Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1997-12-16TOWN C f I ��: A �g MM TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 16, 1997 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, December 16, 1997, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barney (Attorney for the Town), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering). ALSO PRESENT. John Fennessey, David Harding, Becky Bilderback, Margaret Brinn. Chairperson Fred Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m., and accepted for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting in Town Hall, on December 10, 1997, and said notice was served upon the applicant and/or agent, as appropriate, on December 10, 1997. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit 41.) Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD: There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REGARDING THE PROPOSED MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT TO CONSIST OF 56 APARTMENT UNITS IN SEVEN BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED ON A 9.12 +/- ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 27 -1- 130124) TOTALING 95 +/- ACRES. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON MECKLENBURG ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA/CITY OF ITHACA BOUNDARY, R -15 RESIDENT DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A REZONING OF THE PROPOSED HOUSING SITE FROM R45 RESIDENCE TO MR MULTIPLE RESIDENCE. THE PROPOSED WILL ALSO REQUIRE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. ANTHONY CERRACHE, OWNER; CONIFER REALTY, APPLICANT; JOHN FENNESSEY, AGENT: Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the above - mentioned matter at 7:36 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. John Fennessey, Conifer Realty, 890 Seventh North St., Liverpool, stated that the Planning Board was supplied with site plans, a copy of the environmental assessment that was done, and a wetland analysis of the site. There is an enlarged site plan with the topo and a lot of pertinent information that will be found in the packets. There is also an enlarged plan of the appearance of the building from other sites at different locations. The Board was supplied with a traffic study of the area, and the wetland analysis that were done, and that it all of the documents that the Planning Board has before them. 0 Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that the Environment Assessment Form Part I was prepared and submitted by the Applicant, John Fennessey, Part II and attachments were done by the Planning Staff and it was fairly easy to prepared additional materials because of the depth of the materials supplied by the Applicant. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED = FEBRUARY 3, 1998 John Fennessey stated he has a map showing the proposed subdivision of the whole parcel. Town Planner Kanter stated he has the Cerrache Parcel Survey Map and this survey map just shows proposed conveyance of land as originally perceived from Cerrache to Conifer Real Estate, but we have not gotten an actual subdivision plat. Chairperson Wilcox asked, who would like to begin. Board Member Robert Kenerson asked about the entry way, and questioned the red markings on the map. John Fennessey, Conifer Realty, 890 Seventh North St., Liverpool stated he had some Associates of Rochester do a Traffic analysis, and you have a copy of that report and they show that you need 350 ft. of site distance in order to have safe egress from this site, making a left hand turn coming down the road . We have 400 feet. DOT position is we have another set of standards that we would prefer you use. The distance necessary here becomes substantially more than what is shown here. DOT does not take into consideration there is a sharp curve here, 30 mph here and grade of 5.6%. DOT position's is that they prefer not to see this drive here, pointing to the map, they prefer to see it somewhere else on the site and they prefer to see it beyond this Edward Murray out parcel.. We have shown that we could bring the drive out to Route 79, circumvent this Murray property to get into the site. The cost has not been factored in, we cannot get funding from the Department of Housing and Community Renewal for that . The source of that funding would have to come from somewhere else. Mr. Ceracche has allowed us to take a strip of land which would adjoin the parcel of land. Our position is we don't argee with DOT. We did want to show this alternative. It could be a temporary solution. We have prepared a Sketch Plan which is modification of what is in your packet. Director of Planning Kanter asks Mr. Fennessey if he has been able to do any measurements of the change in linear distance of that driveway, if it were to be relocated and perhaps any preliminary estimates of the cost. Mr. Fennessey replied, he had done the measurements and given them to the general contractor and he told me 70,000 dollars, but unsure of the criteria he used in deciding the type of road it would be. I don't know if he took into consideration Town standards. Board Member Eva Hoffman stated the new Sketch Plan shows the main road that would come from route 79 and go north in a different location than in the earlier sketch. Mr. Fennessey responded, that was correct Director of Planning Kanter stated it is somewhat closer to the middle. John Fennessey stated the reality of it, the sketch that was shown in your packet has the road 250 ft. further west. We talked with DOT having the road here on the map, with a total of 924 ft. which is what we would need to meet the DOT standards. We would be able to accomplish that with a road at that physical location. Chairperson Wilcox stated by moving the road , moving the intersection with Mecklenburg Rd., they cut down on the length of road the have to build in order to gain access. 0 John Fennessey responded, yes. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Board Member Kenerson stated that Mr. Fennessey doesn't know if it meets Town standards, it's going to have to meet Town standards for fire protection etc. Mr. Fennessey stated what he thinks what he meant by Town standards were, the structure itself. We have proposed this as a private drive which we would maintain, it would not be dedicated to the Town. If the road were to go through the site from south to north then that would be built to Town standards and dedicated the same. Board Member Kenerson stated the only problem he is concerned about is the problem they had at EcoVillage where they didn't, on the internal EcoVillage road, they couldn't get their fire equipment around, so he asked, would the fire equipment have to go up what you call, your road. Mr. Fennessey answered yes. Board Member Kenerson asked so wouldn't that have to be a two lane driveway. Director of Engineering Daniel Walker answered yes, it would have to be a two lane driveway and the way the sketch is showing a loop road totally around the four buildings and central core and the buildings around the outer edge. There is pretty much direct access to all those buildings plus there will be total public water for fire access. The driveway will be around 800 feet long . We may want to make provisions for secondary access on an emergency basis on the Mecklenburg Rd., in conjunction with the detention Storm Water management, because there will have to be maintenance access to that too. • Board Member Kenerson stated with the cost of everything it seems like 70,000 dollars doesn't seem like that much money. Director of Planning Kanter responded, the 70,000 dollars is the difference between the two proposed drive locations. John Fennessey stated it would be 70,000 dollars more to build . Director of Planning Kanter stated that is not the total, but the difference between the two driveways. John Fennessey stated this is an estimate of the contractor, he does not have any drawings to go by, and doesn't know the specifications, but he has built roads before, and is a reasonable figure. Someone asked about the time schedule of putting another road through. Mr. Fennessey states that he does not, but that it is a function of market , the West Hill area has never experienced much development because of the problem of getting out there. We think now that these road improvements being made will encourage more development in that area. Our intent is to develop the land as market demands. We would then seek to bring this other road in and have it serve the subsequent development and the 56 units. Board Member Robert Kenerson stated those of us that live on West Hill are not so sure that this new development is doing that much , and there is a terrible traffic jam on Route 89 and Buffalo Street every morning and everybody thought they were going to take Cascadilla Street instead. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 DECEMBER 16, 1997 • Mr. Fennessey stated that they are developers and this is what they want to do. We think its a nice physical location. Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Fennessey when he talked to DOT, did they have any comment about proposed location of the road as modified. John Fennessey did not speak with the DOT but an associate did, and they stated if we had an entry road as on the Sketch Plan before you would that satisfy them, and they responded, yes. Chairperson Wilcox stated from a site line distance point of view. John Fennessey responded yes. Chairperson Wilcox stated he was worried how close they are getting to West Haven, as an offset intersection. Becky Bilderback of Better Housing for Tompkins County asked the Board to look at the photos that she sent out, because one of the shots is taken of going down the hill from West Haven Rd. This may help you to better visualize that. Chairperson Wilcox states that the DOT has standards on offset intersections. • Director of Planning Kanter stated that Dan Walker and himself were talking about this briefly and he went to the large size tax maps to measure, and it turned out that between West Haven Rd. and the west edge of the Murray parcel is close to 1000 feet. Board Member Robert Kenerson stated while we are still talking about roads he feels we have to decide about this connector road quite seriously. Where it's going to be and put in something we can stick with. Chairman Wilcox stated there is one map where the staff has drawn in one potential way to connect Mecklenburg Road with Bundy Road. Board Member Kenerson asked about the land opposite West Haven Road. Board Member James Ainslie stated there is going to be a bridge across Shalebrook. Director of Planning Kanter stated when the sketch plan for the Perry property was prepared that issue was looked at. Chairman Wilcox asked how the Board members feel about the new proposed location. Board Member Kenerson stated the old thing is no good at all. Board Member Gregory Bell stated the original is totally unacceptable, but agrees with both the fellow board members in general but would like to take it a step further. By coincidence there was a fatal accident on • Route 79 not totally caused by the site line, but there are a lot of accidents. It is not a theoretical issue. There may have been other complicating issues besides site lines, but that's part of it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 • Board Member Kenerson stated we need to make a decision from the Town's standpoint. Board Member Bell responded, that he totally agrees with that, but what needs to be done is longer range planning with this connector road to Bundy, more than just letting developers know, I think it should be built. It should be lined up with West Haven. He doesn't like the idea of an offset intersection even if it's more than 600 ft. which is the required minimum, there is still the hill and the hump and the big curve. I find it a very difficult area to drive in and I don't feel we should complicate with offsets. He thinks it should be a four way crossing. Part of it he sees as a safety issue and the other part is that he thinks we should take a more long term proactive development stance. I am not thrilled with the idea of developing West Hill but it appears that it is going to happen and this is a way to create denser development and very channeled development. If we have to prorate the taxes for that, as a special assessment district for that road improvement. I don't see any problem with that. No developer is going to come to us owning all the land that goes across there. There are several owners, given the fact that developers are not going to own the whole road, nobody is going to propose it to us . What we are getting is some incrementalism which is creating a series of "lollypops" which is a main road with a stick that comes in it and then a loop around it. I think the overall plan helps with the safety that would come on to Route 79. I think it is a terrible plan when it comes to overall connections. It is still a one access road, there is no cross connection to the city, and they have intentionally segregated it by income from their Phase II, and he feels that is wrong too. He has problems with the whole traffic planning of this project. Board Member Kenerson asked does the Riley drive that the Perry's agreed to have a right- of-way to not go to the Ceracche property. Director of Planning Kanter stated that right now there are no actual, formal commitments to that other • then what was shown on the Sketch Plan. Board Member Kenerson stated he thought that it had been named Riley Drive Director of Planning Kanter stated they received what was preliminary approval through the Planning Board was the cul-de -sac, the beginning part of Riley drive and the cul-de -sac coming off with some additional lots, but that has not received final approval yet. Board Member Kenerson stated the Perry property goes to the Ceracche property so there is only the two people. Director of Planning Kanter stated that we are in the process of discussing this with the Perry's in conjunction with the Woven Hearts proposal. We think there is a good possibility that we will be able to work out an actual legal agreement on that future roadway through the Perry property, so if we can get it to match up with an agreeable location on Ceracche, we're basically doing what you are talking about, the Town actually building it all, the road right -of -way itself would be identified and formerly put on subdivision plats that will be coming into the town. John Fennessey stated the right -of -way is an absolute minimum, but building the road would do a lot and attract a lot of attention. Board Member Kenerson asked how long is it from Bundy to Mecklenburg must be over a mile and a quarter. Marmot Brine, 602 Hector St. from the Hector St. Association stated they have several concerns, the primary concern is increased traffic on Hector St.. We would like to suggest that the market demands may not be PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED = FEBRUARY 3, 1998 the best way of judging the best use of that land. There are several concerns and principals that we think are important and would like to be considered. One of them is preservation of agricultural lands that surround the city I know that is much harder here in Ithaca than other parts of the world. It makes sense to develop with in the urban area and to leave the outlying areas as green areas for agriculture. I know that now its difficult for farmers to function in outlying areas because of the tax structure. I wonder about the wisdom of destroying the farmland. There are major ecological issues about transporting food from long distances, and Ithaca still has the capability of providing more of its food in surrounding areas. Another principal is that by building outside of the city it increases car use in general. We would like to decrease the amount of car use. She has some question about the idea of low cost housing, why build low cost housing outside the realm of public transportation. Is the motive to get federal funds for it. I understand that West Village had been built with Federal funds for low cost housing. Our organization does not support the building of that housing, and we would like to have a voice in the process . Chairperson Wilcox stated just to let you know we are only talking about the SEQR. Over the next period of time there will be Public Hearings for possible rezoning, site plan, subdivision, so there will be many, many opportunities where the public will be invited to speak. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has a memo from the Fire Dept. and there is a point there about the extension of the West Haven Rd. to Bundy Rd. Chairperson Wilcox stated his comment to Town Planner Kanter is that they are anxious that the connector road be put in place. They would like that road there and be able to get fire trucks from Route 96. Board Member Hoffman stated that it is an improvement to move the road further to the west. Doing this means that they should think seriously about the connector road and exactly where it should go. Where is the location where it would make sense to go. It would be desirable to have it line up with West Haven Road, thought I am not sure because in the sketch the road curves around quite a bit. Director of Engineering Dan Walker stated part of the problem is intersecting it along the line would create too steep sections of road. Right now Mecklenburg Road is fairly steep, with the proposed alignment it will have a fairly even grade right across. We have to look at the philosophy of what this road is going to be. It is not going to be arterial, the primary purpose for this road is a minor collector, and access is different to the different parts of the town. From an engineering stand point bringing that road in just west of the Murray property is easiest place to put it. The site distance there is 800 ft. better . Director of Engineering Walker stated if the road was to be put in just west of Murrays's then we have a good line up with the property across the way . Access to that parcel could be controlled at that point. Then we have this residential intersection 800 or 900 ft. away from this other residential intersection. So as an engineer I recommend this. Board Member Bell asked how far is it from West Haven to the actual peak of the hump going west. Director of Engineering Walker answered about only 400 ft. Director of Planning Kanter stated that we should pursue the speed limit issue between West Haven and the city line, 40 MPH or whatever it may be. I think the Town Board is waiting for a recommendation from the Public Works Committee. They have discussed it at the committee, and at some point soon I think Town Board will probably pursue that request for a reduction in speed there. That will certainly help with the whole question of site distance on Mecklenburg Rd. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3. 1998 Board Member Hoffmann stated that she agrees. We have to make sure the speed limits do not make it an unsafe place to live. It is not just cars we have to think about, we have to think about a lot of children and older people living here, and them needing to go to buses. If the road is relocated like this so that it comes out to Mecklenburg road at the point further west we might still want to make sure that there is some pedestrian access, where the original driveway was proposed. Board Member Kenerson stated that reducing the speed limit may help. Cliff Street is 30 MPH and this morning a school bus was going 40 MPH. You try to go 30 MPH and you get a whole line of cars. You hold it at 35 mph and there are a few people that will stay behind you. I am wondering if this 45 mph is going to be patrolled is going to do much good. If you can't even get school buses to go up Cliff street to slow down. Chairperson Wilcox stated it is going to help, but won't slow everybody down. Director of Engineering Walker stated the Sheriff Department does patrol that area. People go 60 or 70 mph on this road. Board Member Kenerson stated that Mecklenburg is a bad road. Chairperson Wilcox stated he would summarize for Mr. Fennessey. The board is in favor of moving the road. The location as sketched on this map he provided us seems to be reasonable. Director of Planning Kanter stated what we might want to do is sit down with the applicants and actually to work out what would be the best alignment from the Town's point of view. Director of Engineering Walker stated part of the problem with that location is at the Murray's property that sets back, the road used to curve to the north there, before they straightened it out because their driveway used to be the old road line. Board Member Kenerson asked if we are to be concerned about the memo from the fire department about lack of water. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Town Engineer made a good point when he said that locating the road far enough away for good site distance and to plan ahead to this parcel to the south so that any road that may be laid into this parcel and have a nice crossing intersection rather than a dangerous offset intersection. Director of Planning Kanter stated one more thing that might effect where whether or not there are any more wet areas in that particular spot on the property. of years ago when Mr. Johnson was proposing development of the same parcel, there hard to tell without looking at it closer exactly where they would be or whether if this those. I think we need to study it further. Whether some minor wetland crossing, acceptable to the board. Maybe there are no qualifying wetlands there. %xactly the drive might be, is When we walked it a couple were some wet areas and it's new road location will effect if there are some, might be Board Member Hoffman stated another thing that she noticed is when she looked at the map was with the connector road, is that it is going right by the park, giving good access to the park. Director of Planning Kanter stated that is something we will have to talk more with the applicant about is • the park area. We have to talk to the board on that, and that needs to be worked out. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 APPROVED = FEBRUARY 3. 1998 DECEMBER 169 1997 • Board Member Hoffman stated that we had earlier talked about access to the extension from the road in the city called Oakwood. Director of Planning Kanter stated it is hard to tell on this map because it doesn't show the city streets. Board Member Hoffman stated that is near where the park would be, and we need to know if it makes sense to have this street connect within this development. Director of Planning Kanter stated either way even if there were additional access towards the city we would still want it to have access directly from wherever this connector road is going to be. Board Member Hoffinan stated she agreed, and seems that there should be as many connections not only for cars, but also for pedestrians instead of covering it all up with privately owned land. Male voice stated he would like to see it as a real access. It would eliminate some of the problems coming on to Route 79. It gives people in this development a chance to escape that heavy traffic connection. They could drive down Oakwood and have much better access to 79 on Oakwood, then they would from any of these sites we're talking about. Director of Engineering Walker stated you are coming around the curve there. People coming around the curve can't see Oakwood until they get around it, Male voice states Oakwood is at least at the outer perimeter rather than the inner perimeter of that curve. • John Fennessey stated if he could speak about the entry road, since this road is going to be privately built and privately maintained road, we would like to minimize our cost to have the road as close to the Murray property as possible. Board Member Greg Bell stated he understands this gentleman's argument but, is there anyway the Town could decide where to put the road. We could reimburse the developer for building it a extra few feet. We need to take a more proactive view of what we want this place to be. Director of Engineering W and from this point down farther it center between this curve and this important thing is to preserve the driveway and the curb cut is to be information to make that decision. alker stated by the numbers this is 971 ft. from the edge of West Haven road is 980 ft. to the curve, so if we put a 60 ft roadway here that would be dead existing road right here. There is some wetland area is this vicinity. The opportunity for a different road alignment. This is going to be a private adequate for state standards. Right now we do not have all the topographic Chairman Wilcox stated that Greg Bell made a good point. We don't want to get into a situation where we allow a developer to put a private road here and then we decide where we want to put our connector , and we then realize we have two curb cuts too close together. So the way I would like to proceed, is that we find a good location for the road. I happen to think a good location is in the area to the west of Murray that lines up appropriately with the parcels on the other side of the street that this be a private road and at some point this portion of this private road be deeded to the town, and then this private road becomes the driveway off and we take the curb cut, and use it as part of the connector road. That way we don't have curb cuts that may be to close • to each other on that side of Mecklenburg road. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 . Director of Planning Kanter stated he thought they could do that if we simply get the right information from the applicant. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there were anymore comments on the road. Board Member Kenerson asked if we should be thinking of a motion. Director of Engineering Walker stated he thought it would be appropriate to make a recommendation for future town road location, because if planning predicts a town road in that location, the Town Board the highway superintendent deem that that is an appropriate location for future town road. Board Member Kenerson stated that he feels it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to where your pressure is going to be is going to be right on the city line. Director of Planning Kanter stated he thinks this would excellent, providing some recommendation for rezoning but then further we can do even more as the Planning Board when it comes back for actual subdivision approval will be concurrent with site plan to try to figure out where the future road right -of -way alignment actually can go through the entire Ceracche property and to show that as a future roadway on the plat. One is the immediate short term driveway, the second, how can we ensure the plat effectively implemented. Which will also meet the applicant's goals that the road is to serve basically development by Conifer Realty if that comes to pass, as well as fixture development. Chairman Wilcox asked to move on to other issues. We can always go back. • Board member Eva Hoffman asked if they could talk about the water and sewer situation. She understood that this will have private road, and private water and sewer. John Fennessey it will have public water and sewer. Director of Planning Kanter stated it would consist of private service lines connected to the public sewer and water. Board Member Hoffman stated there was problem with the water pressure. Director of Engineering Walker stated the water pressure problem occurs on West Haven road, and he thinks that is what the Fire Dept. is referring to. At West Haven Road there is about 25 pounds of pressure right at the intersection of that one fire hydrant, which causes a lot of problems when they were trying to put the fire out at Hubble's. They actually tapped that hydrant 3 or 4 years ago when Hub's Place burned and they were sucking the hydrant dry because the pumper was up there. This site is 100 ft. lower so the pressure will be much higher at least 75 pounds of pressure probably in this site. We do have plenty of flow because it is a 12 inch water main the flows across the top of the site. What we do have as an issue on West Hill is a redundant supply point. This project works it's way into some of the plans we have been looking at for improving supply to the West Hill. Right now the supply to West Hill, for hospital and everything is through a 6 inch water main that is probably 80 years old which runs right along Route 96. We have been looking for a second point to bring water up to this 12 inch main and feed that and also a future tank somewhere in the vicinity of this. One of the things he has been talking to the City about is they have space and would like for us to take water from the Oakwood tank site. A water main brought down the hill to serve this property would give us half the distance and tie in well with a town funded project to put in a new pump station and a portion of the water main to serve that. It would PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3. 1998 . reinforce our water supply to the West Hill and eliminate his biggest fear that we will blow that 6 inch line out of the ground someday and not have any water on the West Hill. Chairperson Wilcox stated it would prepare us for future growth in that area. Director of Engineering Walker stated as far as the pressure and supply for the Fire Dept for this particular project, there will be hydrants low enough in the complex and the pressure will be adequate there for fighting fires. Male voice asked if the time schedule of tying this in will be adequate. Director of Engineering Walker answered, he thinks so. We are having a meeting on Thursday with the Consolidated Water, Planning group, and thought these projects will move ahead in the next year or so. At the very least for the size of this project, 56 sites just tapping into that 12 inch main will provide them with adequate water and will not cause problems in different parts of our system. Male voice asked if this would change anything with EcoVillage. Director of Engineering Walker responded no. They still have a private booster pump system to feed their domestic use which does not have enough capacity to really fight a fire. Board Member Hoffman stated one of the questions from the Fire Dept. is whether there will be fire hydrants placed throughout the project. Dave Harding of Carl Yahn and Associates, 450 S. Salina St. Syracuse stated the plans that were submitted show two fire hydrants, one he believed was on the southerly part of the loop and the other one up on the northern part of the loop. Director of Engineering Walker stated that they would probably ask for another hydrant on the drive on the entrance road coming in because the Fire Dept. likes to hook up to the closest point, they don't like getting into a site without having the hoses hooked up. For a water main extension that becomes dedicated to the Town we require fire hydrants at 600 ft spacing so there would be several hydrants along there. Male voice stated to clarify that the Town Engineer is referring to bringing the new water line in along the red area. Director of Engineering Walker answered, the water line to feed this property will be coming from the top of the hill to the Ceracche parcel. Male voice asked if it would make sense to have the water line come down 350 ft. across Ceracche property. Director of Engineering Walker answered, that is another option. Male voice asked if that would go into Eddy's property. I* Director of Engineering Walker answered his property is way back here. The water main is 60 to 80 ft. below Eddy's property as it goes, so we could bring it straight down the hill. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 Board Member Hoffman stated that ladder truck access to the building seems to be limited. There is a question about whether or not the project will be fully sprinkled. David Harding responded, he believed that the Town requires it to be fully sprinkled. Board Member Hoffmans asked, what do you think is meant by ladder truck access to the building is limited. David Harding answered, We are providing access to one side of the building from a paved roadway. There isn't the ability to drive the fire emergency vehicle totally around each of those buildings, which is not a requirement. For the most part we have access on three sides of those buildings. Director of Planning Kanter stated it is not exactly an environmental assessment issue in the terms of SEQR, it is really a preliminary site plan issue. If there are going to be problems, we'll need to work them out during site plan review, it is separate from the environmental determination. Board Member Hoffman asked if they had received any comments from the Conservation Board about this project. Director of Planning Kanter stated not recently. Male voice asked if they would have to purchase their own snowplow. • David Harding answered, we typically contract out the major plowing and some of the sidewalks are done by maintenance people on site. The entrance road, parking lots and roads will be done on a contractual basis. Director of Planning Kanter stated there are several site plan issues that will need to be addressed as we go further but from Dan's review of the drainage plan and what came from the drainage analysis provided it appears that the drainage should not be a significant environmental impact. Director of Engineering Walker stated, the State had a problem with discharging into their system and we have to be a little conscious of what happens to the water as it goes under Hector Street. There is an old Vinegar Hill road alignment that goes down into the city and it carries a lot of capacity, because it is a 40% grade, right now the water sheet flows across, and travels through the yards and then it gets picked up by the upper part of Hector St. and heads into the city. This would be a minor change in the direction with the outlet on the southeast comer of the site. We may have to look at which way we put the water , Hector St. or Vinegar Hill. That is a design detail. There is plenty of room on this site . Board Member Hoffman asked if there would be less water coming onto the property after this is built then there is now. Director of Engineering Walker responded yes, because the drainage plan shows a retention pond that is long and narrow right behind these properties. Board Member Hoffman had a question about the berm described in the text. Do you know how high it is above the existing grade there. • John Fennessey answered yes, as indicated on the plans he believe it is only 4 or 5 feet above the current evaluation. Elevations along the property line are running at 826, 828, and we are indicating a top of 832 so PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED = FEBRUARY 3, 1998 • about 6 feet. That is established in part to create the necessary volumes for storm water storage, and its serves a dual function as acting as a visual screen to the backyards of some of those properties Board Member Hoffmann stated she is not too crazy about berms as visual screens, but that is my personal opinion. Director of Engineering Walker stated, in general those yards are sloping somewhat up, anyhow. John Fennessey stated if they are done correctly they are nice. Board Member Hoffmann stated while they are talking about how things look, maybe we could talk about the visual end of this. Becky Bilderback stated Jonathan Kanter asked her take some photos from across the valley. She has tried to do that. She tried to pick out distinctive things that she could see, that would tell her where this was located in term of different places across the valley. The first photo she took was from South Hill, this was the driveway that the trucks use into the Emerson Power Plant. She took the picture with West Village included. She went then to above where Ithacare is going . The second photo is from Sunset Park in Cayuga Heights. The next page is photos 3 and 4 and these were shot from the same place on the lawn of the Johnson Art Museum. Board Member James Ainslie asked, what is the large structure in the photo. Becky Bilderbeck responded, Hubble's is on the right side. • Director of Planning Kanter stated, the one thing he noticed is looking at photos 1 through 4 is that the project site is just above the developed residential area, which is pretty apparent in these photos. Becky Bilderbeck stated one of the things she was looking for was Chestnut Hill or Candlewyck Apts. by Bundy Road. She even tried from South Hill school to get a shot of it. Board Member Hoffman asked if Becky Bilderbeck actually took a photo on Route 96 at the overlook area by Ithacare. Becky Bilderbeck stated, no, because she couldn't see anything around it, so she didn't take a picture. She took one down from South Hill school, and tried to take from Terrace Hill but there were too many trees. The last three pictures are shots from 79 of the site. The first one is from Warren Rd. shooting up at the site, the second one is from 79 shooting directly across the red flag is the edge of the property line where we were originally proposing the driveway. The third is taken from West Haven Rd. shooting back down to the hill towards it. Male voice stated the last picture shows that as you come straight west off of West Haven and there is quite a bank. Board Member Hoffman stated the road cut that has been talked about tonight, would be just west of the group of trees. • Director of Engineering Walker responded, right. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3. 1998 • Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was worried that it was going to be more visible from Sunset Park and Route 96. I don't think it is going to be. Male voice asked if this was going to be one project or two projects. Director of Planning Kanter stated the way we tried to set up the environmental assessment was to address impacts of both. So we tried reading through the EAF and the materials you will see that there are some references to both development and the traffic study looked at full development . In other areas, the visual impact were focused more on the Phase I development. It is a mixture. Board Member Bell stated while we are on the visual impact here , he would like to ask about drawing L4, which is the visual cross section analysis. I know it is fairly common but I'd like to point out to the board, the horizontal scale is one half of the vertical scale so what that exaggeration does is to make this cross section to appear to be a lot steeper. It appears that these things are visually hidden far more than they really are. David Harding stated that one fallacy of that is everything is exaggerated vertically, including the buildings, so while you may think that you are getting more screen because it looks steeper up the hill, you're showing the buildings proportionally exaggerated just as the trees are. Board Member Hoffmann stated are you saying that buildings look twice as high as they really look. David Harding stated, yes. The reason we do that is because if you drew things at equal vertical and horizontal scales it would be very difficult to see any differences because everything would appear so flat. These are purposely exaggerated for that reason. Board Member Bell stated the thing that is important for visual analysis is where is the horizon. A human's eyes look on a horizontal plane and when you double the vertical scale, you are throwing that horizon line off. I don't feel this is a very fair presentation. David Harding stated that horizon lines are indicated on the drawing by the horizontal lines indicating the difference in vertical elevation. He passed around some photos taken earlier in the year which show the extent of vegetation with leaves on them. You can see the type of vegetation that is being preserved is impenetrable in terms of seeing through it. In winter time there might be a little bit different condition out there. That is one reason the berm works as well as it does. There is a residence across the street that is going to have a view of the development. In some area in particular, around where we are purposing this little basketball court area showing some evergreen plantings if you refer to the Landscape plan they are quite dense in there, providing additional screening for most of the development. Board Member Hoffman stated one of the things that she would like to mention when talking about planting is that evergreens can be wonderful screens in certain locations, downhill on the eastern edge of this property. I think they would fulfill a very important function but uphill and along the road I would be worried about having evergreens planted because when they grow big they really block the view of not only things that one may want to have blocked from the road but also the rest of the view beyond, and I think that is very sad when that happens, so I try to encourage developers to plant trees that are either limited in height or other trees where you can see through the trunks and the crown is above what you want to look at. I see that there are • some evergreens shown along the road here, along Route 79 on the planting plat. I doesn't say what kind it just says proposed evergreen tree. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 DECEMBER 169 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 • Male voice stated at this time, he has not investigated it enough to say what is appropriate to survive the conditions. What he has tried to do is intermix for contrasting interest. He does look to see what kind of yews are available to take advantage of for screening. Chairperson Wilcox stated he had some minor things on Part I of the EAF, but asked if there was any more SEQR related issues. He stated as Town Planner Kanter has pointed out, we don't have a final or preliminary subdivision plat really to look at in any detail, we dealt with site distance which is important, we've done some of the other aspects. Board Member Bell stated he had a question on the EAF. It may be a mistake but the applicant is claiming there is no bedrock under this parcel, and he is curious how they discovered such a geological possibility. John Fennessey answered somewhere down there is bedrock but not within 15 ft. of where they dug so we will not be cutting into bedrock. Board Member Bell stated this is just a question of how deep it is to it, it doesn't say whether or not you are going to get to it. There is clearly bedrock up there. John Fennessey answered they went down 15 feet. We didn't actually discover any bedrock and so that is the rationale for that statement. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he would propose that they say, greater than 15 ft. • David Harding stated after reviewing the soil survey, and looking at the original drawings for the water line that went in on the westerly portion of the Ceracche parcel, it had indicated that bedrock might be as shallow as 8 ft., and that's why we proceeded to get the deep test pits. They dug down 15 ft, and they did get into some pretty stiff silty shale material, but no bedrock. Board Member Ainslie stated that is reasonable. We put in a well on the lower farm, which is about 1000 ft. and we went 12 ft. before we hit rock. Now if you go up Route 79 above Sheffield Rd. or up where Van Dom's comes across, they put a pond in there about 6 ft. deep and its on bedrock so the bedrock ungulates sometimes. Director of Engineering Walker stated they put a sewer line in at about 8 or 9 ft. and we didn't have rock right there. Chairperson Wilcox asked if they could go on to the technical details A2 which is the acreage before and after, the left hand column is 9. 56 and the right hand column is 9.66. The problem seems to be 2.73 and 4.08 add up to 6.81 but before says they should add up to 6.71. The other issue is we now know that the wetland is 0.14 acres instead of 0. 10. and I recommend that be changed as well. Number 3 predominant soil type, this says rhineback silt lome, based upon the survey done by the Environmental Collaborative. They indicate both rhineback and hudson columnar being the two soil types on that property. Board Member Hoffmann stated on page 2 it says that the project is 45 plus or minus acres, under the description of the action but on page 3, B1 it says , complete use acreage on or controlled by project only 47. There is a discrepancy there and the other numbers don't add up either. The project acreage to be developed is • 6.76 acres initially, 42 maximum. It doesn't add up to either 45 or 47. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3. 1998 John Fennessey stated he thinks the issue there is that they will be dedicating some of this 45 acres of land to the Town, so it won't be developed, and he thought that was the rationale on that. 47. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the total acreage should be the same everywhere, whether it is 45 or John Fennessey agreed. Chairperson Wilcox stated on page 4, how much natural material will be removed from the site, in terms of cubic yards, he was looking at the cutfill calculations, and cutfill do not balance each other exactly. They balance reasonably well, given the amount of fill that is going to occur. I am not sure whether there is going to be some fill removed from the site or not. John Fennessey stated that the intent is to balance it on site. He believed in the calculations that were given, there is a little more fill indicated then there was cut, in which case the contractor will just make an adjustment in the degree that he builds that embankment out on the east edge of the road. There is some purposeful flexibility in that plan. Chairperson Wilcox stated in C6, is the purposed action consistent with the recommended land uses and adopted local plans. Town Planner Kanter has indicated that it is. Chairperson Wilcox stated he did not think it was. He acknowledges the fact that there is some disagreement as to whether it is or not whether the purposed action is consistent, the recommended land use is not that high density of a development. I am not going to say that it is inconsistent but it is not necessarily consistent. Is the purposed action compatible with the adjoining, • surrounding lands. Again that is a very subjective issue. We have open space, we have single family housing. We are purposing a multiple residence area with apartment houses. Is it compatible, yes, no, maybe. You have indicated yes. He stated he has a different opinion but it is not one of those things where he can say he thinks it could be changed, it is just not objective enough. It is not like the number of acres not adding up. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is some land that is to be set aside for park land, and maybe we can talk about that. How much would it be and where it would be located. John Fennessey stated what he believed the situation is the land that the Town believes is most valuable happens to fall on the 45 acres that we are acquiring. Our arrangement with Mr. Ceracche is that what the Town wants we will give to them in that physical location, and Ceracche in turn will have to give us more land, trade some other land, so that you have rather than 2 parcels of land 1 to the east and 1 to the west you have one parcel of land that contains the number of acres that are to be dedicated to the Town based on the size of this parcel. Where the line is, is going to be a determination that makes sense to your Planning department. It would all be in this east part of the parcel because he believes that's where the Town wants it. Director of Planning Kanter stated the overall size of the Ceracche property is about 95 plus or minus acres. We would be looking for somewhere in the range of 9 1/2 to 10 acres, to account for the total park land set aside for the entire parcel. The areas we have shown should have access to some public road which will go past it. It would be desirable to include a pedestrianibicycle access into the city, if not vehicular as well. He has not calculated the size, but would assume it is somewhere in the range of 10 acres or so. Whether the Town would get that dedication all up front or not, that is something we would like to talk with the applicant about. It certainly can't be required that the Planning Board have the entire 10 acres set aside up front with the development of only a portion of the property, but at a minimum we could ask, that the future park land preservation be shown on the subdivision plat itself. If it works out well for Ceracche and the applicants to dedicate that area to the Town up front that would be great too. The main thing is that we are also talking to the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16 DECEMBER 169 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 • Perry' s about a slightly larger piece. The Perry site is about 135 acres. We are looking at about 13 1/2 to 14 acres for park land on that property. We have the potential to assemble quite a nice 20+ acre community park area, which is now showing in the Adopted Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Board Member Ainslie stated he still has a problem with all this park land because he sees some that has been dedicated that isn't going to be used for a long time, that comes off the tax roles, and the other one up on King Rd. and 96 for 186.000 dollars, the Monkemeyer property. The maintenance is going to need four full time men and the equipment to take care of this park land we have. We have Sapom Meadows that isn't used at all yet, we have the other park land behind Old One Hundred, which is now being used as a gravel storage, and I just wonder if we keep taking all this off the tax roles. Chairperson Wilcox stated the alternative is that Saponi Meadows takes off and everybody buys the lots and they build all those houses, and there is no land there for the kids and the adults to go to use. Board Member Hoffman stated some of the lots look like they come west of the line that divides the Ceracche land from the one that was being acquired. If the road goes west of Murrays parcel, this is the piece of land that you would be negotiating about. John Fennessey stated in all likelihood that little area of land will probably be developed as storm water detention facilities for the development on the Ceracche parcel. It happens to be a low point in the landscape and for that reason he did not show any lots along that side of the road. Referring to the heavy line between Ceracche and Conifer property, it is indicating future road alignment. Chairperson Wilcox asked if it was safe to say that we have not seen a proposed subdivision plat yet, because you are waiting for more concrete details either from us, such as road alignment. Director of Planning Kanter stated there is a draft resolution in here. My recommendation at this point would be to hold off on making your determination until we work out the details on that new driveway location and primarily my concern is to make sure that change will not be effecting any additional wetlands or other sensitive areas . I think if we can do that quickly and come back to the board with that information, then we can move through that quickly. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there were any other environmental aspects that you find troublesome that have not been addressed by us, the staff or applicant. Director of Planning Kanter asked if there had been any discussion with the Transit folks about what would be needed to extend the bus route out to this site. John Fennessey answered no. Board Member Hoffman asked if he knew what buses go by there. John Fennessey stated at the time he did the application we got a bus route map that showed a bus coming up to 100 ft. away from where the site was located. Director of Engineering Walker stated that there is a city route on Warren Road then it goes across Elm Street and around and down Coy Glen. Male voice stated then you have Tomtram that goes up 79. Right at Miller's Corners there is a stop. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 Is Board Member Hoffman asked if the buses go often enough to make it meaningful. Chairperson Wilcox stated the city bus is at the corner once an hour. DECEMBER 16, 1997 Director of Planning Kanter stated that he did mention transit in the Environment Assessment and it does seem to be an important issue to address in light of the lower income families. John Fennessey stated if he could get clarification, the issues that are now before us, deal with this entry road that would be proposed to come in west of the out parcel. If there are any wetlands there, is that right. Director of Planning Kanter stated generally wetlands and vegetative assessment. John Fennessey asked if there were any other environmental issues that we need to address. Chairperson Wilcox stated that there had been a need mentioned for a subdivision plat. John Fennessey responded yes. Director of Planning Kanter stated it is but it isn't a SEQR issue. You can't really do a SEQR on the subdivision until we see what the plan is. Board Member Bell stated he thought that it would be part of the subdivision plat, but at some point he would like to see a map that defines a few of these scattered things we've seen. Particularly this site plan with the city lot and the fronts of these city lots, because they have these indefinite, vague backs of the lots, but they don't show where it ends . I would like to see Oakwood and the city water tower and this paper city street, because if we are talking about making some connection there we have to know where they are. None of these maps does it all on the same map, especially for the park and Phase 11 questions. Chairperson Wilcox stated he would like to ask the members of the board to hold on to much of this. Director of Planning Kanter stated in reference to scheduling Mecklenburg Heights for a meeting, we would certainly like to wait to see what materials are submitted. He would anticipate once the materials are submitted, we could schedule it fairly quickly. Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the consideration of environmental significance at 9:47 p.m.. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR 1998: MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does adopt the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 1998. Unless otherwise notified, all meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday, commencing at 7:30 p.m. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote. • AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Ainslie, Kenerson. NAYS - None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 18 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit # ?.) AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 7,1997* MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Robert Kenerson: DECEMBER 16, 1997 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the October 7, 1997 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as written with the following corrections: Page 5, subparagraph 2a that states "Submission to the Town Planning Department a Mortgagor's Certificate: a certificate signed and sealed by the mortgagor(s), if any, to the effect that he consents to the plat and the dedications and restrictions shown on or referred to on the plat. ", should be changed to read "Submission to the Town Planning Department of Mortgagor's Certificate: a certificate signed and sealed by the mortgagor(s), if any, to the effect that the mortgazee's consents to the plat and the dedications and restrictions shown on or referred to on the plat." Page 11, in paragraph 6 that states "... so there is no adverse effects particularly the farmers who have planned to make use of subdividing as part of their inherence in State plans. ", should be changed to read "... so there is no adverse effects particularly the farmers who have planned to make use of subdividing as part of their inherence and estate plans." Page 14, paragraph 5 that states "Ms. deProsse stated that her neighbor's house was build in a bong where people used to skate. ", should be changed to read "Ms. deProsse stated that her neighbor's house was build in a bog where people used to skate." Page 16, paragraph 8 that states "Board Member Ainslie stated that the Town would not want someone to sell 250 acres of land above water and sewer and put in a development. ", should be changed to read "Board Member Ainslie stated that the Town would not want someone to sell 250 acres of land above and water and sewer and put in a development." Page 19, paragraph 5 that states "He does have any objections to these buildings, but before he votes to send this to the Town Board he wants to see the plan revised. ", should be changed to read states "He does not have any objections to these buildings, but before he votes to send this to the Town Board he wants to see the plan revised." Page 20, paragraph 2 that states "The Besemer Trail was actually the William and Hanna DePew Trail. ", should be changed to read "The Besemer Trail was actually the William and Hanna Pew Trail." Page 20, paragraph 10 that states "Attorney Barney stated that the Town cannot take money from somebody unless there is a demonstration created by what they are doing, and then it needs to show that the park land is not usable. ", should be changed to read "Attorney Barney stated that the Town cannot take money from somebody unless there is a demonstrated need created by what they are doing, and then it needs to show that the park land is not usable." •Page 21, paragraph 2 that states "Before the Town goes and has someone collecting fees for people who would use these greenways,...", should be changed to read "Before the Town goes and has someone collecting fees from people who would use these greenways,..." PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 • There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote: AYES - Wilcox, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann. The MOTION declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 21,1997: MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by James Ainslie: DECEMBER 16, 1997 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the October 21, 1997 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as written with the following correction: Page 6, paragraph 9 that states "One option is to use a 50 watt metal haylide bulb which would be a white light, not like mercury or sodium lights. ", should be halide bulb which would be a white light, not like mercury changed to read "One or sodium lights." option is to use a 50 watt metal There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote: AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. • The MOTION declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 18,1997: MOTION made by Greg Bell, seconded by Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the November 18, 1997 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote: AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox stated that the draft Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan was adopted by the Town Board on December 8th. -------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Chairperson Wilcox stated that Planning Board vacancies have been advertised in the Ithaca Journal for anyone from the public who would be interested in serving on this Board. There are two members on this Board that need to submit a letter of interest to continue on the Planning Board for another term. • r i U PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 20 DECEMBER 16, 1997 APPROVED - FEBRUARY 3, 1998 --------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Board was supplied with a letter to Michael Barylski, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 7, Division of Environmental Permits, in regards to Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project Town of Ithaca Comments on their Final Environmental Impact Statement. The letter includes the Town Board's comments from their December 8th meeting. ---------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- The Planning Board had a brief discussion on nominations of chair for the Planning Board for 1998. MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Eva Hoffmann: RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby recommends Fred Wilcox as chairperson of the Planning Board for 1998. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote. AYES - Hoffmann, Ainslie, Bell, Kenerson. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Wilcox. The MOTION declared to be carried. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Environmental Planner position vacancy has been filled. Susan Ricker will be starting with the Town of Ithaca on January 12, 1998 as the new Environmental Planner. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the December 16, 1997, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:23 p.m. Prepared by: Karen McGuire, Secretary for the Planning Department Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. December 16, 1997 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Determination of Significance of Environmental Impact regarding the proposed Mecklenburg Heights development to consist of 56 apartment units in seven buildings to be located on a 9.12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1- 13.12, totalling 95 +/- acres. The site is located on Mecklenburg Road, adjacent to the Town of Ithaca/City of Ithaca boundary, R -15 Residence District. The applicant has requested a rezoning of the proposed housing site from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence. The proposed project will also require Subdivision Approval and Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board. Anthony Ceracche, Owner; Conifer Realty, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent. 3. Consideration of approval of Town of Ithaca Planning Board Schedule of Meetings for 1998. 4. Approval of Minutes: October 7, 1997 (in packet) • October 21, 1997 (in packet) November 18, 1997 (in packet) 5. Other Business, 6, Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) • • • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Karen McGuire sworn, depose and say that I am a Secretary for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearinjzs to be held by the Town of Ithaca Plannine Board in Town of Ithaca Town Hall. 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca. New York. on Tuesday. December 16 1997 commenciny, at 7:30 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting Date of Posting: Date of Publication: Ar December 10, 1997 STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Bulletin Board, Front Entrance of Town Hall. aren McGuire, Secretary Town of Ithaca. Sworn to and subscribed before me thisw th day of i � V%%�0%9971 /Notary Public. MY J. axton Notary P blliicc, State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga Co My Commission Expires ('