Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1999-12-21TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 21, 1999 HLEID TO,AIr; OF STHAG4 0 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, December 21, 1999, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; James Ainslie, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (7:51 p.m.); Larry Thayer, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:40 m ) George Frantz Assistant Town Planner: Susan Ritter, Environmental Planner. p• , , , EXCUSED: Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering. ALSO PRESENT: Mark Darling, Ithaca College; Tom Salm, Ithaca College; Bruce Hatch, Ithaca College; Jan H. Suwinski, 451 Sheffield Road; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road; Mark Fonder, 126 East King Road; David Tessier, Ithaca Estates; Evan Monkemeyer, Ithaca Estates; John Yntema, Conservation Board; Joe Swellow & Susan Spector, 162 East King Road, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m., and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 13, 1999, and December 15, 1999, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on December 15, 1999. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) 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. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment members of the public wished to be heard, of the meeting at 7:36 p.m., and asked if any Shirley Egan, Cornell University Council, asked when the North Campus Residential Initiative Preliminary Site Plan approval would be scheduled. Board Member Conneman stated that he would not be able to attend the January 18th meeting. He will be available for the January 4th meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he talked with Mr. Kanter and they had discussed holding it January 18th' or having a special meeting. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that this is a very controversial matter. It should be scheduled during a time when people are going to be in Town, not just members of the board. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the public hearing has been held on the matter. There needs to be another public hearing because it was advertised with a recommendation to rezone to Recreational District. Therefore, there needs to be another public hearing. It has been rezoned R= 30. He hopes that Cornell University and any members of the public will restrict their comments to anything that is new, changed or relevant to the R -30 rezoning. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is important that all board members be present. Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, stated that staff could be ready for the January 4th meeting. They are awaiting information from Cornell University. The materials should be in at anytime. There are two small agenda items scheduled for January 4th. It can be tentatively scheduled for January 4th. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not want to have issues rehashed. She still feels it is better to hold the public hearing when people are in Town. Chairperson Wilcox asked if Cornell University would have the materials submitted. Ms. Egan responded yes. Board Member Ainslie asked if the new board member would be attending this meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the new board member is Rod Howe from Forest Home and his first meeting is January 4th. The North Campus Residential Initiative public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 4th. It will be scheduled as Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval and an adoption of Statement of Findings. This board has held a public hearing. There was a second meeting where the board deliberated the various issues. Hopefully, the board could restrict the comments and questions to any unanswered questions or new information. Mr. Kanter asked if they are unable to schedule it for January 4th, would the board be willing to have a special meeting January 25th. The board responded that the alternative date was fine if necessary. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:44 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Ithaca College Compost Facility — Site Plan Modification, 953 Danby Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:44 p.m. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000-APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED Bruce Hatch, Director of Physical Plant at Ithaca College, stated that they received approval in 1999 to construct a compost facility of approximately 60' x 100' and a concrete pad of 50' x 100' with a control room of 30' x 30'. This is partially funded by a New York State recycling incentive program so that the garbage that comes out of the dining halls can be composted. They needed to gc through cost reduction measures to bring the building in -line with the budget. Mr. Hatch stated thal they are proposing to reduce the pole barn to a 50' x 90' building with a concrete pad of 50' x 90'. The control room would be 20'x 26'. The structural and mechanical aspects were not affected. There are little or no changes to the site plan. There is a reduced perimeter of the building and pad. Chairperson Wilcox asked if all board members are familiar with the project. The board stated that it is familiar with the proposal. Board Member Conneman stated that this is a simple change. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board discussed environmental issues at the prior approval of the site plan. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the public hearing was not advertised as a recommendation for special approval. The SEQR form does refer to the fact that it needs to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Kanter stated that the opinion of the Director of Building /Zoning is that it does not need to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. It has already received special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for modifications to the Ithaca College composting facility, the facility to be reduced in size now consists of a 50'x 90' enclosed pole bam with a concrete floor, a 50'x 90' concrete pad outside of the building, and a 20' x 26' control room attached to the southwest corner of the compost facility. The facility is located on the Ithaca College campus, close to the main access drive, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 41 =1 -11, R15 Residential District, Ithaca College Owner, Bruce A. Hatch (Ithaca College), And Sear -Brown Group Agents, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 3, The Planning Board, on December 21, 1999, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part II prepared by planning staff, a series of drawings labeled "Site Plan" dated 11116199 (CV1 -1), "Foundation Plan and Notes" dated 11117199 (C1 -1), "Elevations" dated 11116199 (A34), "Floor Plan, Enlarged Floor Plan Reflected Ceiling Plan" dated 11117199 (A2 -1) and "Roof Framing Plan Sections and Details" dated 11117199 (S1 -1), prepared by The Sear -Brown Group, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, and Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for modifications to the previously approved site plan for the Ithaca College Compost Facility, located at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 =1 -11, Residence District R -15. Said modifications include reducing the sizes of the compost building, control room and concrete pad from what was previously approved. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicants Bruce A. Hatch, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:49 p.m., and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by George Conneman, WHEREAS. 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for modifications to the previously approved Ithaca College composting facility, the facility to be reduced in size now consists of a 50'x 90' enclosed pole barn with a concrete floor, a 50'x 90' concrete pad outside of the building, and a 20'x 26' control room attached to the southwest corner of the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED compost facility. The facility is located on the Ithaca College campus, close to the main access drive, Town of Ithaca, Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -11, R15 Residential District, Ithaca College Owner, Bruce A. Hatch (Ithaca College), and Sear -Brown Group Agents, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review, has, on December 21, 1999, reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant and a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 11 prepared by planning staff, and made a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on December 21, 1999, has reviewed and accepted the revised maps, including the following: "Site Plan "dated 1116199 (CV1 -1), "Foundation Plan and Notes" dated 11117199 (C1 -1), "Elevations" dated 11116199 (A3 -1), "Floor Plan, Enlarged Floor Plan Reflected Ceiling Plan" dated 11117199 (A2 -1) and "Roof Framing Plan Sections and Details" dated 11117199 (S1 -1), prepared by The Sear -Brown Group, and additional application materials, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED 1. That the Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials provided that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for modification to the previously approved site plan for the Ithaca College composting facility, reduced in size to now consist of a 50' x 90' enclosed pole barn with a concrete floor, a 50'x 90' concrete pad outside of the building, and a 20' x 26' control room attached to the southwest comer of the compost facility. The facility is located on Ithaca College campus, close to the main access drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 41 -1 -11, R -15 Residential District, as shown in the drawing set entitled "Site Plan" dated 11116199 (CV1 -1), "Foundation Plan and Notes" dated 11117199 (C1 -1), "Elevations" dated 11116199 (A3 -1), "Floor Plan, Enlarged Floor Plan Reflected Ceiling Plan" dated 11117199 (A24) and "Roof Framing Plan Sections and Details" dated 11117199 (S1 -1), and other application materials, condition upon the following: a. submission of an original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the revised site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca; ba that all food waste being hauled to the Ithaca College site from off site locations be securely covered to reduce spillage along public roads; PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED = APPROVED ca that this operation comply with the following performance standards pertaining to noise, odor, and vermin, and that the Town reserves the right to revoke Special Approval at any time should this operation violate these performance standards: 1- no one shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound in such a manner as to create a sound level which exceeds the limits set forth for the land use category as listed in Local Law No. 14 -1995. 2- there shall be no emission of any offensive odor discernible at the boundary of the site. 3- there shall be no storage of material, either indoors or out, in such a manner that it attracts or facilitates the breeding of vermin or endangers public health or the environment in any way. 4- that no more than 500 tons of food waste per year be processed at the facility. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Suwinski Two -lot Subdivision, 1454 Mecklenburg Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:53 p.m. Jan Suwinski, 451 Sheffield Road, statec Road with approximately 20 acres of land in 1 rented it for the last several years has fallen in I( Suwinski stated that he and his wife are willing 1.4 acres of land. There are no changes being no environmental issues. that he purchased the house at 1454 Mecklenburg )940 It is a rental property. The person who has ve with it and would like to purchase the house. Mr. o sell the house. It involves selling the house plus made to the property. To his knowledge, there are Chairperson Wilcox asked what he plans to do with the remainder of the parcel. Mr. Suwinski stated that the property adjoins his farm. He has taken hay off the land. He plans to keep it as farmland. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be a problem if Mr. Suwinski were to sell a little more of his property to the east to make sure that there was enough space between the house and the boundary. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Suwinski stated that it is a problem. The line to the east has been in existence for 44 years. They are not moving the line, but if the Planning Board approves this he needs to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals because there is less than 40 feet between the house and the east boundary line. There is also a problem from the other house to the line. It is about 40 feet. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the boundary line could not be moved without making the boundary line for the other house non - conforming. Mr. Suwinski stated that they would be fixing one situation, but creating another violation. Attorney Barney asked if they lived in the house to the east. Mr. Suwinski stated that they rented the house. Attorney Barney asked if the house to the east is 7 feet from the boundary line also. Mr. Suwinski stated that it is about 40 feet from the boundary line. Attorney Barney asked if there is some reason why they could not split the difference between the two houses. Mr. Suwinski stated that the boundary line has existed for 44 years. If the land were divided, then the house to the east would be in violation. Attorney Barney stated that either way he would have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Each house could add more area to their side yard. Mr. Suwinski stated that the two houses are two separate tax parcels. He was trying to create the minimal amount of change. The line is acceptable to the buyer. Mr. Kanter asked if both houses were present when the current lot boundary was created. Attorney Barney asked if he knew when the houses were constructed. Mr. Suwinski stated that the house that he is proposing to sell was built in the 1850s. The house to the east moved there after World War II. Attorney Barney asked if he owned the property at the time the house was moved there. Mr. Suwinski stated that he acquired the piece in question in 1994. They bought the house to the east in 1996. They own the land behind the houses. They wanted the additional land. He does not want to be in the real estate business. He could not buy the land without buying the houses. Attorney Barney asked if the north line is established with reference to the location of a pond. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Suwinski stated that there is a pond on the property that they are proposing to sell. Attorney Barney stated that the back line is an odd shape. Is this because of the topography or the pond? Mr. Suwinski stated that they wanted the back line to be far enough to the north so that it would include the pond. The pond goes at an angle. With the exception of the cut off corner, the remaining line to the north is the existing line. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not understand the concern. It is an existing condition. Attorney Barney stated that there is an opportunity to alleviate the condition. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this would make the two houses not conform, but the distance would be less. Board Member Ainslie stated that if everyone took care of the land in the countryside like Mr. Suwinski does, the countryside would look much better. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:02 p.m. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 =22.1, +/- 18.1 acres in area and located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road, into two lots, +1- -16.7 acres and +/- 1.4 acres in size respectively. Said parcel is located in the A& Agricultural District. Jan H. and Susan J. Suwinski, Owners; Mark Maser, Esq., Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on December 21, 1999, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Jan & Susan Suwinski Located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte. 79), Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York', dated November 11, 1999, prepared by T.G. Miller PC, Engineers and Surveyors, and other application materials. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Long Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, NAYS: None. ABSTENTION: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 =1 -22.1, 18.1 f acres in area and located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road (Rt. 79), into two lots, 16.7 f acres and 1.4 ± acres in size respectively, AG Agricultural District. Jan H. and Susan J. Suwinski, Owners/Applicants Mark Masler, Esq., Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:02 p.m., and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:04 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the materials indicate 1454 Mecklenburg Road. The map indicates 1456 Mecklenburg Road, Mr. Suwinski stated that the house has two units in it. The front unit is 1454 Mecklenburg Road and 1456 is the back unit. The tax parcel is 1454 Mecklenburg Road. The surveyor made an error. Attorney Barney stated that he is not sure why this needs to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals. If it does, it is on theory that it is an enlargement of a non - conforming use. If these properties have been this way prior to 1954, then it would be a valid non - conforming use. What was the boundary before? Mr. Suwinski stated that the house he is selling has existed since the 1850s. He does not know the history of the boundary. Attorney Barney stated that the resolution should be changed to "any required variances or special approvals" because if it is an enlargement of a non - conforming use, it is a special approval. Mr. Kanter stated that this is creating a new lot. It is creating a setback deficiency on the new lot that was not there before. This is the interpretation of the Director of Building and Zoning. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated that a new lot of 1.4 acres is being created. It has a setback deficiency from the east side. Is this a separate tax parcel? Mr. Suwinski stated that it was attached to the 18 acres that he is keeping. Attorney Barney stated that the new line is not a non - conforming line. The existing line is non= conforming. The theory is that a non - conforming use is being enlarged. It is localized on this lot. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 =1 -22.1, +/ 18.1 acres in area and located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road, into two lots, +1w16.7 acres and +/ 1.4 acres in size respectively. Said parcel is located in the AG- Agricultural District. Jan H. and Susan J. Suwinski, Owners; Mark Masler, Esq., Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval has, on December 21, 1999, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on December 21, 1999, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Jan & Susan Suwinski Located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte. 79), Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York ", dated November 11, 1999, prepared by T.G. Miller PC, Engineers and Surveyors, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. 20 That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 =22.1, +/ 18.1 acres in area and located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road, into two lots, +/-16.7 acres and +/- 1.4 acres in size respectively, subject to the following conditions: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED a. granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of any required variances or special approvals, prior to the signing of the approved survey maps by the Chairman of the Planning Board; ba the surveyor correcting the map to show the correct address of 1454 on the building on the 1.40 acre lot. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Summerhill Apartments Phase 2= Site Plan Modification, Summerhill Lane. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:12 p.m. Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road, stated that before it would not have been necessary for him to come before the board for the small square footage that they want to add to the buildings. As long as he had to come, he tried to encompass everything. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is not their intent to have applicants come before this board for minor issues. Unfortunately, there was a situation that required them to change the zoning. Mr. Kanter stated that the earlier thresholds would have triggered the accumulative total increases in square footage. Mr. Fabbroni stated that this project is mostly two -story buildings. Regulations require that all ground level units be handicap accessible. He was not aware of it at the time that they did site plan review. The building code was changed in 1995. If it were a four -story building, then only 25% of the units would need to be handicap accessible. The handicap requirements add one foot to the bathroom, one foot to the mechanical room. This resulted in the bedrooms being 9.5 feet. The builder felt that he could not do the project with 9.5 -foot bedrooms. They are asking to add three feet to the end units. The end units have three bedrooms. It adds three feet to the bedrooms and one foot to the middle two units. This would make the bedrooms over 12 foot. . One foot is added to Building 1. He had proposed moving this six unit building three feet to the north. This answers the question about the distance of the buildings from the sidewalk. On the drawing, a circle with arrows represents Building 2, one shows three feet to the north the other shows five feet to the east. They do not have a problem with tucking the sidewalk along the end porch in the relocated building to address the concerns of proximity to the wetland. They have some ideas above and beyond the buffer grasses that were approved. There would be a garden at the end of the building to keep people on the sidewalk and away from the wetland. There was some discussion PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE a 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED about Building 4 pinching off the parking lot. There is a one -foot change proposed. The one -foot shift is not going to compromise the parking area. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not understand what he is explaining. Mr. Fabbroni stated that in the write -up that Mr. Frantz provided the board there was confusion in terms of what they were proposing for this building. They were proposing to move the building three feet to the north and one foot is added to the largest dimension. The building is being set 16 feet off the line rather than the minimum 14 feet. It is the exact same size parking lot as approved. They would prefer to keep the parking lot 65 feet wide. It is on a slope and in winter conditions it would not work as well if it were narrower. Board Member Hoffmann stated that they were talking about Building 4, but now Building 1 and 2 are being referred to. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they are proposing to move Building 2 three feet to the north and five feet to the east. The five feet is to allow a walkway without going under the balconies. The reason to shift three feet to the north is that they are proposing to add one foot onto the larger section of the building. They would like to keep the building 16 feet off the line rather than the 15 -foot minimum. This will keep the parking area at the same dimensions. The overall proposal is to add one foot on the east portion of the building and three feet onto the building. It still gives us the visual break in the buildings. There was concern about the additional foot to Building 4 pinching off the parking lot. There is a 2.5 -foot sidewalk that comes out in that area. The building can be shifted without changing anything associated around it. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is a 2.5 -foot wide sidewalk to the east of the building. Mr. Fabbroni stated that when the building is shifted one foot to the east the sidewalk would be shortened. The parking lot will not be affected. Board Member Hoffmann stated that 1.5 foot for a sidewalk is not very big. Attorney Barney stated that it is not width, it is length. Mr. Fabbroni stated that there is more sidewalk underneath the covering than shown. Mr. Fabbroni stated that in his write -up he mentioned Building 9. It is Building 10 that they are looking to shift 10 feet to the north. This is shown on the drawing. They would like to shift the building 10 feet to the north to gain more separation between the driveway that is to the south and the building itself. The porches are tucked up against the driveway. This came about from the handicap accessibility requirements. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann asked what are the handicap accessibility requirements. As she understands it, the applicant would like to increase the bedroom size. How much would the size of the bedroom be increased? Mr. Fabbroni stated that they would be increased from 9.5 feet to 12.5 feet. Board Member Hoffmann asked what is the other dimension of the bedroom. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they are currently 9.5 feet by 13 feet. The 9.5 feet dimension is problematic. Some of the bedrooms are 9.5 feet by 13 feet and some are 9.5 feet by 11.5 feet. Board Member Hoffmann asked what is the problem with those dimensions as far as handicap accessibility. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it is a small bedroom. The handicap accessibility issue has to do with the adjacent bathroom. The bathroom needs to be one foot wider for handicap requirements. The mechanical room needs to be one foot wider to account for handicap adaptability. There are two feet being lost. Instead of having a bedroom that is 11.5 feet, it is 9.5 feet. Chairperson Wilcox stated that if they do not change the size of the buildings and the changes are made to make the apartments handicap accessible, the bedrooms are smaller. In order to avoid making the bedrooms smaller, the proposal is to increase the footprint of the buildings. Would the bedrooms be the same size as the bedrooms originally approved? Mr. Fabbroni responded yes. Attorney Barney stated that they are losing two feet, but adding three feet. Each dimension is one foot larger. Mr. Frantz stated that it in an increase of about 10 square feet per bedroom. Mr. Fabbroni stated that there needs to be a 40 -inch free space in the kitchen where normally it would be a 36 -inch free space. Board Member Conneman asked if a revised plan would be submitted. Mr. Kanter stated that it depends upon what the board asks for. The revised plan was submitted. There maybe other elements that may need to be adjusted. Board Member Thayer stated that he feels that he cannot vote on this issue. Mr. Jonson is a good customer of Thayer Appliance. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that there are regulations for handicap accessibility to the buildings. Does the law state that every unit on the ground floor be handicap accessible? Mr. Fabbroni responded that Board Member Hoffmann is correct. They thought that 25% of the total units was the requirement. They found that because of the two -story configuration, the ground level units need to be handicap accessible. It is 100% of the ground units. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the previously approved plan had 25% of the units handicap accessible. There are some units that are already handicap accessible. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the middle units on the ground floor are handicap accessible. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the bathrooms and mechanical rooms in those units were already planned to be wider. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they were not aware of all the requirements. They did not have the same problems in the middle units. The current proposal is handicap adaptable. Board Member Mitrano asked what size would the bedrooms be. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they would be 12 feet 7 1/4 inches. Board Member Mitrano asked if they are getting more room than the original proposal. Mr. Fabbroni responded yes. Board Member Mitrano stated that this is being done at the same time that they would be complying with handicap accessibility by law. Board Member Hoffmann stated that her main concern is the encroachment on the buffer zone from the environmental point of view. She is not inclined to approve the project as proposed by moving Building 2 five feet to the east and Building 10 ten feet to the north and extending Building 10 to the west into the buffer zone. She would like the applicant to think of another way of accomplishing what they would like to do. Board Member Mitrano asked what would be lost. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is a wetland area in the middle of the site that the board was very careful to protect. Part of the reason is that there is drainage from old farm fields to the east. They come across this property, down to the East Hill Plaza. Board Member Mitrano asked how large is the wetland. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it is 0.343 acres. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that part of the protection of the wetland was to have a buffer zone around it. It was not going to be interfered with. It was to have plants to protect it from encroachment. It was not to be mowed. This new proposal is encroaching even more. Board Member Mitrano asked what is the standard of a wetland. Mr. Frantz stated that they use the Federal criteria for the identification of wetlands. The presence of certain types of soil, plants, and water within 18- inches of the surface at least two weeks out of the year are the different criteria. The wetland has been delineated using the Federal criteria. In the original site plan, the buildings were kept out of the wetland and there was a 15 -foot wide buffer established around the wetland. This would be tall grass as opposed to lawn. Board Member Conneman stated that this is the area that they are moving into. Mr. Frantz stated that Building 10 is encroaching into the 15 -foot wide buffer by five feet. It is currently one to two feet inside the buffer area in some locations. The building will encroach about five feet if the building is shifted to the north. Board Member Mitrano asked if they are in any danger of any Federal violation. Chairperson Wilcox responded no. They are in the buffer zone, not in the wetland. Mr. Frantz stated that the walkway around Building 2 is proposed to be shifted. A simple realignment could be done to pull the walkway out of the buffer area. The issue is Building 10. Board Member Mitrano asked how much it could be minimized. Mr. Frantz stated that they could deal with Building 10 by not allowing them to shift it ten feet to the north. Board Member Mitrano asked Mr. Fabbroni what is his response. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he could live with it. He thought that it was an improvement in that the building would be pulled ten feet away from the driveway. The wetland is important to the drainage pattern. It is integral to the entire drainage pattern in the area. Board Member Ainslie stated the term wetland is a problem. People who do not understand what it is think that there is standing water. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is water there at some point. The reason it is important as a wetland is that it performs the function of gathering water. Board Member Ainslie stated that the wetland is not being walked on. There is still a buffer. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000-APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Conneman stated that the encroachment is on the buffer. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the buffer is not that great. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they could enhance the buffer where it was less than 15 -feet. A wild flower garden would make it obvious to people not to encroach on that area. Board Member Hoffmann asked how they would keep people from going into the area. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to hear the staff's comments on the proposal. Mr. Frantz stated that the encroachment on this wetland would not have any significant adverse environmental impact. This site is already disturbed. This area has been filled. There is loose brick and chunks of concrete scattered throughout the site. It is a very disturbed site. It is not a high quality wetland. This encroachment within the buffer area is not a significant adverse environmental impact. One of the reasons that there is a buffer around wetlands is to protect water quality. All the water flowing into the wetland has picked up a lot of chemicals. The buffer is not protecting a pristine wetland. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the function of the wetland is to filter out the impurities before it goes into the lakes and streams. Mr. Frantz stated that the encroachment into the buffer area would not adversely impact its function. Board Member Ainslie asked if there is active agricultural land above this area. Mr. Frantz responded yes. It is open farm field. Mr. Fabbroni stated that a great amount of the run -off from the field goes into Cascadilla Creek, Mr. Frantz stated that shifting Building 10 is not so much of an impact on the volume of water as the quality of the water. Board Member Mitrano stated that it would be more of a problem technically than it would be a reasonable duck standard. Would ten feet make a difference to a reasonable duck? Mr. Frantz responded no. Shifting the building ten feet is not going to make any difference. Board Member Mitrano stated that there are other opportunities from the duck's perspective. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frantz stated that there is a problem with a population explosion of water foul in urban areas. One of the attractions is the readily available food supply. Mr. Fabbroni stated that there is little or no standing water in this particular wetland. Chairperson Wilcox stated that during the two weeks it could be very wet. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Fabbroni stated that it was wet maybe two weeks of the year. Before, when she asked how to keep people from encroaching into the area it was mentioned that the area was wet. Mr. Fabbroni responded that when the water runs through it, it is a wet area. This is a waterway. Any kind of rain is going to make the area wet. It will be dry in the middle of the summer. He does not know how to keep people out of the area. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she thought that in the earlier approval there were ways of making sure this area was going to be protected. People and buildings were not going to be encroaching on the buffer area. Mr. Fabbroni stated that they are going to buffer the area with high grass. The first thing they did is encircle the wetland with a silt fence before they started excavation. He does not share her opinion. The proposal is not dramatically different from the original proposal. Board Member Hoffmann stated that on the Environmental Assessment Form, under 10, commercial should be marked. ' Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:50 p.m. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by James Ainslie, WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for site plan modifications to the previously approved Summerhill Apartments Phase 2, located at Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.127, Multiple Residence District. Said modifications include enlarging each building to accommodate twelve -foot bedrooms and handicapped requirements and two of the buildings would be shifted to accommodate the enlargement of the buildings and to provide more separation from the driveway. Ivar Jonson, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 3, The Planning Board, on December 21, 1999, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning Department, a drawing entitled "Summerhill Apartments Phase ll Site Plan', dated 12129198 and revised 5199 and 11199 prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S. and other application materials. 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The MOTION was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for modifications to the previously approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase 2, located at Summerhill Lane on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.127, MR Multiple Residence District. Said modifications include enlarging each building to accommodate larger bedrooms and handicap accessibility requirements, and shifting of the location of two buildings to accommodate the enlargement of the buildings and to provide more separation from the driveway. Ivar Jonson, Owner /Applicants Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:51 p.m., and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:52 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Building 2 is proposed to be moved five feet to the east. If the sidewalk is changed on the east end of Building 2, they can avoid encroachment upon the buffer of the wetland. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not see the need to do so. What is wrong with what was proposed in the original plan? Mr. Fabbroni stated that there is a cleaner access way between Buildings 2 and 3 from the parking lot. Before, someone would need to walk under the overhang and pass the ground units. This is the reason for shifting the building five feet to the east. The sidewalk around that end of the PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JUNE 6, 2000 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED building does help with overall circulation to that building, it is not necessary. The walkway could come between the two buildings. The circulation is better. He likes the idea of maximizing the distance from the wetland and keeping the sidewalk. Chairperson Wilcox stated that if there were not a sidewalk then there would be a muddy path. Mr. Frantz stated that it is better to have the sidewalk around the building. It can be fit between the building and the wetland buffer. There could be a low rail to prevent people from encroaching from the sidewalk. Chairperson Wilcox asked how many feet Building 10 would encroach on the buffer. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the building would be 11 to 12 feet from the wetland. Mr. Frantz stated that it would encroach about five feet into the buffer. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it is not an active side of the building. The bedrooms are on that side of the building. There is no external access in and out of the building from that side. Board Member Conneman stated that if the buffer goes from 15 feet to 10 feet, it is a big change. Chairperson Wilcox stated that this board liked the 15 -foot buffer around the wetland and liked the tall grasses. It acted as a hindrance to some extent. It will be a place for children to play. The board has been concerned about drainage in the area. If the buffer is 15 feet except in one place where it is 11 or 12 feet, he is not that uncomfortable. If it is compromised in such a way that it is 7 or 8 feet, then there is a concern. Board Member Conneman asked if they could require the buffer to be 10 feet. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board could require that the drawing be revised if necessary so that Building 10 encroaches no more than five feet into the 15 foot buffer at a maximum. Board Member Conneman stated that he would like it to state that the buffer is at least 10 feet. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has not heard a good reason to move the building other than the building is close to the driveway. That is the fault of the initial design. Mr. Fabbroni stated that it seemed liked an improvement. Board Member Mitrano stated that the idea is to move it away from the driveway because it would be better. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 61 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Ainslie asked if there is anything against fencing a wetland so that people cannot walk into it. Does it disturb anything? Mr. Frantz stated that there is nothing to stop them from fencing the wetland in. Board Member Ainslie asked if there are any in the Ithaca area. Mr. Frantz stated that Sapsucker Woods is fenced off. Mr. Kanter stated that if this were a pond and an attractive nuisance, then it might be appropriate. Mr. Frantz stated that it is not necessary. If the building is moved five feet, the encroachment is reduced. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is easier to move the building five feet from its original location. It can be put on a map and checked to see if it is correct. It is more difficult to say that the buffer shall always be at least 10 feet. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he does not have a problem making sure that the buffer is at least 10 feet. He has 53 points that identify the wetland shape. Attorney Barney stated that it assumes that there has been no change in the shape of the wetland. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is not happy to see a project come in like this and have request for changes. This project was not as thought out as it should have been from the beginning. They did not know how much space had to be allowed for handicap accessible apartments. It could have been known and planned for from the beginning. Some of the layout with the walkway to the west of Building 2 and Building 10 the applicant is not happy with. The sizes of the bedrooms could have been thought out. Attorney Barney stated that the ADA does not have concrete rules. There are different opinions. There are different interpretations. There is often a change between a concept design and a final schematic construction design. They did come back before the board before they made their changes. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there are many items that were to be submitted to the Town that were not submitted. The complete landscaping and planting schedule has not been received. Has the Director of Planning seen a plan? Mr. Kanter stated that he has seen the first phase, not the entire plan. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Conneman stated that it needs to be submitted before any building permits are issued. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it should become before this board. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it was not required. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the board prefers to see these things before final site plan approval. It should not be dumped on staff when it is the board's responsibility to decide and the responsibility of the applicant to provide it. Mr. Kanter stated that the board should have an opportunity to see them. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the board set the conditions and they met them. He does not know what the issue is. Mr. Fabbroni stated that Building 3 is under construction. It is where it was first proposed except for the three -foot addition to the bedrooms. He asks that the board allow progress to proceed on that. Attorney Barney stated that it could be addressed in the resolution. MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Tracy Mitrano, WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for site plan modifications to the previously approved Summerhill Apartments Phase 2, located at Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.127, Multiple Residence District. Said modifications include enlarging each building to accommodate twelve -foot bedrooms and handicapped requirements and two of the buildings would be shifted to accommodate the enlargement of the buildings and to provide more separation from the driveway. Ivar Jonson, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, did on December 21, 1999 make a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on July 6, 1999, did grant Final Site Plan Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project, and 4. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on December 21, 1999, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a drawing entitled "Summerhill Apartments PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Phase 11 Site Plan" dated 12129198 and revised 5199 and 11199 prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P. E., L.S., and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed site plan modifications to the previously approved Summerhill Apartments Phase 2, located at Summerhill Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.127, as shown on the drawing entitled, "Summerhill Apartments Phase 11 Site Plan" dated 12129198 and revised 5199 and 11199, prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and other application materials, subject to the following conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit or amended building permit for any building other than for building 3: a. compliance with all relevant conditions of the July 6, .1999 Planning Board resolution granting Final Site Plan Approval; be submission of a revised any necessary redesign lot east of Bldg. 4, inc, Planning Board on July eliminate encroachment the Director of Planning; drawing "Summerhill Apartments Phase 11 Site Plan" to show of the parking lot between Bldg. 1 and Bldg. 2 and the parking 'uding any redesign of the landscaping as approved by the 6, 1999, and realignment of the sidewalk east of Bldg. 2 to on the wetland buffer area, subject to review and approval by C, submission of a revised drawing to show the shift of building 10 no more than five feet to the north; do submission of construction details of all proposed improvements and detailed sizing and final material specifications of all improvements, including proposed water and sewer line connections; e. submission of an original or Mylar copy of the revised final site plan, as approved, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano. NAYS: Hoffmann. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The MOTION was declared to be carried. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan for the proposed Ithaca Estates Subdivision, which includes the initial subdivision of approximately 15 ± acres into 11 lots for the construction of 11 single - family houses, the associated dedication of 14.9 ± acres of land for a Town park which includes the possible substitution of a 1.8 t acre parcel that ;was intended to be dedicated to the Town as parkland, and concepts for the future development of additional lands including additional single - family lots, higher density housing, pos °sible additional commercial development, and a suggested road system to serve the future potential development, located on East King Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 43 =1 -3.2, 43 -1= 3.32, and 43 =1 -3.4, currently zoned R -30 Residence, R =9 Residence, MR Multiple Residence, and Business "C ". Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicants David W. Tessier, Landscape Architect, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:15 p.m. 'I David W. Tessier, Landscape Architect, stated that he lives in the Town of Pompeii, NY. He has been the chairman of the Planning Board and is currently the chair of the zoning Board of Appeals. He has represented many developers. The 11 -lot subdivision is where they would like to focus their efforts. In or to get to that point, they have to work with the entire site and the parkland. The phasing is added to the drawing. family project and he Mr. Monk me er has been Ion - standin member of the community. It is his ami o t a e a Y 9 9 Y „Yp 1 has been working on it for a long time. The drawing shows the 11 -lot subdivision in purple. Below that on East King Road there is Phase I and Phase II. The area in purple is Phase III. Phase I and Phase II were developed many years ago. At that time there was an agreement to provide some parkland to the Town. That never i I I happened. The parkland is something that the Montessori School is looking at 111purchas ng. t is much easier to convert vacant land to a school than to take parkland and try to undedicate it. When this occurred, it was part of a parcel that Mr. Monkemeyer, his father, and his sister owned. Mr. Monkemeyer has full ownership and control over the full 118 acres. He is presenting the sketch plan phase for the entire 118 acres. The area outlined in green is the future parkland. There are three tax map parcels that they are looking to subdivide in various ways. Phase III would be the 11 -lot subdivision. In the next phase, they would be looking to make formal subdivisions within this. There is a road proposed through the center of the project that would outline the parkland. The parkland calculation is shown on the drawings. It is being based on the full 118 acres. They are adding in the 1.7 acres that was committed several years ago. The total required is 13.5 acres. They are proposing 14.9 acres for the parkland. The general concept for the whole property is that the commercial area stays at the corner of Danby Road and King Road East. It does fit in with the Town's plan. They might 'want to expand on it at some point. Moving toward the east the parkland is in the middle. There is higher density clustered housing in the center. The lots in Phase III are large lots. The area is ''currently zoned R- 30. The subdivision is based on the minimum 30,000 square feet. The lots on the west and north PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED side are based on 30,000 square foot lots with the minimum frontage. It is difficult for the developer to build a road. Parkland is being given away on one side of the road. It does not leave an opportunity to receive income to help pay for the road. He is relying on developing lots on one side of the road only. One of the features of the entire development is the cul -de -sacs. They like the design and uniqueness of it. In the center of each cul -de -sac they propose a large landscaping mound. This would be the same for the three other cul -de -sacs shown. They would have their own unique landscaping. They will try to provide electricity to this area so that it can be used for holiday trees or other festive ideas. Mr. Tessier stated that the proposed conservation easement line is shown. It is being proposed and discussed. They know that there are sensitive wetlands and woodlands. They hope to take advantage to it. There is a progression from commercial, high- density residential, low density residential, to very large lot residential. It is a natural progression. There are many pieces to the project. Board Member Mitrano asked what currently occupies the land. Mr. Tessier responded that it is open field, abandoned farmland. King Road is to the bottom of the drawing. The major wetland is just off the drawing to the right. Mr. Kanter explained the general area around the site to the board. Board Member Mitrano asked if there are any other wetland issues. Mr. Tessier responded no. Board Member Ainslie stated that all wetlands are on Ithaca College property. Mr. Kanter responded no. There are some small pockets of wetlands on the corners of the future park area. In the packet, there was a wetland analysis that the Town contracted out a few years ago. There were some rare plants identified. There is a large wetland area to the north off the Monkemeyer property. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Cornell University owns the main part of the swamp. Ms. Ritter stated that wetland is 51 acres. Board Member Mitrano asked if the pond is in the wetland area. Mr. Kanter stated that the pond is not part of that wetland. Board Member Mitrano asked what are the environmental impacts. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Tessier stated that the swamp is at the high end of the hill. The Monkemeyer property is below the grade of it. The water run -off runs down onto the Monkemeyer property towards Danby Road. The swamp is 20 to 30 feet higher than the highest part of the Monkemeyer property. The wetlands on the Monkemeyer property are more identified by the plant species than the standing water. There might be standing water at a minimum two weeks out of the year. They are trying to take advantage of the higher ground on the Monkemeyer property because that is where the views are. They are the most desirable lots because they have the view of the north and the lake. This is the reason for the lot configuration. Some of the upper lots would be backed up into the woods. It would make desirable properties. Board Member Mitrano asked if there would be water problems on the lower properties. Mr. Tessier stated that they would need to contain the drainage so that '!it does not flood properties down hill. They have shown a couple of areas on the plan in addition to the pond that they would use for water retention areas. The wet basement areas should not be a problem because of the hillside. They should be able to work with it. Mr. Kanter stated that the applicant's engineers are doing a drainage study in regard to the 11 lot subdivision. Have they found anything at this point? Mr. Tessier stated that he does not think that they have found any problems. It does have contours on it. The most critical factor is the sewage and to make it work. The pond is being used as part of the storm drainage and they are sure it will work. It will flow quickly downhill. They will need to retain it. They will need to work with the pond to make sure that it has the "retaining capacity. There are drawings showing the profile of the road and they are continuing to make progress on that so they can be ready for a preliminary plan. Board Member Thayer asked if there would be underground utilities and natural gas availability. Mr. Tessier responded yes. Board Member Mitrano asked if Mr. Monkemeyer would be the lead developer. Mr. Tessier stated that he would be the developer. Once he receives subdivision approval, he may sell a few lots privately. He plans to develop and build each of the homes. Board Member Mitrano asked why the property has not been developed. Mr. Tessier stated that the land was farmed at some point. The mature forest has been farmed at some point. There is one large oak tree 4 to 5 feet in diameter, including the swamp, has been disturbed at some point. It has not been farmed in at least 50 years. There are young trees in the area. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 26 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano asked what about the rare plants. Mr. Tessier stated that they have been identified. It is the basis for the report. They are mainly within the parkland. Most of the plants are focused on the hedgerow that comes out of the woods. There are a couple of wet areas and most of the rare plants are located in the wet areas. Board Member Mitrano asked which parcel is Montessori School interested in Mr. Tessier responded that they are interested in the parcel that was to be' dedicated to the Town as parkland. Board Member Mitrano asked if there were previous commitments to the land. Mr. Tessier stated that a proposal was made and accepted for the p''arkland, but the agreement was never signed. Attorney Barney stated that it was dedicated and shown as parkland on the approved subdivision. The Town has been waiting for the deed to come in from the developer. Since then, there have been discussions with the developer about exchanging that piece for a much large piece. Technically, there would be litigation if the piece were sold to anyone else until it wars changed. Mr. Kanter stated that different iterations of this sketch plan and of the proposed park area have been through the Planning Board and Town Board, In 1997, the Town Board accepted the concept of substituting the parkland if the larger park area worked out. The Planning Board gave preliminary subdivision approval to three pieces. The main difference in the proposed park area is that the northern most piece has been increased. It would give the Town more flexibility and room to do things. Sufficient room on the north and south side would enable them to preserve the hedgerow and more sensitive areas. On this proposal, the triangular piece was reduced from 5.07 acres to 4.79 acres. It appears that the road shifted to the left reducing the boundary line of the park. It would not be acceptable. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the other hill is known as the sled hill. Board Member Mitrano asked why was it cut into. Mr. Tessier stated it was to make the road bigger and it made the triangle smaller. He has taken another look at it. It is easy to expand the circle slightly and move the angle to the east to gain the space back. Board Member Mitrano asked if the drainage and sewage would be adequate. Mr. Kanter responded that the 11 =lot subdivision would need to be looked at first. The larger ii future development would need to be looked at later. Drainage has been identified as the greater concern. The sewer and water have sufficient capacities. The lines are there. It is a matter of sizing PLANNING BOARD PAGE 27 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED and locating them correcting. Drainage has been seen as a potential problem that needs to be addressed in the whole area. It needs to be addressed with the park as well. To put in any active play fields, it will require significant re- grading of land in certain areas. It will be something that needs to be looked at in more detail. Mr. Walker and Mr. Noteboom have looked at it. Some of the Planning Board members have been out to walk the site. Most of the Conservatio0 Board members have walked the site. The majority feels comfortable that while it will take some serious looking at, it is doable. Drainage improvements could be expensive in some areas. Board Member Mitrano asked how the bicycle trails and walkways fit into the site. Mr. Kanter stated that the idea of doing a large community park originated from the Parks and Open Space Plan. The community park for South Hill is shown in the middle of the properties being discussed. A need was identified with the South Hill development. The Town does not have any community area wide parks at this time. A system of trails was also identified in the Parks and Open Space Plan. The trails would help link the residential areas with the proposed Community Park. There has been some thought to connecting the trail to the park. Rather than going through the natural areas, it would be more appropriate to come closer to East King Road and work its way up the road system that was developed. Board Member Mitrano asked if the trail system is already planned. Mr. Kanter stated that there could be some improvements for the bicycle trail. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the plan would not be changed, but the concept shown would be changed. Mr. Kanter stated that the concepts would remain the same. Ithaca College has indicated an interest in being connected with the trail at the South Hill Recreation Way. Mr. Tessier stated that the trails and the park are a feature of this entire development. He has spent 23 years working for the City of Syracuse and the Park and Recreation Department. He is very sensitive to parks and design. It is difficult to put a park in after the houses are built. There is an opportunity to do both together. Even if the park is not developed until the houses; are in, it is known that there is going to be a park. People are going to buy a house knowing a park is there. A lot of people do like the feature. The park is across the road. The high- density cluster will be below the park. The park should not be an impact on residences; it should be a positive addition. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Nancy Ostman and Robert Wesley delivered a letter to her house. She has given it to the board for their review. It is based on the studies that they have done in the proposed Conservation Zones. They have provided a map of the rare plants that are being discussed. Their letter is based on the altered plan with the road layout. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 28 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that they have identified specific plant locations. The letter is mainly a repeat of memos and information that they have previously provided. They were the ones who did the rare plant studies in the area, which lead to the Conservation Board's work. Board Member Mitrano asked what is the Town going to get out of it. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town would receive 15 -acres of neighborhood parkland. A few years ago when Mr. Monkemeyer came in with an earlier sketch plan the board was very interested in the different possibilities for future development on all parts of the property. He is showing the possibilities. Board Member Mitrano asked if this land is separate from the previous park location. Mr. Kanter stated that if it all works out, the land would be released and the', developer would be able to sell the land. It would be helpful for the board to give an opinion on some of the future subdivisions shown on the east portion of the ring road. The applicants have shown a 60 -foot wide buffer between the development and the natural area. The Conservation Board has discussed the proposed buffer. Eight lots have been proposed on the site plan. It looks more realistic to have six lots. Following the width requirement of the R -30 zone, about 7 of 8 lots would not be conforming. Mr. Tessier stated that he has taken another look at it and it does look like six lots should be in that location. Mr. Kanter stated that the ring road becomes important and it raises the question of how much development should go into the area. Some of the more sensitive parts of the site are in the upper area. The number of lots and how they are configured is very important. Board Member Ainslie stated that two years ago he asked Mr. Frantz what it took to maintain the parks that the Town had. Two years ago, it took four full time men. It is nice to have more parks, but there is a cost to the Town. They come free from the developer, but it does'' cost the Town to maintain them. Mr. Kanter stated that the Park and Open Space Plan does talk about that. It gives some estimates over the next 20 years of what would be involved. This will be a significant investment of future maintenance, staff and construction. There is a significant cost for this type of facility. Playing fields in this location would require significant grading and drainage improvements The Town Board has made a commitment over the long range that it is an important priority for the Town. Board Member Ainslie stated that there is a park behind Old Hundred that has not been established yet. There is a lot of land that has not been developed. Mr. Kanter stated that this park is near a large population. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 29 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JUNE 612000 ball -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Ms. Ritter stated that the Conservation Board is very concerned about the effects to the South Hill Swamp area because of the rare and endangered plant species. The Conservation Board did do a report on that area. The 11 -lot subdivision is next to an important, rare plant comm „unity. Board Member Ainslie stated that the Town be some areas where there cannot be a ball field. would not get 14 -acres of park. There is going to Ms. Ritter stated that she is referring to the South Hill Swamp Unique Natural Area. Board Member Ainslie asked what about the plants in the dedicated area. Ms. Ritter responded that they have been identified as some rare plant species. They are also important. There does need to be some concern for the plant species. Mr. Kanter stated that the intent was not to clear the entire 15 -acre parkland !'and pave it over. There will be some acreage left in its natural state. Ms. Ritter stated that there is an interesting mosaic of plant species in the swamp area. Tompkins County Environmental Management Council has determined it to be a unique natural area. There are wet species in the center of the swamp. As you move out, it gets very dry. In the drier area, there are rare bird species. It is one of the most important unique natural areas of the Town. Board Member Mitrano asked how this area would be affected by the project. Ms. Ritter stated that there is concern about the area in green. It is the pine barren type of habitat. Then there is the wetland area. There is an unusual change of plant species. There is concern about protecting this area because it is located in the area of the' proposed 11 -lot subdivision. Board Member Mitrano asked if this were a 9 or 10 -lot subdivision would it make a difference. Ms. Ritter stated that the Conservation Board is asking for a minimum buffer. It is hard to protect plant species. You want to make sure that exotic species are not introduced. You want to make sure that pets do not run loose in the area. Encroachment of development will have impacts. The buffer is the best way to minimize the impacts. The Conservation Board is asking for a minimum 100 -foot buffer. Sixty feet of the buffer would be no disturbance. Forty feet would be no build. Board Member Mitrano asked how that would affect Mr. Monkemeyer's property. Ms. Ritter stated that they are asking for the proposed buffer to be expanded. The lots are inconsistent with the conservation district. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the line shown on the drawing is the 100 -foot buffer. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 30 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that they are looking at the road that would serve future development on the site. They are looking at the proposed park area in the middle of the property and a reasonable number of lots around the road. It makes sense that the other area should be designated as a future development area. It recognizes the fact that the development needs to be separated from the adjacent natural areas. This plan helps recognize the significant natural features 'that need to be preserved. The line indicates that the future development needs to be as close to the ring road as possible. It helps to formulate the distance of the buffer. Board Member Mitrano asked if this has been discussed with Mr. Tessier. Mr. Kanter responded that they have not discussed the red line. The other aspects have been discussed. They have been talking about the need for establishing a buffer area. Mr. Tessier responded that they have proposed a 60 -foot buffer that is no build and includes 30 -feet of native trees and shrubs. Views are important to the value of the lots. The further away from the boundary they are, the further down the hill they are. They are trying to get as close to the boundary as they can to get as high as they can. In order to pay for the road, they iineed to sell a lot of lots. Six or eight lots on one side is not going to pay for the road. No developer can afford it. Board Member Mitrano asked if the board decided to hold fast on the red line, would they be inclined to compromise on the parkland. Mr. Tessier stated that it may provide for more building lots. Mr. Kanter stated that the sketch plan is showing future commercial area zoned R -30 now, showing high density zoned 19-30 now. He has asked the applicant to think about isome exchanges with the locations of the high and low density. When dealing with an overall development scheme, it can be thought out. He appreciates the applicant showing the future ideas. It will!i help the Town in determining what is best for the area. Board Member Mitrano asked if they would be willing to discuss the trade off:' Mr. Tessier stated that they would be willing to discuss it. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there was a proposal to have the park; in an oval shape. Mr. Monkemeyer came back with a different layout because he wanted to keep a portion of land for development. If they were to approve higher density housing, it might offset losing some of the land in the corner that is in the proposed conservation district. Mr. Tessier stated that the square line has been drawn to wrap the parkland around where they would like to see high density residential. There is a hedgerow and a steep drop -off in that area. It would be expensive for the Town to build a ball field across the line. Board Member Mitrano asked if this is intended to be sold for development. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 31 DECEMBER 219 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Tessier responded yes. It is intended to be sold for high- density apartments, condominiums. Instead of 15 lots on the upper corner and having 7 or 8, the 7 or 8 lots could be brought down to the other area. It could be an equal trade off. It is a different kind of unit. It is single family houses versus apartments. The developer has to think about what is more marketable. Single family housing in the upper area is the most marketable thing to propose. They are not sure about apartments and condominiums. There are a lot of them around. It just cannot be decided. Board Member Mitrano asked if they are planning to develop the area as student housing. Mr. Tessier responded no. Mr. Monkemeyer has a lot of apartments that are professors and staff. They have talked about having Phillips Way as a fraternity row. It is close to College Circle Apartments. Mr. Kanter stated that there are two cul -de -sacs that come off the road that would be necessary to serve that number of lots. If the number was reduced to 7 or 8 lots having direct access off the ring road then you can eliminate the cukde -sacs and the extension of sewer and water. Costs are being reduced for development. Chairperson Wilcox stated the last time Mr. Monkemeyer was before the ;;board there was issues of ownership with his family. He now owns all the property. Board Member Ainslie asked if anything has happened on the Walter Wiggins property. Mr. Kanter responded no. Board Member Mitrano asked who owns the property across from Big AI's. Mr. Kanter stated that David Auble owns it. Board Member Mitrano asked what was happening with fraternity row. Mr. Tessier responded that the college might not even like the idea. They have not explored it yet. The apartments on Danby Road are groups of 8 people. Mr. Kanter stated that in the proposed conservation zone that they would only be able to get 3 lots. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there was a consensus on how wide the buffer should be. The developer has proposed 60 and the Conservation Board would like to see 100 feet. Board Member Mitrano stated that she would like to discuss it again. Her first instinct is to go with the Conservation Board recommendation. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 32 DECEMBER 217 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that this is something that needs to be thought about. The board should re -read the South Hill report and see the reasons why the conservation district is proposed. 0 Board Member Mitrano stated that she would like to see both plans. Board Member Conneman stated that 90 feet might make a lot of sense and allow an extra lot. Chairperso n Wilcox sta ted that if the board would only like 3 lots in the are,. a, the developer would need to re -look at the economics. Mr. Tessier stated that the wooded lots are just as valuable as the view lots. Mr. Kanter stated that Phase III is the nearest part of the natural area. Mr. Tessier stated that there is also the possibility of fences. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board would like to give approval to the %subdivision and a concept for the rest of the property that gets the Town the parkland now. They would like the parkland and the road build. Mr. Kanter stated that the road would not be built at once. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Mr. Monkemeyer is going to want some assurances that he is able to do the future development. The board cannot commit to the future. There needs to be an understanding the allows the developer to proceed, protects the conservation zones, limits the building lots in the northeast corner and gets the Town the parkland. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Phase I and Phase II subdivision occurred. Land was set aside and the Town never received it. He is not inclined to allow Phase III to proceed without getting some land. Attorney Barney stated that a condition of any subdivision would be that before any building permits are issued the conveyance of the land needs to occur. Mr. Tessier stated that the parkland relates to the entire development. The first priority is the 11 =lot subdivision. The next priority is the commercial area. Thirdly the 8 or 6 lots. Fourthly the upper right hand corner. Depending upon the response from Ithaca College, that section might move sooner or later. plans. Mr. Kanter stated that they would need a drainage report, an analysis for;;utility and grading Mr. Tessier stated that they are working on the plans. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 33 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED -JUNE 6, 2000 -APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that this was a chance for the board to interact with the developer. When and if they come back, there will be a public hearing. Attorney Barney stated that the park space needs to be part of the 11 -lot subdivision plat. Board Member Ainslie asked if the developer needs to come back in if they want to sell the previous parkland to Montessori School, Chairperson Wilcox responded yes. It is shown on an approved subdivision'ito be dedicated to the Town as parkland. He does not have the right to sell it. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town has agreed to release it if the Town receives the land for the larger park. He is pleased with the current park figuration. It gives the Town flexibility. It is a large area. The fields would fit well. The potential is there for active recreation fields. Mr. Tessier stated that they do intend on including a trail along the road throughout the development. Mr. Kanter stated an earlier version of the concept plan for the park showed the possibility of the trail. It would help with connectivity. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 10:46 p.m. Board Member Mitrano asked what is going on with the property across from Big AI's. Mr. Kanter stated that the property is for sale. Board Member Mitrano asked what is it zoned and why does it not sell. Mr. Kanter stated that it is zoned commercial. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Mr. Auble probably overpaid for it and is having a hard time selling it. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of approval of Planning Board schedule for 2000. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does adopt the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 2000. Unless otherwise notified, all meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday, commencing at 7.•30 p.m. FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH PLANNING BOARD PAGE 34 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 6, 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED January 4, 2000 January 18, 2000 February 1, 2000 February 15, 2000 March 7, 2000 March 21, 2000 April 4, 2000 April 18, 2000 May 2, 2000 May 16, 2000 June 6, 2000 June 20, 2000 -- ---- -- July 18, 2000 August 1, 2000 August 15, 2000 September 5, 2000 September 19, 2000 October 3, 2000 October 17, 2000 November 7, 2000 November 21, 2000 December 5, 2000 December 19, 2000 AYE - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer. NAY -None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of nomination of Chair of Planning recommendation to the Town Board. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Larry Thayer. Board for 2000 as a RESOLVED, that this board recommends to the Town Board that Fred Wilcox be appointed chair for the year 2000. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None, ABSTAIN: Wilcox. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 35 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 61 2000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - ° PPROVED The MOTION was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Board Member Ainslie stated that he has read through the minutes and they make complete sense compared to what is said at the meetings. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the September 7, 1999 as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting !as presented with grammatical corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES. Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, NAYS: NONE. ABSTENTION: NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the September 21, 1999 as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with grammatical corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: NONE. ABSTENTION: NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the ,° ctober 5, 1999 as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with grammatical corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 36 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: NONE. ABSTENTION: NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the November 2, 1999 as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with grammatical corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, NAYS: NONE. ABSTENTION: NONE, The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the November 16, 1999 as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting'as presented with grammatical corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: NONE. ABSTENTION: NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he has given to the board a letter to Dan Walker from John Clancy. It gives some background on the controversial proposed City dumpsite in the Town of Ithaca near the Town of Newfield, Town of Enfield border and near the State Park. Does this need to come to the Planning Board? Did the City willingly or unwillingly not abide by appropriate municipal law? I PLANNING BOARD PAGE 37 DECEMBER 21, 1999 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 612000 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that the fill permit requirements would necessitate it coming to the Town for approval. As far as he knows, no application has been submitted. The road was cut through in Newfield. Newfield does not have zoning or site plan review. There is a question as to how many disturbances have happened in the Town portion. There are additional landfill areas adjacent to it owned by a private owner. Attorney Barney stated that the Mayor has assured the Town that he will comply with the requirements. Mr. Kanter stated that if they do need to come in for a fill permit it would need to come to the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board has had some difficult projects and some easy projects. Board Member Mitrano asked what is going to happen with Cornell University, Chairperson Wilcox stated that there would be site plan review January 4, 2000, Board Member Thayer stated that the board needs to vote. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the There needs to be another public hearing, same information again. He would like to change. Hopefully the board can remem member may or may not vote. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: board has held public hearings, had board deliberations. He hopes that the board does not needi to sit through the hear what is new and different as a result of the zoning ber the deliberations that the board has had. The new Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the December 21, 1999; Meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Prepared by: VJ������ Carrie L. Coates, Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder 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 21, 1999 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard(no more than five minutes). 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination,Ithaca College Compost Facility—Site Plan Modification,953 Danby Road. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for modifications to the previously approved site plan for the Ithaca College Compost Facility,located at 953 Danby Road,Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.41-1-11,Residence District R-15. Said modifications include reducing the sizes of the compost building,control room and concrete pad from what was previously approved. Ithaca College,Owner/Applicant;Bruce A.Hatch,Agent. 7:55 P.M. SEQR Determination,Suwinski Two-lot Subdivision, 1454 Mecklenburg Road. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.27-1-22.1, 18.1 +/-acres in area and located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road(Rt.79),into two lots, 16.7+/-acres and 1.4+/-acres in size respectively,AG Agricultural District. Jan H.and Susan J. Suwinski,Owners/Applicant;Mark Masler,Esq.,Agent. 8:15 P.M. SEQR Determination,Summerhill Apartments Phase 2—Site Plan Modification,Summerhill Lane. 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for modifications to the previously approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase 2,located at Summerhill Lane on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.62-2-1.127,MR Multiple Residence District. Said modifications include enlarging each building to accommodate larger bedrooms and handicap accessibility requirements,and shifting of the location of two buildings to accommodate the enlargement of the buildings and to provide more separation from the driveway. Ivar Jonson,Owner/Applicant;Lawrence P.Fabbroni,P.E.,Agent. 8:35 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed Ithaca Estates Subdivision,which includes the initial subdivision of approximately 15+/-acres into 11 lots for the construction of 11 single-family houses,the associated dedication of 14.9+/-acres of land for a Town park which includes the possible substitution of a 1.8+/-acre parcel that was intended to be dedicated to the Town as parkland,and concepts for the future development of additional lands including additional single-family lots,higher density housing,possible additional commercial development,and a suggested road system to serve the future potential development, located on East King Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's.43-1-3.2,43-1-3.32,and 43-1-3.4,currently zoned R-30 Residence,R-9 Residence,MR Multiple Residence,and Business"C". Evan N.Monkemeyer, Owner/Applicant;David W.Tessier,Landscape Architect,Agent. 9. Consideration of approval of Planning Board schedule for 2000. 10. Consideration of nomination of Chair of Planning Board for 2000 as a recommendation to the Town Board. 11. Persons to be heard(continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 12. Approval of Minutes: Sept.7, 1999,Oct.5, 1999,Nov.2, 1999,Nov. 16, 1999(Distributed at Dec.7, 1999 meeting); Sept.21, 1999(in packet) 13. Other Business. 14. 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 PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday,December 21, 1999 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, December 21, 1999, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y.,at the following times and on the following matters: 7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for modifications to the previously approved site plan for the Ithaca College Compost Facility, located at 953 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-11, Residence District R-15. Said modifications include reducing the sizes of the compost building, control room and concrete pad from what was previously approved. Ithaca College, Owner/Applicant; Bruce A. Hatch, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-22.1, 18.1 +/- acres in area and located at 1454 Mecklenburg Road (Rt. 79), into two lots, 16.7 +/- acres and 1.4 +/- acres in size respectively, AG Agricultural District. Jan H. and Susan J. Suwinski, Owners/Applicant;Mark Masler, Esq.,Agent. 8:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for modifications to the previously approved site plan for Summerhill Apartments Phase 2, located at Summerhill Lane on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-1.127, MR Multiple Residence District. Said modifications include enlarging each building to accommodate larger bedrooms and handicap accessibility requirements, and shifting of the location of two buildings to accommodate the enlargement of the buildings an to provide more separation from the driveway. Ivar Jonson, Owner/Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni,P.E., Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated:Monday,December 13, 1999 Publish:Wednesday,December 15, 1999 ( r The Ithaca Journal Wednesday, December 15, 1999 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday December 21, 1999 BCdirection of the arrperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesdoy, December 21, 1999 of 126 E. Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at the following times In the fol Jawing P.M.manner: 7:40 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Non Approval for mo&fica- tions to the previouslyy op proved site plan'{ar rhe Itkaca Caliege Compost Facility, 10- rate o-cared at 953 Danby Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel` No 41.1-11 Residence Dis- trict R-15. Said modilicotiongt include reducing the sizes of the compost building, contra roam and concrete pad from what was previously ap- proved. Ithaco College, Owner/Applicant; Bruce A. Hatch, Aggent. 8 00 P.M Consideration of Preliminary and Final Sub- division Approval for the pro- rased subd'+vision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 27.1-22.2, 18.1± acres in area and located at 1454 Mecklenburg Rood (Rt. 79), in two lots, 16.7±acres and 1.4+ acres in size respec- tively. AG Agricullurol Dis- trict. Jan H. and Susan J. Suwinski, Owners/ Applicant; Mark Masler, Esq Aggeent. 8:20 P.h1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for modifica- tions to the previously ap- proved site plan fat Sum- merhill Apartments Phase 2, located at Summerhill Lane on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.62.2.1.127,MR Multiple Residence District.Said modi- fications include enlarging each building to accom- modate larger bedrooms and handicap accessibilTty requirements, and shifting of the location of two buildings to accommodate the enlargement of the buildings and to provide more separation from the driveway. #var Janson, Owner/Applicant; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E. Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times andsaid place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by a int or in person Individuals with visual impair- ments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter AtC P Director of Pfannip 273-1747 December 15, 1999 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD ATTENDANCE SHEET DATE: DECEMBER 21 1999 PLEASE PRINTYQUR NAME PLEASE PRINTAD1)RE55/AFFILIATI0N (Please PRINT to ensure accuracy in official minutes.) Md 7D S 2-Trow f2f3fefw(fm <-4a/,ef7& 7lr ,& U CL "r [4 1AV-ULA / � �-- ,, ' U tQ U12 . .T4EFnJ `f N `M, 4) G 3 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist 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 Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, December 21, 1999 commencing at 7:30 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Bulletin Board, Front& Entrance of Town Hall. Date of Posting : December 13, 1999 Date of Publication: December 15, 1999 Qc�c Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of December 1999. Notary Public JOAN LENT NOTEBOOM 14 tsry Pubkc. State of New York Residing in Tc.Tckins County Reg. No. 4994047 My COMMissior. Exc+res March 30 (kVQ