . 00 . Mr . Smith asked about the low price of the townhouses , with Mr . Hallberg replying , the base price right now is $ 97 , 900 . 00 . Mr . Lesser asked about the lots . Mr . Hallberg stated that the lots at Deer Run are in fee simple , adding that one automatically becomes a member of the Homeowners ' Association when one owns a townhouse . Mr . Hallberg mentioned that he is trying to make provisions so that people could , perhaps , have a 10 ' X 12 ' garden with the detached homes . Mr . Lesser wondered about open spaces , and what effect _ it would have on the proposed move to single family . Mr . Hallberg said that there would be less common land , probably about 2 . 03 acres . Mr . Niederkorn stated that a lot of the common land in the original plan was [ indicating on map ] " this " uphill portion . Mr . Niederkorn stated that the Preliminary Plan would be more specific , and would show the area of construction , noting that the landscaping M Planning Board - 19 - March 21 , 1989 . would be planned all at once . Ms . Beeners wondered , as George Frantz Assistant Town Planner suggested , if it would be appropriate to rotate some of the lots . Mr . Frantz noted the lot numbers as 28 - 34 on Whitetail Drive , explaining that the houses seem to be oriented in a southerly direction . Mr . Niederkorn noted that the intent was to take advantage of the southerly exposure , rather than to take advantage of the view . Mr . Niederkorn remarked that those particular houses would not have to have a solid wall , because they are offset enough . Ms . Beeners asked if most of the units would have a solid wall . Mr . Hallberg responded , not necessarily a solid wall , adding that the garage side of the house will always be on the lot line . Ms . Beeners had a question on a couple of units that were in the middle of a couple of hedgerows , such as Number 47 , adding that it seemed to her that there was an old farm drainage ditch there . Mr . Hallberg replied that the drainage ditch is older than the last development that was planned , noting that it is dry most of the time , other than normal rain water . Ms . Beeners asked about a trail connection . Mr . Niederkorn responded that that is shown . Ms . Beeners stated that , for the Board ' s information , the trail is something that she has been trying to discuss , noting that it does take a little research on her part as to how it can connect to the ButterField trail , and adding that this will be firmed up as soon as possible . • Mr . Lesser commented that he thought this was a very appropriate move , in that the originally proposed number of townhouses would create quite a dense area . However , at the same time , Mr . Lesser was a little bit concerned that the clustering concept would not be moved into smaller lots . Mr . Hallberg remarked that he would not bring this before the Board if it were not a previously considerated cluster subdivision . Mr . Lesser stated that the next time this comes before the Board he would be very interested in apportioning the reduction in , common space , etc . , because he felt that is really the trade -off for the cluster open space . Mr . Hallberg noted that , in terms of open space , there still remains a total acreage of about 40 % of the land , either going to Town park , or to a Nature Preserve , the stewardship of which would be Cornell Plantations , Mr . Frantz mentioned that zero lot line was pretty well established as a subdivision design tool . Mr . Frantz stated that there are a number of ways to handle maintenance on the side of the home that sits on the lot line . Mr . Hallberg said that , basically , it would become a blanket easement brought on by deed restriction . Chairman Grigorov commented that she felt this was a big improvement to the general plan , with Robert Miller agreeing with Chairman Grigorov , Mr . Kenerson wondered if this was the end for the Deer Run project . Mr . Hallberg responded that he has one parcel of land that is left , which is 7 - 1 / 2 acres , east of the power lines where • he might like to construct two or three houses . Ms . Beeners wondered if this meant the Board would see redistribution of the number of r Planning Board - 20 - March 21 , 1989 • units to see more than one house on that 7 acres . Ms . Beeners stated that she thought this may make things a little complicated as far as tallying things up . Ms . Beeners stated that she liked the plan , but the reduction in total dwelling units should really try to show what might be possible on that property as well . Chairman Grigorov asked if there were any other comments . There being none, Chairman Grigorov declared the matter of the proposed modification of Deer Run Subdivision , Phase III , Sketch Plan Review duly closed at 9 : 46 p . m . APPROVAL OF MINUTES - February 7 , 1989 MOTION by Robert Kenerson , seconded by William Lesser . RESOLVED , that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of February 7 , 1989 , be and hereby are approved as written . There being no further discussion , the Chair called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser , Miller , Smith . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . AGENDA ITEM : PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT Ms . Beeners indicated that the Board should be aware that the Supreme Court has remanded Cornell Quarters back to the ZBA for reconsideration of the whole issue . Attorney Ruswick stated that Cornell had sued the ZBA on Article 78 proceeding . Continuing , Attorney Ruswick stated that , basically , the ZBA had required , according to the Town Law , sprinklers in a modular home . Attorney Ruswick said that Cornell ' s position was that State Law said the Town could not require sprinklers , since these were modular homes . Attorney Ruswick noted , even though he has not read the decision , that his understanding was that the Supreme Court says : you are right ; the ZBA cannot require the sprinklers , but their approval is still needed , adding , that is why it was sent back to the ZBA for a re - hearing . Stephen Smith asked if the homes were single unit modular homes , with Mr . Kenerson answering , they are two units together , with some of them being multiple , with six or seven people living in them . Ms . Beeners stated that the ZBA will probably be thinking about it very shortly , and it is possible that the Planning Board will see it again . Continuing , Ms . Beeners noted that , in spite of the above , Cornell did give a check to the Town for $ 10 , 000 . 00 , which is in escrow , for the sidewalk on Mitchell Street . Ms . Beeners stated that that contribution , plus what was set up with Ide ' s contribution of $ 3 , 000 . 00 , would cover half of the cost of the off - site improvements to do that . Mr . Kenerson wondered if the Marine Midland Bank would • become involved in this , with Ms . Beeners responding , that remains to be seen , adding that the project implementation time is 1994 , which would be the deadline before the money would probably have to be r w Planning Board - 21 March 21 , 1989 • returned to Cornell . Mr . Kenerson wondered about the exact location of the sidewalk . Ms . Beeners replied that it roughly depends on what is seen in the next year or so , adding that it depends on Ide ' s development , and whether Cornell is really serious about trying to make improvements at East Hill Plaza , as they occasionally mention , but there is no indication that they would be in right away . Ms . Beeners mentioned the Mancini site land behind Cannon Pool ' s proposed site on Elmira Road , in that the Mancini site was one of several that was being looked at for the. transfer site for the County baling station . Ms . Beeners stated that now a site is being considered right behind the new Zikakis Auto Plaza on Elmira Road instead , however , she had attended a meeting regarding that and saw their evaluation of the Mancini site . Ms . Beeners noted that Mancini ' s attorney may be contacted , and she expected to be able to get them to work along , as far as providing some kind of a master plan of their property . Mr . Smith wondered if the baling activity would be accessed off Route 13 . Ms . Beeners responded that , yes , it would be off Route 13 , but there are a lot of things ruling against that site , e . g . , access , and views . Ms . Beeners remarked that access would probably mean a stoplight . Ms . Beeners commented on the Rose Hill development , in that they have hired a landscape architect , which , she thought , everyone was secretly praying for . Ms . Beeners offered that a meeting was held , • and the architect is now looking at the plan to try and massage it a little bit , so it is more sensitive to landscape , adding , what they ended up with at the end of the meeting was that the open space on the entire site would be privately owned by a Homeowners ' Association , and that there was not really an easy mechanism or easy site to get a small town playground in there for neighborhood use . Ms . Beeners noted that there are opportunities on the other side of West Haven Road and elsewhere to provide that , adding , there is no official way that anyone can sanction , what she is sure will happen , with little kids from the neighborhood going in and playing on it . Ms . Beeners again noted that the open space would be owned by the Homeowners ' Association , and a possible trail right - of -way would be provided which would be dedicated to the Town , which would run from [ indictating on map ] about in " here " , the Cliff Park Brook area , up to the cul de sac , walk along roads , and then there would be a possible trail easement provided over to the YMCA property , commenting that there could be some kind of bicycle / pedestrain route , eventually , all the way to the City of Ithaca line . Ms . Beeners stated that the new landscape architect argued very strongly against making the townhouse development have a provision for right - of -way extension into the YMCA property , adding that they could see it both ways , in that it would be nice to have an additional outlet , but that , indeed , the YMCA property does have enough frontage for its own circulation . Ms . Beeners stated that she was sort of persuaded by his arguments , and said okay , if you can persuade the Planning Board about the safety aspects , including sprinklering and any other design aspects . Chairman Grigorov asked • about fire truck access to the townhouses . Mr . Frantz responded that the developer is going to rework the access to the townhouses . Planning Board - 22 - March 21 , 1989 • Continuing with the Planning Department Report , Ms . Beeners mentioned Cayuga Lake Estates , Ms . Beeners stated that she received a letter today , dated March 13 , 1989 , addressed to the Planning Board Members , from David L . Klein , in which he remarked on two proposed subdivisions . Mr . Klein ' s letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 . 1 Ms . Beeners commented that more evaluation would be done on the two items mentioned in the letter . Ms . Beeners mentioned what she thought was interesting , and relating to the Planning Board only , was the fact that the Comprehensive Plan Draft Statement does make some comments about maintaining , essentially , as a band of forest , with only penetration of that forest for utilities and roads , adding , there is a density of development that she thought everyone was a little uncomfortable with , and commenting that the Comprehensive Plan Draft Statement indicates that whole band above Route 89 as low density . Ms . Beeners , referring to the South Hill Trail , stated that she and Assistant Town Planner George Frantz would be attending a meeting with the City Planning and Development Committee on March 22 , 1989 " and listening to their discussion , as to the fact that some people at the City think they should be involved in the SEQR Review , adding that she found nothing that indicates that the City would be involved in that fashion . Ms . Beeners noted that back in May of 1988 , she and Mr . Frantz attended three or four different committee meetings at the City : Board of Public Works , Planning and Development Board , Conservation Advisory Council , and the Six Mile Creek Oversite • Committee . Ms . Beeners stated that they secured an endorsement from the Planning and Development Board to pursue the project , adding , they [ the City ] are a little worried about it again . Ms . Beeners stated that it seems to be - - why do we need 66 feet to put in a simple s trail ? - - adding that they think that would be done and a road would magically appear superimposed right over the trail , and commenting that they are also worried about roads and sewer extensions through there . Ms . Beeners offered that she , basically , thinks there are enough mechanisms in place , including just the ongoing discussions with the City , in trying to formulate stuff in the Comprehensive Plan Statement dealing with land use policy , in that any types of proposals dealing with that can be dealt with at a later time . Ms . Beeners remarked that the NYSEG right- of - way width is 66 feet , and , basically , it has been noted that the space is needed for proper buffering , management of the vegetation , and making sure signage is placed in the right places where it relates to individual property owners . Ms . Beeners said ' that the trail undulates at the present time , and mentioned that the survey costs to try to establish anything within that , would be ridiculous as well . Ms . Beeners stated that she thought one thing the City has not realized fully is the emergency access possibilities with the light rescue vehicle they have , commenting that having an 8 - foot trail capable of vehicular access would provide better life safety access for the watershed property , and further commenting , if the City , someday , decided to purchase a forest fire emergency truck , e . g . , there were extended droughts , and the City got into a more enhanced watershed policy , then there would • be the ability for fire fighting . Mr . Frantz commented that he felt there were mixed signals from the City because this year they are questioning the need for 66 feet of right - of-way , and last year the w Planning Board - 23 - March 21 , 1989 Six Mile Creek Oversite Committee commented that 66 feet was not enough . Mr . Frantz stated that last year another concern was that a portion of the watershed area was being opened up above the 60 - foot dam that is closed to the public , but , this year in the reports and recommendations from the Conservation Advisory Council , it is recommended that an Adirondack Park style park be set up in the area of the watershed above the 60 - foot dam . Ms . Beeners announced that there would be a meeting with Stuart I . Brown , regarding the Comprehensive Plan , at the NCR cafeteria on Danby Road , on Tuesday , March 28 , 1989 at 7 : 30 p . m . At this time , Ms . Beeners passed around , for the Board ' s review , a map , and indicated that , outlined in red , there is an area along Fall Creek where Citizens Against Hydropower at the Ithaca Falls are proposing to the State that Fall Creek be made a scenic and recreational river corridor . Ms . Beeners offered that any citizens group may propose that to the State , but it takes a legislator to really introduce it , noting that she would expect Marty Luster or Matt McHugh to seek the Town ' s opinion first . Ms . Beeners said that the issue would maybe be brought up at the next Planning Board meeting to ask for the Board ' s formal opinion on the matter . Ms . Beeners noted that the matter is specifically to try and stop the Hydro Plant , but , if that designation were accepted , special permits would be required for a whole bunch of different uses , and variances , such as any roads , new or expansion or alteration of roads or bridges , which would not be • specifically just serving the river or creek itself . Robert Kenerson wondered about the jurisdiction on a creek like Fall Creek , with Ms . Beeners answering , DEC protected stream . Ms . Beeners said that 850 of the land along that corridor is owned by Cornell University or the State , commenting , the State land is mostly down near Cayuga Lake , Ms . Beeners stated that , at the present time , a good part of the land is Cornell Plantations Preserve Area , adding that Cornell does not particularly like this , because they feel that things are sufficiently managed as they are . Ms . Beeners noted that Beebe Lake would probably be excluded , but it would pose real problems , for example , if Cornell wanted to expand their water intake , or do anything along that corridor . William Lesser remarked that what little bit he knows about small - scale hydropower suggests that , at least for a private venture , there is no way that that facility would become anywhere near paying for itself , once the substantial tax benefits had been dropped . Mr . Lesser said that it is still possible for the City to bumble in and get involved in a losing venture . Mr . Lesser stated that it seemed to him , that a lot of the threat of development going on here , and private firms coming in , is just wholly outside reason , adding , it seemed to him that before someone had to go to this length to try and protect something , he thought it would be important to document that there really is a substantial threat . Ms . Beeners commented that there is a • proposal in draft form , which the Town has a copy of , and it has information about trails , and lands being managed by Cornell or Cayuga Trails Club . Ms . Beeners noted that it is being sufficiently managed , Planning Board - 24 - March 21 , 1989 plus it seems that the Town and other municipalities are moving along in planning , so why encumber it with a variance procedure . Mr . Frantz voiced his concern that even if Fall Creek were to get the designation , it does not absolutely preclude the development of a hydropower plant ; it really just sets up another hoop for someone who wants to do it to jump through it . Mr . Frantz said that the City planning staff views it as enough of an expense to potential developers that they will drop the idea . AGENDA ITEM : CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING BOARD VICE CHAIR . At this time , Board Member Robert Miller recommended that the decision on the Planning Board Vice Chair be deferred until all Board members were present . Board Members Grigorov , Kenerson , Lesser , and Smith were all in agreement with Mr . Miller , ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Chairman Grigorov declared the March 21 , 1989 , meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11 : 15 p . m . Respectfully submitted , • Mary Bryant , Recording Secretary , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board . • a i 13 March 1989 T0 : Planning Board Members FROM : David L . Klein It was an odd feeling sitting across from all of you at last 'Week ' s Planning Board meeting ! I actually intended to see only the West Hill master plan presentation , but decided to stay for the show . If you have the patience to read an unsolicited letter , I ' d like to share some observations with you . _Cannon Sia — Anyone making a request before the Planning Board at a public hearing should be required to display a legible drawing ( s ) for the public to see , in order for the public to comment intelligently on the proposal , as well as to follow the Board ' s discussion . The piecemeal subdivision of the commercial / industrial zone on the Elmira Road could rapidly create an • eyesore that rivals the one within the City limits . George Frantz is correct in wanting to limit future piecemeal subdivisions . Landscaping , setbacks , and signage control are critical . Outdoor display is not allowed in Business Zones A , B , C . and E . in Industrial Districts , it it vague . This . should be very carefully controlled . The material provided by Cannon Spa was terrible , and I hope the resubmittal will be more professional and complete . McCardle Development / Clark En ineers Definitely a professional presentation , but a project still with serious problems . It ' s mind boggling that soil borings taken when the general observations are vthat rocket bisn very shallow , and its presence could affect many aspects of the design . I EXHIBIT 1 Planning Board Members 13 March 1989 Page 2 What the engineers regard as " minor drainage intervention " for the many natural waterways could be very difficult and disfiguring to achieve if there is shallow rock . The4Board should insist on numerous borings or test pits prior to any further consideration of drainage plans . Conventional subdivision would ruin this site . Susan ' s earlier review comments were very appropriate . This is the opportunity to mandate cluster and dictate the terms . Density is the Board ' s perogative , as stated in Section 32 , paragraph 1 . How many units that could be ' .- "platted is almost irrelevent . Some land is less suitable for full development than others . This - is a beautiful property and should be treated carefully . A single family detached cluster layout as proposed is less expensive for the developer than conventional , M and would likely be more profitable . With the same number of lots , th,e •re are less roadways , simpler grading , less sewer , water , telephone , electric lines , etc . , yet the sales price of each lot would likely be pegged at the same amount as conventional . Since the Town Board must approve the road system , You might consider come early coordination between the Boards . I personally am very concerned with building any road across the ravine . I also have , serious reservations about the steep slopes within the entire development , especially the 12 - 1 / 27 grade from Route 89 . A linkage from Happy Lane is highly unlikely given the topography and land ownership . If this project ever moves to approval , complete grading and landscape plans for each lot should be provided . I wince whenever I pass through or near Grandview subdivision and observe the barrenness , the open ditches , the lumpy road , the steepness of Tower view Drive , and the tortured grading that was required to site houses on some of the approved lots . EXHIBIT 1 , _ I Planning Board Members 13 March 1989 Page 3 Continue your thoughtful deliberations . Thanks for your time . cc . Susan Beeners Town Board r • EXHIBIT 1 • .�.. .,,r,i . . . '•'T'r"�''"`'�'•"` r �l -" y [ c-t t '.�`.. , Sjs f ♦Y . �'�.� ' T ,L a s . - ••rr, :•'T'�'1r1R1 v t 'Y " SAV IT Of tUJ 1XATION, GHEE ITHACA14 JOURNAL _. _ edl_ Y; IJ .P15 . . .. _ _. . . .. _ . .- . . _ . .. . _ . .. _ . _. . . . . . . being 2 .J % rv -o:3• depos -s an = ss yz , E.0 be resi d m it I tt ac s , Court ty an .-' r;a t e an d r. .� TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING 66t be I! .. �eC�_ ._ .�_: _. . .. BOARD, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TUES. , MARCH 21 • of ?ffi ITs.ACA JOL•T,S wL A �7JbJ . n+• rpap� p intz+d aDa pJ �.iS�� . By direction of the Chairman 1 ^ ~ f • - - - - o the Plannin Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that o Public`I ' ib Ithim 1.f'ST'!"�>ivol anad that Db$� , of v�•hiab t.]1 a annexed is t true Hearing will be held by the. l L-+ Planning Board of the Town of. l _. . .. Ithaca on Tuesday, March 21 , i • 1989, in Town Hall, 126 East . P OpP); r►'t! p•Jb1:Sb 1D 1111 �. Pzp= ._•_ .... . . . - -•- •_ ...... . Seneca Street, Ithaca, N. Y. , at the following time and on the following matter:� •? 1 r ]( � Q� YC�� •, - • \ , • _ „- ,_, _ . . _ _� . _. _ _. .. . _ . - ____ . ._. .. _ . _. . 7:30 P.M. Consideration of a j T'v l Report to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a re- ` j ._. - - _ . . _ _ _ . . _ .._ , quest for S ecial Ap roval, _ . . _ .__ _. _ .. . �. . _ ._._ ._ . ._ _ . p pursuant to Article IV, ectton 11 , Paragraph 3, of the Town tti, L ' • I i t ^ of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, LrJ fit , ! �' SZ �+ ) _ • l1 '_c L. C _ O. S �: C D : . � ' a_ QL tL . . . _ . .. _ .. . . . for the conversion of an exist- ing residence into o place of worshifor the First Ithaca t Chinese Christian Church, pro- posed to be located at 1462 � Slaterville Road, on Town oft Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6-58-2- 22. 3, 1 .22 plus or minus acres, Residence District R- 15. First / Ithaca Chinese Christian StF�i -^ }fie a^ ^�. $v •p tz, br' t0 Me Lt,S . . _ _ .. .. . . _ - - _ . _� . ._ . . . .. . . . . a.E V Church, Owner; Gerald Rau, Agent. Said Planning Board will at 7 = said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. , Persons may .appear by agent .. � _._�. . _ _ . _. .. _ . . .. .. .. .. .. or in person. T�� , Ftl��aL • Jean H. Swartwood Town Clerk JEAN FORD t 273- n21 March 16, 1989 ` lotary PubGC, Stag ci 4ety York 1. No. 40542 I:;-) Qualified in Tcmpk ; ,-a County Commission expires May 31 19 , W. _ . sa