Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2001-05-15TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MAY 159 2001 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 15, 2001, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (excused @ 8:37 p.m); Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jon Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Town Planner; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Greg Halkiopoulos, East Side Restaurant; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Lisa Thompson, West Hill resident; Martha Armstrong, 766 Elm Street Extension; Bill Goodman, 108 Montrose Ave Buffalo; Melissa Hunt, 119 Farm Street; Stacey Crawford, Better Housing: Bruce M. John, Better Housing. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:33 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 May 7, 2001, and May 9, 2001, 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 May 9, 2001. (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 of the meeting at 7:34 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Modification of Condition "2.a" of the Planning Board's Resolution of Subdivision Approval granted August 22, 2000, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18, Residence District R -30. Said condition required the consolidation of the 45.141 acre parcel, that was subdivided off Tax Parcel no. 35 -1 -18, with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35- 1 -5.2, within six months from the approval date. The applicant is requesting a one -year extension of the condition. Sally A. Cortright, Owner; NYS Office of Parks - Finger Lakes Region, Applicant; Sue A. Poelvoorde, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. PLANNING B &A ttl ' .:- -, PAGE 2 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - There is no SEQR determination because this is considered an administrative action. Board Member Hoffmann - I hope that they are able to go ahead with the project. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -35 - Modification of Condition 2(a) of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18, 653 Elmira Road. MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Modification of Condition 2(a) of the Planning Board's Resolution for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18 on Elmira Road (divided into a 45.141 and a 2.617 acre parcels), granted on August 22, 2000, Business District "C" and R -30 Residential District. Said condition required consolidation of the 45.141 acre parcel with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.6 within six months. Sally A. Cortright, Owner; NYS Office of Parks - Finger Lakes Region, Applicant; Sue A. Poelvoorde, Agent, and 2. The Planning Board, in granting Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18 on August 22, 2000 imposed certain conditions of approval, including Condition 2(a) that "Within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 45.141 acre parcel (Parcel B) with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -5.2 (currently owned by Mancini Realty, but proposed for acquisition by N.Y. S. Parks), and submission to the Town of Ithaca of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Office for consolidation of said parcels ", and 3. The applicant has submitted a request asking that the Planning Board provide an extension on the consolidation requirement, and has suggested that the time period for consolidation be extended to May 15, 2002, and 4. 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 August 22, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 15, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a letter requesting said modifications from Sue A. Poelvoorde, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval 2000, to extend the necessary time period subdivision with adjacent Tax Parcel No. conditions: hereby grants modification of Condition 2(a) of for Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -18, granted August 22, to consolidate the 45.141 acres of the Cortright 35 -1 -5.2 to one year, subject to the following PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED a. Within one year of this approval, consolidation of the 45.141 acre parcel (Parcel B) with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -5.2 , and submission to the Town of Ithaca of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Office for consolidation of said parcels, and b. Submission for signing by the Chair of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark line prints, prior to filing with Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and C, Submission to the Attorney for the Town of the proposed deed for Parcel B for approval and confirmation of the description of the easement granting access (Parcel B). The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MAY 1, 2001. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -36 - Approval of Minutes: MaV 1, 2001. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the May 1, 2001 as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: NONE. ABSTAIN: Mitrano, The MOTION was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: SEOR Determination, East Side Restaurant, 335 Pine Tree Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:39 p.m. Greg Halkiopoulos, East Side Restaurant - I am asking the board for permission to allow outdoor dining. Last year I received approval for only one year. I would like a permanent permit to allow outdoor seating. Board Member Hoffmann - Mr. Halkiopoulos mentioned in his letter to the board that the hours of operation would be 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. The hours of operation for PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Sunday are 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. from May 1 to the end of September. Our resolution mentions the hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Mr. Halkiopoulos - The hours of operation are 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann - It is very nice to have the outdoor seating. Mr. Kanter - How successful has the outdoor seating been? Mr. Halkiopoulos - The maximum number of people that we seat outside is between persons. We try to stay under the 30 persons permitted. People enjoy the outdoor seating not had any problems. Mr. Kanter - Have there been any complaints about traffic or parking? Mr. Halkiopoulos - No. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:44 p.m. 20 and 25 . We have RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -37 - SEQR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, East Side Restaurant, 335 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed East Side Restaurant outdoor seating area, consisting of approximately 30 chairs and 10 tables, located in the East Hill Plaza, 335 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.121, Business District "C," Greg Halkiopoulis, Owner /Applicant, 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 3. The Planning Board, on May 15, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Planning staff, a site plan entitled, "SP102- Outdoor Table Set Up, East Side Restaurant," prepared by Downing Barradas Architects, 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: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 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. Therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed outdoor seating area to consist of approximately 30 chairs and 10 tables at the East Side Restaurant located in the East Hill Plaza, 335 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C ". The tables and chairs will be brought out from the inside the restaurant during business hours and will not increase the seating capacity of the restaurant. Greg Halkiopoulos, Owner /Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. RESOLUTION NO 2001 -38 - East Side Restaurant, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, 335 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121. MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed East Side Restaurant outdoor seating area, consisting of approximately 30 chairs and 10 tables, located in the East Hill Plaza, 335 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C," Greg Halkiopoulis, Owner /Applicant, 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, has, on May 15, 2001, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 15, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a site plan entitled "SP 102 - Outdoor Table Set Up, East Side Restaurant," dated May 12, 2000, prepared by Downing Barradas Architects, and additional application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 MAY 152 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 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 use of outdoor tables and chairs as shown on the submitted site plan entitled "SP102- Outdoor Table Set Up, East Side Restaurant," subject to the following condition: a. That the hours during which tables and chairs can be placed outdoors be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Mondays through Saturdays, and 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Sundays. b. That the outdoor seating be limited to the period between May 1 and September 30 of each year. C. That there be no change in overall seating capacity. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Italian Carry= Out located on Danby Road, north of the intersection of Danby Road and West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -16.1, Business District "C ". the proposal includes the construction of a 1,024 ± square foot building, 14 parking spaces and associated drives, and related lighting and landscaping. Joseph M. Salino and Todd M. McGrill, Owners /Applicants; Thomas M. Schickel, Schickel Architecture, Agent. Thomas Schickel, 330 East State Street - There were a number of issues that were mandated to be addressed for Final Site Plan review. I believe that we have met all the requirements. The basic site plan is the same. We have the same number of parking spaces. We have added sugar maple trees to the site. Mr. Monkemeyer owns the property behind the site. There is a supporting letter from Mr. Monkemeyer. He likes the idea of a landscaped screening. We have also added blue spruce trees. The trees provide adequate screening. The packet contained more definition on the site lighting. It is a conventional box light with a low cut- off and an 18 foot height. There is one light pole in the back of the building and two in the front of the building. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 MAY 159 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The contour plan submitted is identical to the previous plan. The exterior of the building will combine a band of brick and a band of coral colored block. The intent is not to decorate the building as much as to create a texture. The wall sign has been lengthened. The idea is that the sign becomes part of the building. The height of the letters has remained the same. The road sign is a nice coloration and interpretation of the north elevation. The sign is reasonably sized. It will be manufactured with an internally lit sign. The letters of the wall sign will be more closely together than what is represented on the plan submitted to the board this evening. Board Member Hoffmann - Will the size of each letter be made thicker since the letters are spread so far apart? Mr. Schickel - I was not expecting the board to interpret the drawing as a perfect representation of the sign. Chairperson Wilcox - Town staff will make sure what is developed matches the plans on file. It includes the number of trees planted. Mr. Schickel - We can resubmit a drawing of the sign. Board Member Hoffmann - The walls of the building will be brick and the roof will be red. Brick colors can vary. Will the color of the brick be coordinated with the color of the roof? Mr. Schickel - Yes. Board Member Hoffmann - The concealed lighting over the sign facing the road might be okay as long as it is not too strong and as long as it does not light up the entire roof. Mr. Schickel - The intent would be to focus the light on the sign. The purpose of the light is not to light up the roof. There may be some residual light that will fall on the roof. Board Member Hoffmann - Is the metal roof going to be reflective? Mr. Schickel - It might be a little reflective. It is not going to be like the new McDonalds on Triphammer Road where they have lights blasting out of the roof intentionally. It would be directional at the sign. Mr. Talty - Can the freestanding sign be seen from both directions? Mr. Schickel - The sign will be seen from both directions. Board Member Hoffmann - The board received a hand -out showing the light fixtures. Which of the fixtures will be used? One has a drop lens and the other has a flush lens. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Schickel - The preference would be to use the drop lens. The poles are only 18 feet high. It would give a slightly better distribution of light through the parking lot. They are considered low cut- offs in the industry. Board Member Hoffmann - The gas station near this property uses drop lenses with its lights. Mr. Schickel - The lower the light is the less problematic it is. Board Member Mitrano - The gas station is much higher than this property. Mr. Kanter - The lights at the gas station are more intense than what is proposed for this site. Chairperson Wilcox - The board does not have a final drawing for the wall sign. Is the board comfortable with a condition requiring the updated drawing be submitted to the Town? The board agreed with the condition. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -39 - Final Site Plan Approval, Italian Carry -Out, Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -16.1. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Italian Carry-Out located on Danby Road, north of the intersection of Danby Road and West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -16.1, Business District "C." The proposal includes the construction of a 1,024 + 1- square foot building, 14 parking spaces and associated drives, and related lighting and landscaping. Joseph Salino and Todd McGill, Owners /Applicants; Thomas M. Schickel, Schickel Architecture, Agent, and 2. This is a 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 April 3, 2001 make a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on April 3, 2001, did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project, and 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals, on April 16, 20011 did consider and grant the necessary variances and the Special Approval for the proposed project, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 15, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Landscape Plan," Drawing No. 1, "Site Plan," Drawing No. 2, "Site PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 5, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Details," Drawing No. 3, "Elevations," Drawing No.'s 4 and 5, "Wall Sign," Drawing No. 6, and "Road Sign," Drawing No. 7, dated May 8, 2001, with Drawings 6 and 7 being revised May 15, 2001, prepared by Schickel Architecture, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Italian Carry-Out located on Danby Road, as shown on the plans entitled "Landscape Plan," Drawing No. 1, "Site Plan," Drawing No. 2, "Site Details," Drawing No. 3, "Elevations," Drawing No.'s 4 and 5, "Wall Sign," Drawing No. 6, and "Road Sign," Drawing No. 7, dated May 8, 2001, prepared by Schickel Architecture, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of documentation to the Planning Department showing a curb cut permit has been obtained from NYS Department of Transportation, prior to the issuance of the building permit; b, submission of an original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan, prior to the issuance of the building permit. C, Drawing No. 6 be further revised to show the precise dimensions of the "Italian Carry- Out" lettering, which lettering shall be no higher than one foot and no longer than 32 feet and no less than 23 feet in length. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Acceptance of Environmental Impact Statement for completeness and adequacy for public review for the proposed Special Land Use District (SLUD) amendment to be applied to the overall EcoVillage property, and the proposed development of a Second Neighborhood Group consisting of 30 ± dwelling units and a common house, located off of Mecklenburg Road at Rachel Carson Way (a private drive), on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 28. -1 -26.2 and 28. -1 -26.8, consisting of a total of 176 ± acres. EcoVillage at Ithaca, Owner /Applicants Rod Lambert, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Rod Lambert, 122 Rachel Carson Way - We have supplied documents to the board that will hopefully complete an adequacy determination. Chairperson Wilcox - The board received materials that covered the issues brought up by the board the last time EcoVillage was before the board. Our purpose this evening is to make the determination whether there is sufficient information contained within the submittals to make this available to the public for public.comment. We are not judging the quality of the document. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Walker - I asked that we be provided with more detail regarding storm water management at the last meeting. We have been provided with the information. They are following the original water shed evaluation that was done in 1995. TG Millers is providing additional computation showing the second resident group impacts on the site. They are designing the drainage using the existing pond. The outlet structure will be modified to control run -off to pre - development conditions. There will be additional detail in the development of the second resident group. They will be designing some basins and filtering systems to improve water quality. Chairperson Wilcox - We have received some analysis about the alternatives. Staff has brought up the issue that there is the potential that the second alternative has not been adequately address in the environmental impact statement. Mr. Lambert - The site was examined. It was rejected from the beginning because of the proximity to the high tension power lines. All residents want to stay back a distance from the power lines. Chairperson Wilcox - Is there a statement in any of the documents regarding that? Kathy Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf - It is described in the original document. There was a discussion held with EcoVillage regarding what we could state about the alternative. EcoVillage felt that there was this threshold of the proximity to the power lines that made the alternative unacceptable. We were unable to come up with other compelling reasons. We felt is was a strong and valid reason. Chairperson Wilcox - The first residence group did not want to live near the power lines. It led to many of the issues that were discussed at length during the approval process. Board Member Thayer - Is the Town concerned about the second residence group having red roofs? Mr. Kanter - Some people have expressed that they do not want that color roof. It is part of the visual character of the proposed site. The visual analysis in the environmental impact statement has addressed it. The applicants have stated that they may select from a range of different color options. Red may be a color that is selected. It is an impact issue that would be looked at during the review of the EIS. Chairperson Wilcox - The color of the roof can be an important part of the visual impact. Mr. Kanter - The Town Board suggested that additional photographs be taken. There is a difference in the photographs that were taken during winter months compared to the more recent photographs. The red roofs blend in more during the spring and summer months. They really stand out against a white, snow background. We have suggested June 51h for the public hearing date. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:30 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 40 - Regarding Completeness of the EcoVillage at Ithaca Special Land Use District and Second Neighborhood Draft Environmental Impact Statement. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. Whereas, EcoVillage at Ithaca has requested Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Neighborhood Group consisting of 30 ± dwelling Mecklenburg Road at Rachel Carson Way (a private Special Land Use District (SLUD) to be applied to the Tax Parcel No.'s 28,-1-26.2 and 28,-1-26.8, consisting Owner /Applicant; Rod Lambert, Agent, and Site Plan Approval and possibly Subdivision for the proposed development of a Second units and a common house, located off of drive) and has proposed the amendment of a overall EcoVillage property on Town of Ithaca of a total of 176 ± acres. EcoVillage at Ithaca, Whereas, this is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has been determined to be Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review with respect to this matter, and Whereas, EcoVillage at Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca Planning Board at the February 2, 1999 meeting have mutually agreed to conduct the environmental review of the above' referenced actions by means of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate potential specific impacts of the proposed Second Neighborhood Group and cumulative impacts related to the amendment of the Special Land Use District and potential future development, and Whereas, the Planning Board held a public scoping session on April 6, 1999 to hear comments from the public regarding the scope and content of the EIS and approved a Final Scope for the Environmental Impact Statement, as revised at the April 6, 1999 meeting to identify relevant environmental impacts to be addressed in the EIS, and Whereas, EcoVillage at Ithaca has prepared and submitted to the Planning Board on April 3, 2001, a Draft EIS which has examined possible environmental impacts of the proposal, and based on a request from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Town Board and staff, has provided additional information regarding possible environmental impacts in an addendum to the DENS, entitled "Errata and Additions Submitted May 7, 2001 ", and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency, has with the assistance of Town Staff, reviewed the Draft EIS at their regular public meeting held on April 17, 2001, and has reviewed the "Errata and Additions Submitted May 7, 2001 " at their regular public meeting held on May 15, 2001, and has found the Draft EIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for the purpose of public review. Now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency, on May 15, 2001, hereby finds that the Draft EIS and "Errata and Additions Submitted May 7, 2001 " for the EcoVillage at Ithaca Special Land Use District and Second Neighborhood Group is satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy, and is, therefore complete for the purpose of commencing public review, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a public hearing on the DEIS be scheduled by the Planning Board for June 5, 2001 at 8:00 p.m. to obtain comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the proposed action as evaluated in the DEIS, and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 MAY 152 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to take those steps that are necessary, including filing a Notice of Completion of the DEIS and Notice of SEQR Hearings as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 61721 and distributing the DEIS to all involved and interested agencies and the public in order to commence the public review of the DEIS. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II development of 96 apartment units (72 units proposed initially, 24 future units) in twelve buildings on 14 ± acres of a 42 ± acre parcel to be located off of Mecklenburg Road, at Conifer Drive (a private drive), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27. -1- 13.12, Residence District R- 15. The proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, and a recreation area including a pavilion, basketball court, and play structure. The proposed development would consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped accessible or handicapped adaptable. The applicant has requested a rezoning of the proposed housing site from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence. Estate of Anthony Ceracche, Owner; Conifer Reality, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:33 p.m. John Fennessey, Conifer Realty - We have discussed the idea of expanding the Linderman Creek project. We have now decided that we should propose to develop 72 units in the first phase. There is also the possibility of 24 future units in a subsequent phase. We conducted a housing market study which demonstrates a substantial demand for the housing. Our current project has a substantial waiting list. We felt that we could provide more services on site with 72 units. We have developed a plan that will extend the private drive to the west in a loop fashion. The buildings will be located around the loop. The land above the first phase is owned by Home Properties of New York. We have an option to buy the land. The land would serve as a detention area for the storm drainage associated with the project. Our purpose is to present the plan to the board and receive the board's input. We have contracted to have the property surveyed and to have the wetlands delineated. We hope to have the information within the next several days. Board Member Hoffmann - I am confused about the number of units. What are the numbers? Mr. Fennessey - We were proposing to develop 56 units the last time we were before the board. At the same time we did a market study. The results from the market study found a substantial more demand than what we had anticipated. We are able to provide more services for the residents. The extra land on the property did not lend itself to anything wide enough to be largely developed. It is PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 MAY 153 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED large enough for three more buildings. We felt we can easily support 72 units and more community facilities. Attorney Barney - Could tennis courts or swimming pools be located in the extra area? Mr. Fennessey - We would not put in a tennis court. We could put in basketball courts. It is conceivable to have more recreational facilities than the current phase. Board Member Hoffmann - I think it is more appropriate to have open space left in addition to the developed recreational facilities. Mr. Fennessey - The application is for the potential to have 3 future buildings. We are proposing 72 units. The application is to rezone the entire parcel. We would have to come back before the board if we wanted to add the future buildings. Chairperson Wilcox - The board is pleased that Mr. Fennessey is showing the potential future building rather than hiding it from the board. Board Member Hoffmann - The previous development did not have laundry facilities in each unit. There are only laundry facilities in the common, central building. I would hope that there would be more laundry facilities in this phase than in the previous phase. Mr. Fennessey - There will be more laundry facilitiE individual buildings. We have to follow State criteria been able to put in hook -ups in some developments. nice if the State would allow the 3 bedroom units to requirement. �s, but there will not be laundry facilities in the as we did with the first development. We have We cannot put in a laundry room. It would be have laundry facilities. The State has stringent Board Member Hoffmann - Hook -ups should be allowed in the 3 bedroom units. Mr. Fennessey - We might be able to get a provision for a hook -up, but we could not make a laundry room. Board Member Hoffmann - It would be better than what was offered in the first development. Board Member Hoffmann - There are a certain number of units that will be set up for persons with handicaps. Where will they be located? Mr. Fennessey - All the ground floor units have to be accessible to the handicap. Then four units will be made adaptable to persons with a handicap. The apartments will be spread proportionately throughout the site. Attorney Barney - What is the difference between handicap accessible and handicap adaptable? Mr. Fennessey - All apartments are handicap accessible. The apartments designed specifically for the handicapped have different cabinetry, shower arrangement and the outlets are higher. Persons in PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED a wheelchair could move right in and occupy the units. The other units require some type of modification. All apartments have 36 inch doors and meet all criteria for handicap accessible apartments. The kitchen and bathrooms are built such that they could changed to meet a handicapped person's needs. The turning radius is wide enough for a wheelchair. Board Member Hoffmann - Page 2 of the project description states that the kitchen, baths and closets will be set at an 8 foot height. What does it mean? Mr. Fennessey - I believe it means that the ceilings will be at an 8 foot height. I will find out what it means for the next time we are before the board. Board Member Hoffmann - Page 3 talks about the site and transit buses. There is a bus stop indicated outside this site. Could you find out if public buses and school buses could come into the site? Mr. Fennessey - We will have that information to the board at Preliminary approval. Board Member Hoffmann - It would be easier for children and adults if the buses could come on site. Sidewalks also need to be addressed. They are very important in how I personally look at a project like this. I feel very positive in general about a project like this because we need less expensive housing. There are also certain things that we cannot skimp on. The safety of children and adults is very important. Board Member Thayer - Is there a provision for a sidewalk to the main road? Mr. Fennessey - We do not show a sidewalk at this time. We want to try and get bus service up into the site. Chairperson Wilcox - Does the Town have a sidewalk policy? Attorney Barney - The only policy the Town has is that the owner of the property is responsible for clearing the sidewalk. Mr. Walker - Historically, the maintenance issue of sidewalks has precluded the construction of sidewalks. Our sidewalk ordinance does require the landowner adjoining the sidewalk to be the maintainer of the sidewalk. The Town would need to create .a sidewalk district if we wanted to build a sidewalk within the public road right -of -way. Attorney Barney - The Town could create a sidewalk district, but it would not have to. Board Member Hoffmann - This development is quite different from most of the development that occurs in the Town because it is much more dense. We need to pay special attention to people walking through the site because there is a lot of traffic. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - It is a great idea to have an emergency access route to Route 79. The various materials refers to Conifer Development, Home Properties Inc., Conifer Realty LLC, and Conifer Construction LLC. Should that be important to the board? Mr. Fennessey - When we first approached this board in 1996, Conifer Development Inc had merged with Home Properties of New York. We became the development arm for Home Properties. Then in 2000, changes in the IRS made it difficult for Home Properties to have a portable holding arm as part of their development company. Everything that we do has debt. Everything that Home Properties does has very little debt. It was impacting the value of the stocks. Conifer separated itself from Home Properties January 1, 2001. Home Properties continues to manage Linderman Creek Phase I and will manage Phase II. Conifer LLC will be the actual development entity that builds the project. The actual contractor will be Conifer Construction. Chairperson Wilcox - There might need to be an easement agreement so that people can get to Phase II, which is owned by Conifer Development, on Conifer Drive, which is owned by Home Properties. Mr. Fennessey - We will need to address it before site plan approval. Attorney Barney - The Town has an easement over the private road to get to a park. Chairperson Wilcox - We will go over many of the same issues as we did in the first project. Board Member Hoffmann - I would like to see attractive dumpsters. I do not want to see any unexpected, huge berms. There is a large berm in the southwestern property of the Phase I. 1 do not remember it being described on the drawings. Mr. Walker - There was a large berm along Route 79 that had to be moved because it was on top of our water main. There was a slight miscalculation in cut and fill volumes. They ended up with several thousand yards of extra fill. The fill needed to be shifted to other locations. The berm was good screening, but it was on top of our water main. The berm in the southwest area screens the property from private residences. Board Member Hoffmann - I like to see the calculations properly up front. Mr. Walker - We can ask for additional information on cut and fill. Mr. Kanter - The storm water management plan and calculations should be looking at the full development of the entire area that is proposed for rezoning. The board might want to see the full drainage storm water implications of the full development. Chairperson Wilcox - It would make sense for the developer to build to full capacity. Mr. Walker - I would want to see the full storm water management capacity built in for the entire project. The location of the storm water detention pond is a logical location. It is adjacent to Linderman Creek. It will allow the discharge to go into Linderman Creek, which has a much larger PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 5, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED capacity than where Phase I discharges. It will keep a good balance on the site. The area does have some identifiable wetland characteristics. There should be a wetland evaluation of the area. Mr. Fennessey - We have started a survey of the wetlands. Chairperson Wilcox - This is not a public hearing, but we have members of the public present. I would like to give them an opportunity to address the board. There will be formal public hearings scheduled. Bruce John, 4185 Garrett Road - I am a board member of Better Housing. Better Housing is a partner in this enterprise. I wanted to see what the issues and questions were involving the project. Stacy Crawford, Director of Better Housing - We are working out the details of our involvement with Phase II. 1 am encouraged to hear that the board recognizes it is a worthwhile endeavor to be developing more affordable housing in general. Melissa Hunt, 119 Farm Street - I will be the owner of the property at 1220 Mecklenburg Road as of July 1St. I will be the house in between these properties. I came to gather information about the project. Mr. Kanter - When do you anticipate having the draft environmental assessment form? Mr. Fennessey - We will be preparing the full environmental assessment form as part of what we will be submitting in preparation for Preliminary Site Plan approval. Mr. Kanter - Have you started a traffic study? Mr. Fennessey - No. We did complete a traffic study with the Phase I. We will update the traffic study if the board requires. Mr. Kanter - A traffic study would be important. It would not be difficult to add to the previous traffic study. Mr. Fennessey - The traffic consultant that completed our first traffic study has been retained by EcoVillage to do their traffic study. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:17 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox - The Tompkins County Planning Department is sponsoring a 2.5 hour session near the end of the month regarding powers and duties of Planning Boards. They are good sessions. Board Member Conneman - Cornell is building a new building at the Engineering Quad. There are very interesting things happening on the site. Is Cornell going to bring it before the board? Ms. Ritter - It is a City project. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 MAY 15, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - JUNE 512001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - They will probably want to bring the fill into the Town. Mr. Walker - A lot of the fill has been hauled out to the quarry in Dryden. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the May 15, 2001 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Resp tf illy §ubmlIitt d: 11 n PSi are, `� , Car e Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes