The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2002-04-02TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 2, 2002 FILE IDATIE L:.. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, April 2, 2002 in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member, 7:35 p.m. George Conneman, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering, 8:00 p.m.; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Bale stra- Lehman, 8:45 p.m., Planner. EXCUSED: Larry Thayer ALSO PRESENT: John Yntema, 993 Danby Rd; Steve Beyeus, 1328 Slaterville Rd, Tye Wolf, Ithaca Times; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Pauline. Layton, 1029 Danby Rd; Herman Sieverding, 315 Columbia St; Dave Herrick, T.G. Miller Engineers, 203 N. Aurora St; Brian Macrey, 390 Edgar Hall, Ithaca College; Joel Harlen, Dryden; Phil Francheski, Integrated Acquisition & Development, 15 Thornwood Dr., Tim Culbert, Tom Culbert, Rolland Fellows, 142 Calkins Rd; John Lowe, 136 Snyder Hill Rd; Jeff Kirshman, 1005 Danby Rd 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. Chairperson Wilcox called this meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 pm. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m. AGENDA ITEM— APPROVAL OF MINUTES RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -28 =Approval of Minutes - March 5, 2002. MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the March 5, 2002 minutes 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, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED NA ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Jacobs 2 -lot Subdivision, 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Rd. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — I was talking to John Barney about the Jacobs subdivision. I actually have some questions that I'd like to ask the applicant because the information we had indicated that we did not need approval for this particular subdivision. I'd like to find out why and whether there's an issue with him or his attorney or whatever. Attorney Barney suggested that we could go ahead and do the SEQR determination, open the Public Hearing, as advertised, close the Public Hearing and then, if Mr. Jacobs or his agent doesn't show up, adjourn any decision to another time. So lets move ahead with the SEQR determination at this point. Our understanding is that this subdivision has already occurred. I'm not aware of any environmental issues, it just seems like a simple two lot subdivision. Mr. Kanter — I did have Chris check the files. Particularly what I was interested in seeing was whether there was anything in the approval of the mobile home park that might have effected the way that these two lots were cut out and see didn't find anything in there that would preclude this subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox — So you're not aware and your staff is not aware of any environmental issues? Mr. Kanter — No, other than the basics. It's just two lots one residential with house on it. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -29 - SEOR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Jacob's Two - Lot Subdivision, 136 Seven Mile D082 Calkins Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33- 2 -1.2. MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 2 -1,2, Residence Districts R -5 and R -30. The proposal is to create from a 21 +/- acre parcel, a 5.36 + 1- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33 -2- 1.21), which contains a residence off of Calkins Road, and a 15.34 + 1- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33- 2- 1.22), which contains a mobile home park on Seven Mile Drive. This subdivision follows existing parcel boundaries that did not receive Town subdivision approval. Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs and Roland W. Fellows, Owners; Paul A. Jacobs, Applicant, and 2 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED 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 April 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Map of Survey Parcel of Land Owned by Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State," prepared by Robert S. Russler Jr., Licensed Land Surveyor, dated September 30, 1988, and resurveyed on August 30, 2000, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval, NO W. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED. 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 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, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7: 42 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33. -2 -1.21, Residence Districts R =5 and R -30. The proposal is to create a 536 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33. -2- 1.21), which contains a residence off of Calkins Rd, and a 15.34 +/- acre parcel (tax parcel no. 33. -2- 1.22), which contains the mobile home park on Seven Mile Dr, out of the 21 +/- acre parcel. this subdivision follows existing parcel boundaries that did not receive Town subdivision approval. Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs and Roland W. Fellows, owners; Paul A. Jacobs, Applicant, Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:43 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — As I said, I have some questions that I would like the applicant in regard to this particular subdivision, which, as you know, has already occurred, but did not come before this Board. Do you have any comments? K3 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED Roland Fellows, 182 Calkins Rd- Actually, I had thought that all this had already occurred. So I'm just trying to figure out what has happened and what point this is at. Chairperson Wilcox — When did you purchase this land? Roland Fellows — I think we closed in September, over a year ago. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you understand the issue? Mr. Fellows — Somewhat. Chairperson Wilcox — Paul and /or his attorney o occur in the Town of Ithaca must come before the questions that I would like to ask either of them, lead to believe that he would be, weren't you? whatever have realized that all subdivisions that Planning Board and this one has not. I have some but they're not here this evening. John, you were Mr. Kanter — Well, I had Chris call him and I didn't hear that he wasn't going to attend. That's all I can tell you. Chairperson Wilcox — Have you had any conversations with him? Mr. Fellows — He actually came down about two weeks ago and that was the first that I had heard that there was an issue here and he wanted me to sign off on it. My concern was basically yeah, I thought it was a done deal. Chairperson Wilcox — As far as you know, you own the land and you built the house. Mr. Fellows — Right. Board Member Hoffmann- So you're not a co -owner of the whole parcel together with the Jacobs'. You own one of the two pieces? Mr. Fellows —No. What it was, it was his house, an he had it bordering two separate roads. So it was house but he sold it. It has always been separate entities in there. Mr. Kanter- The Town actually discovered the illegal subdivision when we were going through assessment roles and looking at various different sewer and water assessment primarily and saw that the lot had been cut out and was on the tax map. We decided to go through our records and found nothing indicating that this had received Town approval. So, really this was initiated by a letter from Andy Frost to Mr. Jacobs describing the requirements from the Board. Chairperson Wilcox — You've obviously continued to live in your house. Mr. Fellows — I just want to expedite what ever needs to happen. 12 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — My inclination is to adjourn this until our next meeting and home that Mr. Jacobs shows up so that we can hopefully finalize this subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:45 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -30 - Adjournment of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Jacob's Two -Lot Subdivision, 136 Seven Mile Dr 1182 Calkins Rd, Tax Parcel No. 33 24.2. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourns the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval of the Jacob's Two -Lot Subdivision located at 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.- 2 -2.1, until the Tuesday, April 16, 2002 Planning Board meeting. At such time, the Planning Board requests that the applicant or such designated, agent appear before the board. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Lowe 2 -lot Subdivision, 136 Snyder Hill Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:50 p.m. John Lowe, 136 Snyder Hill Rd — My wife, Audrey and I propose that the nine acres that we have for our property now be divided into four acres that we have for our house now and five acres for an additional one - family dwelling lot. The deed restriction that would maintain that. It maintains the character of the neighborhood, the openness of the land that we have around us now and we think that it would fit very well into the neighborhood. Board Member Hoffmann — I should maybe say at this point that the Lowes are immediate neighbors of mine. If it's appropriate for me not to take part in the discussion and vote on this, I will refrain from doing this. What do you think? Chairperson Wilcox — Attorney Barney? Attorney Barney — It's up to you. Have they paid you anything to vote one way or the other? Board Member Hoffmann — No and I feel that I can be impartial, I have no problem with this. Attorney Barney — Since we're on the subject, the Lowe 's have been represented by our office from time to time on other matters, but are not represented by us in connection with this application before the Board. 5 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Your decision to participate in the discussion and vote is therefore up to you. Mr. Lowe are you aware of any environmental issues? Mr. Lowe — I am not. The short form of the environmental impact plan has been submitted. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:45 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -31 - SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Lowe Two -Lot Subdivision, 136 Snyder Hill Road, Tax Parcel No. 61 -1 -12.1. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Kevin Tally. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 61 -1 -12.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 8.97 +/-acre parcel into a 4.83 +/- acre parcel and a 4.14 +/- acre parcel, which contains the existing house. John E. & Audrey M. Lowe, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., 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 April 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Lot Subdivision — Land of John E. and Audrey M. Lowe, 136 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, NYSLS, dated February 17, 2002, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision 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, 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, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. 0 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 -APPROVED The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61 -1 -12.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 8.97 +/= acre parcel into a 4.83 +/- acre parcel and a 4.14 +/- acre parcel, which contains the existing house. John E. & Audrey M. Lowe, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:53 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, this is unusual for you, your using at cad system of some sort now? I note for the record that Eva Hoffmann 's name is spelled wrong. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I noticed that too. Chairperson Wilcox — She spells her name with an extra "n ". Questions for the applicant? RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -32 - Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Lowe Two -Lot Subdivision, 136 Snyder Hill Road, Tax Parcel No. 61 =142.1. MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Tally. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61 -1 -12.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 8.97 +/-acre parcel into a 4.83 +/- acre parcel and a 4.14 +/- acre parcel, which contains the existing house. John E. & Audrey M. Lowe, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., 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 April 2, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Lot Subdivision — Land of John E. and Audrey M. Lowe, 136 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, NYSLS, dated February 17, 2002, 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, 7 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED 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, and 2. That the Planning Board he proposed two -lot subdivision 12, 1, as shown on a survey Lowe, 136 Snyder Hill Road, by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, conditions: reby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the at 136 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 614 - map entitled "Lot Subdivision — Land of John E. and Audrey M. Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared NYSLS, dated February 17, 2002, subject to the following a. Obtaining the necessary lot width variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, and b. Submission of one Mylar and three dark line prints of the subdivision plat, all signed and sealed by the licensed surveyor who prepared the survey, for signing by the Planning Board Chair, and C, Submission of detailed plans for hook -up to public water and sewer lines for review and approval of the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of any building permits for the 4.83 acre parcel, and d. Submission of access easement language providing the owner of the existing house on the 4.14 acre parcel the right to continued access on the gravel driveway within the 25- foot wide strip on the 4.83 acre parcel, subject to review and approval of the Attorney for the Town, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and e. That no additional lots shall be split off of the 4.83 acre parcel or the 4.14 acre parcel in the future because of the limited road frontage and access remaining after the proposed subdivision, and the irregular configuration of the resulting lots. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any park land reservation created by this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any park land reservation. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications in the approved site plan for development at College Circle �00 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002-APPROVED Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 =1 -2.2 and 43 -1- 2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed development includes the construction of 60 apartments that were previously approved by the Town in 1988, with some proposed modifications to the parking, building layout and circulation. The proposal also includes a community center building, Ithaca College campus integration infrastructure and a request for additional apartment occupancy above that which was previously approved. Ithaca College proposes to enter into a long -term agreement with Integrated Acquisition and Development to operate and maintain the College Circle Apartments as campus student apartment housing. J.M.S. Realty, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Herman Severing, 15 Thornwood Dr, I.A.D. — I think in the last separate meetings that we had, I think we pretty well covered everything. Plus I think the material that we submitted for the final site plan review, which includes the March 12th supplementary packet of information that we put together really outlined, in detail the plans for the project. I feel I have addressed most of the questions that have been raised by the Board. Frankly, we're here tonight just to answer whatever questions you might have after having reviewed those two documents. Before doing that, however, I think there are maybe three points that I'd like to raise. The County letter, I'd like to start with that first because I think that's a prelude to your proposed resolutions. The county letter, I think in all respects, but one, I think is okay. There is that clause that sort of refers to.. Clause "c" in there recommendations " repairing any noticeable and significant damage done by private trucks during the project's construction period." I find that sort of vocabulary sort of impractable and difficult conditions to monitor. Hauling the excavating materials off the site may take some period of time — seven months- I think we've talked, very extensively about the procedure that we'll go through in terms of proving that with the submission of a routing plan to the Town Engineer prior to our getting a building permit. I think going beyond that would be very difficult. It would bthetruck r has gone down. So that's condition poandt that we don't know who all is going to use it after we'd like to make. The second one, I think has to do with one of the conditions through the proposed resolutions. Condition "a "; submission of a revised planting plan, including plantings on the eastern edge of the site to provide buffers with the neighboring populations. I think it's time to talk about that issue a little bit, it keeps on appearing as a condition. I think you can see from the landscaping plan, there is quite a bit of re- grading that takes place along that eastern edge of the property. The proposed planting plan is to use a variety of grasses there that will help retard the flow of water and send it into the drainage swales that .are then directed to the retention basin. We would request that you do not take it beyond that point. There are, It think, a number of pockets of existing vegetation that will be preserved and will though it will not be touched in the course of re- grading (stepped away from the microphone, inaudible) Board Member Hoffmann — Would you repeat which condition it was that you were talking about? Mr. Sieverding — It's under the first "now therefore be it resolved" condition 2a. I think the third point has to do with condition 1c under the "further resolved ". That discusses the various occupancy levels. I guess it was our understanding, based on the discussions with the Board the last time, that, given the certain detailed discussion of the management plan that will be in placed in the event Integrated Properties manages the property, that we could establish a base of a maximum of 690 9 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED occupants for Integrate Acquisitions and Development as part of this approval and that we would only need to come back to a future Planning Board if IAD wanted to increase that occupancy by beyond 690 occupants and that doesn't appear to be the way this particular resolution reads. I think this resolution does mention that, it starts out granting the 750 occupants at Ithaca College and says that if Integrated Acquisitions and Development were going to manage the property that number would be reduced to 690, but then goes on to say that the management plan then would have. to be brought back to some future Board for their review and approval, if I'm reading that correctly. We would ask that we go back to the rule of being for 690 and only in the event that IAD would want to increase beyond 690 that IAD would come before the Board for that permission. Chairperson Wilcox — Let's start, I was going to say "let's start at the beginning ", but that's sort of a wasted line. Dan Walker, that you for being here this evening. Your memo was available to us when we arrived this evening. Could you summarize your comments from your March 29th memo. Mr. Walker — That was a summary. Basically the first three comments were site plan issues that I think the Board wanted to see in and the site plan seems to be complying with that. The fourth comment is basically is that the past use of the two critical channels; one on the swale that's at the west side of the property, just above the properties along Danby Rd. It is large enough to convey about twice the expected hundred year discharge which gives plenty of reserve capacity. That was number 4 and number 5 was the one for Ithaca College drainage and that has about twice that capacity. In other words, I'm talking about the drainage designs. The erosion setimat control plan is fine, we just have to monitor it as we would with any projects and I'm satisfied with the design of the retention pond. One of the newer wrinkles is that I'm recommending to the Town Board that the Town take dedication of the water mains which have been built to the Town's specifications so that it would become a public water supply so that would remove the need for backup protection devices between the Danby Rd main and the water main servicing departments which is a restriction that does reduce potential fire flow somewhat and the fire department was very happy to hear that so I'm assuming that on Monday the Board will agree with me and we'll start the proceedings to accept dedication of the water line on the property. Chairperson Wilcox — By Board, you mean Town Board? In paragraph number 5, you state that in your opinion, the College Circle site plan should be conditioned to ensure that this drainage system is constructed prior to site work that would divert flow. Mr. Walker — Right, I believe that was already in part of the resolution, at some point, but I just wanted to reiterate that. Chairperson Wilcox - I'm going to search for it, I have not seen it yet. Mr. Kanter — Actually, I don't think it is specifically stated. Chairperson Wilcox — There is a condition in terms of the maintenance agreement for the maintenance of the storm water facility, but there's no condition which specifically addresses the issue. 10 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Walker — I know I read some place that the plan was to have it build before building permits would be issued or site work would start. We need to put it in there. My main concern is that one of the major components to storm water management, I've been told is going to be constructed by Ithaca College and I'm going to recommend to Andy that we don't start any of the site work until that's in place. Board Member Mitrano — Whatever Dan says is good with me. Chairperson Wilcox — Attorney Barney, I'II leave it to you to put something together for us when you get to that point. Mike we'll move to you, I'm trying not to put you on the spot like I did Dan. The issue of the additional plantings along side the property? Mr. Smith — It's a requirement under the zoning for the Multiple Residence District to have a buffer and that's why it was placed in here. I'll bring to your attention as a discussion item that here is not the condition for (inaudible) Chairperson Wilcox — Between the MR and the neighboring residential zones, I presume. Board Member Hoffmann — I also think, in addition, this property is right next to the sensitive areas on South Hill that we have been trying to do something to protect, the areas around the South Hill Swamp. So I don't think at all that's it inappropriate to put in extra plantings there to provide. I think that buffer would be extra important in that area. Chairperson Wilcox — When you say "buffer", do you have something in mind specifically that you would find acceptable. Mr. Smith — Not really. Just a variety of plantings along there, something that would provide a buffer if the property to the east were ever developed. Right now there is no development on it so there isn't a big need at this point, but if it does become developed in the future. Chairperson Wilcox — So this would be a visual buffer of some sort. Okay. Mr. Kanter — While we're on that, let me just read part of that buffer requirement. " A strip, at least ten feet wide within such buffer areas shall be suitably planted to screen the Multiple Resident District from present or future residences or a suitable screening fence shall be erected." And those are "shall" so that's why we included those and suggested those conditions. I think that if the Board has reasons for not doing that, probably what we would like to see is a specific waiver of the requirement because "shall" is "shall" unless waived by the Board specifically, it's supposed to be in there. Chairperson Wilcox — Who would approve the planting plan? Is that the Planner? Mr. Kanter — I could do that. Chairperson Wilcox —So we're looking for a reasonable mix of native plants. Some Something that would form a nice visual barrier between the neighboring lot, probably R -30 or R -15? reasonable height. vhich I assume is 11 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED Mr. Kanter — R -301 Chairperson Wilcox — and the MR Zone. Board Member Hoffmann — What about if we tried to make sure they are plants that are compatible with the kind of species that are in the South Hill swamp .area and that one doesn't I introduce something that is foreign or that would be competing. Mr. Smith — Well, we wouldn't want any of the invasive species to take over. Chairperson Wilcox — Issues with that particular clause? Kevin you're all set? Let's talk about condition "1c", which is the long one having to do with occupancy should Ithaca College terminate their agreement with IAD. Board Member Hoffmann — Could we read that out loud, just to make sure that we all understand it. I volunteer to do it. Board Member Mitrano — Do you think anything is wrong with that Eva? Neither do I. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't. I just wanted to be sure that..... Attorney Barney — There's on "if" missing. "If" it is so advised to do that. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think that's consistent with our discussion from two weeks ago. What stands out to me is the following: IAD was particularly concerned about if Ithaca College terminated its involvement, that our original proposed resolution show it going back to 600, 1 believe and what IAD came in with, not these submissions , but the materials we had for the last meeting, was the pages and the charts showing that they would propose to have a person, either a resident advisor or a resident director and resident managers from the same proportion as Ithaca College will have them. The purpose for doing that was to say should Ithaca College terminate their involvement, the maximum occupancy would automatically be reduced to 690, without having to come before this Board and if they wanted to get it back to 750, then they would have to come before this Board. That's what I thought. Attorney Barney — I don't think this was really intended to be too much. The only thing was that the condition to take it to 690 was that there would be this management control in place. In the drafting of this what's the mechanism to determine whether they are in place because if they're not in place this is not affective. So what we did was put in a provision to say that the Planning Board is satisfied. So the reason for the Planning Board review at that time is not so much to reject the production for local planning, it was just to confirm the representation and what the management there is supposed to be are in fact there. Chairperson Wilcox — Have they not already committed through their submissions that they will maintain a certain level of management of the property? 12 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — (inaudible) Board Member Mitrano — I like the way it reads now. Board Member Hoffmann — I do too. It seems to me that this doesn't really alter what was discussed last time. Assuming that the management plan continues as it was with Ithaca College there, the occupancy could still be 690. Board Member Conneman- Would Herman like explaining what he sees as the difference, because he raised the questions. Reading it, it seemed logical to me, but I want to know what distinction he makes. Mr. Sieverding — The distinction being that I think before we can get the 690, we need to come back before the Planning Board to get approval. I think, if you remember our discussion the last time, I think we felt quite good about the substantial additional investment that's being made in the property, in terms of both capital improvements, as well as on -going annual operating expenses to run this. Our sense is that if the lender were to read a clause that says that you can have 690, but only if you came back to the Planning Board and the Planning Board needs to confirm or validate your management program. It's tandem amount to basically not having it, you need to come back again and get approval before you can actually do it. I think that's the issue. Attorney Barney — I think that that's not quite the theory, although we might be able to temper the language to make it closer to what I think we all understand and that is the object here is not to create new hurdles that have to be met. It is to confirm that the requirements that are in place have actually been met. At the time, we're doing this now, Ithaca College is going to be operating this. If management changes, at that point, you come through the door if you want to maintain 690 and say okay here we have a resident managers and the other management control, similar to what Ithaca College had in place. I'm trying to think of another way to do it, but I don't want the Town put in a position of having to say, ten years from now, when all this could happen, that they have to go up there and determine how to enforce this and whether it is in compliance or not. Really, at that point, you need to show that that's what you are going to be doing in order to maintain the 690. Mr. Sieverding — If we were to give you an affirm. says "in this event, without question, that if the management program that we've fully identified place ". Make an affirmative declaration now, in concern you might have about that. ative letter now as part of this approval process, that property reverts to Integrated Acquisition then the in this March 12th supplement will in fact be put in letter form to the Board that would cover whatever Attorney Barney — I'm going to have to confess some slight ignorance. I don't remember exactly what your March 12th letter said. At the time I read it, it struck me that it was still somewhat ambiguous and a little bit vague in terms of what it meant was going to be happening there. That was the reason for establishing some body, by body I mean entity or group or board, to confirm that indeed there was that management level. Now maybe we could beef up what it is that your representative will do more specifically or maybe it would help if I were to read the letter again. 13 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano — Well, for whatever it's worth, I endorse your interpretation of that reading and support the language you want to use. I remember reading it and having to anyalsize it closely. Mr. Kanter — Fred, if I might throw something in here. As I was looking through the March 12th supplemental information report, one of the main things that I noticed as a difference between Ithaca College's involvement and IAD'. s involvement is the type of campus security patrolling and enforcement that would be occurring and that really stood out among all the items. There was just not the same kind of detail, in terms of the campus policing able to go in and stop noise and other events happening. There is certainly a statement that some other type of trained security person will be there, but it just isn't the same level of comfort as knowing that the IC campus police would be there. To me, that was one thing that stood out. Mr. Sieverding — But I think the point made here is that IAD would provide routine patrol of the College Circle by off duty police or other trained security personnel. The point is that we're making a commitment to supplement what would ordinarily be relied upon by any other property manager in the county, which is call the police. We're saying that we're taking steps here to avoid that and have somebody on site who would be directly responsible for controlling and responding to the situations that occurred in much the same way the IC would. I think the commitment that we're making is that this is the plan that would be in place were Integrated Properties to manage the properties. I think if, John, it were possible to supplement this by a letter stating affirmatively that in the event that we take the property over, this is the plan that would be implemented. I wonder if that could substitute for the additional language in this resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — Do you have any language in there which would take care of the provision that maybe AID is not the owner anymore, but there is another successor owner as this resolution says in your language. Mr. Sieverding — In the letter? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Mr. Sieverding — I think we could provide something along those lines. Board Member Conneman — Is this the letter of March 12th? Mr, Sieverding- The package that we put together on March 12tH. Yes, it's within the March 12tH package. In the middle of it, there is a chart, exhibit B, it's further into the document. Right after that page. Chairperson Wilcox — What's the Board's pleasure? You're comfortable with the way it is, I believe you said Tracey. Board Member Howe- I'd have to refer to John. I'm happy if a letter would serve the same purpose. Board Member Mitrano — I'm not sure if it would. 14 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Howe- Well, it would be a letter that would be satisfactory to John. Attorney Barney — Well, I think the question is whether you would accept the declaration today, then it would be this way and if it is that way I'd have an opportunity to look at it at that point in time and confirm whether it works or not. I'm not sure that I have strong feelings one way or another. Chairperson Wilcox — I was just going to say, as the lawyer representing the Town and this Board, what would your opinion be? I think you just expressed it. Either way it could be appropriate? Attorney Barney — It's not a life or death to me. The question is really whether it is a requirement to formally appear before the Board to basically confirm that the arrangements that are being articulated here are in place. The other way to find out would be, if there was a sale or transfer and they operated it and we started to get complaints and we went up there and discovered that they weren't in control and go from there. Chairperson Wilcox — The key, (I'm trying to prevent unnecessary meetings and Public Hearings, is kind of what my purpose here is) the key is that should Ithaca College no longer be associated with the project. That triggers a change in management, if you will, from residence advisors to resident managers, I think they're called. Board Member Conneman — Plus also site safety security. Board Member Hoffmann — Might it not also trigger a change in occupants? It may not necessarily be Ithaca College students who are living there, but other people. Then there would be changes in the traffic pattern and things like that. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to use that to review the entire project. Board Member Conneman — Suppose Fred and I got rich enough, we won the lottery and we bought it from IAD, would we have to abide by what it says in this column in exhibit "b "? We'd have to provide routine patrols of College Circle by off duty policemen or other trained safety personnel? Attorney Barney — If you wanted 690 beds. Board Member Conneman — If I wanted 690 beds, okay. As long as that's clear, I'm satisfied. If we win the lottery, we're going to buy it. Chairperson Wilcox — We're trying to build a consensus here. Are you comfortable? Board Member Conneman — I'm comfortable if John assures me that that goes with the it. If they don't do that, then it's got to go back to something. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. Attorney Barney — You keep looking at me. 15 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — I'm actually looking to this side of the table and then to the other side of the table. Mr. Walker — Fred, this is really... You've got criteria. It's not a matter of making a decision of if the criteria is right, you want to make sure that the criteria are in place. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Mr. Walker — That's an enforcement issue, as opposed to a decision issue. I don't know if this requires an annual operating permit. You could require an annual operating permit, probably, to make sure that they are in compliance with building codes and all the other issues and the code and enforcement officer maintain that. We could put an issue in there that prior to operating under the new management, they would renew the operating permit, the operating permit would have to be re- issued and a code enforcement officer would ensure that the management structure would be what's outlined in the documents. Chairperson Wilcox- That leaves it to the code enforcement officer to make the determination also whether the security provisions, i.e. The replacement for the Ithaca College campus being used to some other private service, would also have to be reviewed by the code and enforcement officer to make sure that it was comparable or sufficient. Attorney Barney — That's the problem, putting it on the code enforcer to make those, what are almost discretionary judgments. Board Member Hoffmann — I also don't understand why it would be a big problem for the applicant to come in again before the Planning Board if this were to happen, and do what's described in this reservation. Chairperson Wilcox — They've made the statement that they're concerned about that clause when they go to get their financing. And the lender, lenders possibly has a problem with it. Board Member Mitrano — I think it's reasonable to be concerned about it, but I'm not sure that the concern overrides (inaudible). Chairperson Wilcox — Does anybody have a strong feeling one way or the other? Board Member Mitrano — I strongly support it. Chairperson Wilcox — As written? Board Member Mitrano — As written. Board Member Hoffmann- I do too. Chairperson Wilcox — Does anyone have a strong feeling the other way? Okay, then let's leave it the way it is. 16 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED Attorney Barney — I think to lessen their concerns, we could probably change it to talk more in terms of confirmation rather than reasonably and also make reference to these specifics that if these appeared in place the 690 would apply. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I'll leave that to you over the next few minutes? Thank you John. Let's talk about the County's 239 review. The County has made that the determination of the project as proposed and submitted may have intercommunity, county or state impacts. Much of the language is similar to what we saw for the Cornell University athletic fields, not surprising. Jonathan Kanter and I had a discussion , probably about two and a half or three weeks ago about the particular clause the Herman Sieverding mentioned "repairing any noticeable and significant damage done by project trucks during the project construction period." How does one know how to apportion the damage to the road to either the trucks that went over before for maybe the last three or four years and then the trucks associated with this project? I don't know and I'm concerned that the County puts that clause in there without a reasonable method for apportioning liability for damage to the road. If a road cracks and requires repair, it's all the trucks and all the cars that have been on that road since it has been built and the last truck load is the one that cracked it, but is that the truck that's responsible for the liability of repairing the road? I look to the lawyers here, but I wouldn't think so. Board Member Mitrano — Well, I'm thinking of that- John what's that famous tort case about the egg shell skull. Attorney Barney — Palusiac and Long Island Rail Road or something like that. Board Member Mitrano — I'm sure it involved a rail road. You don't know if you bang some one on the head whether they've got plates of steel in there or egg shell skull, but you take the consequences of it. I'm not sure how one does proportion it, unless you keep all sorts of extra ordinary monitoring devices, it's just a cost that has to be incurred. Mr. Walker — I don't know that the County would have a legal right to make that statement because if they were running trucks that we over loaded, and they scaled and weighted and tickets them, they'd have a claim. If the contractor operates within the traffic laws and the load limits, that's a public road. If the County hasn't built is strong enough, that's not the users fault. Board Member Mitrano — Good point. But you know what the burden would be? They'd have to go to court to litigate that. Mr. Walker — I don't know how the County would ... The county would have to sue to recover the damages. I'd love to be the lawyer in the other side of that one. Board Member Hoffmann — My question about this is, did any body check with the County people as to how they think about this and how they would deal with it. Chairperson Wilcox — Don't look at me. Mr. Kanter — It seems like the County now has established a precedent and a trend for future letters we're going to see coming from them whenever there is some undefined number of truck loads 17 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED leaving or coming on to a site. Whether or not they're going on state or county roads because that's not even clear here yet. It's something else we can talk about tonight. It seems like they should be sending that letter to a lot of other places too; City, Town of Lansing any other area where there may be some major developments occurring. Mr. Walker — As a public works professional, if there was a real — covering the trucks so you don't get spillage, if you start spilling material on the road, that's a violation, you get ticketed. They're worried about the conditions of their roads and I can understand that. Some are in very poor condition. They may not even go on a county road. Danby Road is a state road. Board Member Mitrano — Is there precedents for their getting recovery out of this. Mr. Walker — The only way that they could recover is if there was a problem and they posted the road at a lower weight limit and then some one violated that limit and then they would be under traffic proceedings. If there was an accident, some one ran into the bridge and broke it, that's another issue. If you're using the roads in the proper ways, I don't really see where they have a legal claim. Chairperson Wilcox — The effect of this rule.... Mr. Walker Remember this is the same County Highway Department that refused to come in and get a site plan approval for their new facility. Chairperson Wilcox — It's also the same county that rules it a — never mind we won't go there, we won't go there in terms of what they declared it. The effect of this, as requiring the super majority of this Board, which would require five votes. The effect of their issuing a determination that it may have impacts requires that we, as a board, approve this by super majority, which is the vole of five members in the affirmative. That's the effect. Board Member Mitrano — Well, what these gentlemen are saying is starting to persuade me to the other side. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't understand. Board Member Mitrano — If I understand what Dan and others are saying, I'm less persuaded to vote for it. Chairperson Wilcox — Vote for the... Board Member Mitrano — We are talking about these recommendations here, and in particular lower case "c" parenthesis. Mr. Kanter — Well, what Fred is saying is that if we don't follow all of these County recommendations, approval of the College Circle Project, you need a majority plus one vote. We're not voting on these conditions, but we're trying to decide if we're incorporating them. PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — I think it's impossible to include all of these conditions in the site plan review, in final resolution. Mr. Kanter — We would not recommend that you include these specific conditions. Mr. Walker — We've already got the provisions for having this come into this to the Town to be approved by the Town Engineer and I'll be conscious of the issues . Chairperson Wilcox — Just as a brief aside, I was out in Wyoming a couple of weeks ago and was talking to some of the locals and more than 25% of the cars out there have broken windshields and that's because of the gravel that they put down on the roads during the winter. The state highway department actually puts large gravel on the roads, large enough gravel so that when it's kicked up by the tires of the cars in front of it, it breaks the windshields. They don't use any salt at all because the salt attracts the wildlife onto the roads. That's' the only place that I've ever been where they don't give out tickets to people who drive around with broken windshields. Mr. Kanter — Before we leave the subject, would it be appropriate to talk at all more about the routing of trucks, if there is any further information that the applicants can provide us at this point, is that something that we can do? - Chairperson Wilcox — We have some information that some of the fill may go on Ithaca College's property, either as part of construction the connector road or as other Ithaca College projects, but I don't think we have a commitment that any of that fill will go next door. Simply the potential that some of it could be used on a neighboring property. Mr. Sieverding — Some portion of the fill will be used on the College Circle property itself and some will go elsewhere. I can't determine until we have a contractor and that contractor identifies to us what his options are. We will be working with him in terms of location and routing. Chairperson Wilcox — And you're aware of the clause that would require the Town Engineer to approve? MR. Sieverding — Absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox — While we're on the subject, Kevin hours of operation? The draft mentions hauling hours for the trucks, week days between 8 and 5? Blasting between 8 and 5, weekdays only. Board Member Talty — I'm satisfied with that. Also in regards to blasting, my sister is a civil town engineer in the Town of Portline, as I was going over this project with her and discussing a bunch of other family matters, this came up. With regard to blasting, is there any type of discussion with regards to any type of impact that would be done when you have a foundation or basements with regards to people in the existing area. In other words, would the charges be significant enough to impact any type of foundations or basements with regards to the residents in the nearby area. lilt~, PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002- APPROVED Mr. Sieverding — In the original site plan submission we had a letter from the contractor that included a statement and a map showing the sphere of influence from the area where the blasting would occur. All that is within College Circle property. Chairperson Wilcox — Before I give the public a chance to speak, does anyone else have some questions, comments, specific issues they'd like to see addressed . Board Member Hoffmann — Well, there's something that Larry Thayer brought up the last time when he was here and we talked about it and that is it had to do with that extension of the parking lot in back of the two units . that are in the north eastern corner of the property and he said in order not to have to do so much excavation, couldn't the driveway and the parking spaces be on a different level, above the housing and have some steps going to the housing units. We were told that because of it being desirable to have the units handicap accessible that wouldn't be practical. When I looked at the plans, I didn't see this before, but when I looked at the plans, I see that there are steps already shown in these drawings. For instance, in drawing "c- 102 ", which shows, not just those two houses, it shows some of the other houses to the east of the new driveway and there are steps. It says "concrete stairs and railing per detail typical" in the lower right hand corner of that drawing. Somewhere I saw a similar drawing for those houses that are in the northeastern corner. So I am wondering why there is an objection to having the driveway being at a different level and cutting dawn the amount of cut and fill that one has to do, if one can put the driveway at a higher level that the buildings especially in that area where it is very steep. Mr. Sieverding — Mr. Herrick may join me at some point in time. I think we're talking specifically about those over there. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but I saw the steps shown on some of the other buildings, too. Mr. Sieverding — But most of them are here and the grading type of work is going to come straight in from the parking lot into these units without having to navigate any steps. There's no excavation going on here. There's more fill going on here than there is excavation. (inaudible section of tape, possibly 2 -3 minutes) Board Member Hoffmann- It looks to me like there is some grading on the other side, this is "c- 107 ", on the eastern side of the driveway and parking lot, too. There is some digging out and maybe there could be less digging out perhaps. It's just something that I wanted to ask about because I looked at the drawings and I saw essentially what he had been talking about and I couldn't understand why there was an objection to it. Mr. Herrick, TG Miller — The relationship with this parking lot starts back at the loop road. So the intersection has to match up so the grading that has been established along the loop road dictates where we can start for the extension of the parking lot. So that, to a large degree, is why we have the parking lot located at the level that it is and the grading is necessary to get back up to the concrete on the existing property. So given that that parking lot has to stay somewhat in that configuration to match up with the intersection, if we were to drop the building we would actually have a larger amount of fill that would have to find another home elsewhere. So we feel that providing the fill in that area a( PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7,2002-APPROVED beneath those buildings does two things, it brings the buildings up for better access, not just for ADA access , but al so for fire and emergency personnel. Board Member Hoffmann - Alright, I'll accept what you're saying. I just thought that there weren't going to be any steps. Mr. Herrick — Well, there are units that have steps, but we also provide the ADA ramps to get up to the units. So all the units do have the ADA access.. It's a combination of ramps and stairs in some units. In these particular units it's simply ramps. Board Member Hoffmann — Just as a practical matter, I understand that all the units on the ground floor are going to be handicap accessible, but as a practical matter, is that really necessary? Wouldn't it be better to try to locate the handicap accessible units where the ground is more level altogether so that no body has to deal with sidewalks and such that are on a slope, which might be difficult for someone in a wheelchair for instance. Mr. Harrick — Well, where the ground is level is a tough one on this site. Board Member Hoffmann — In the existing unit, it's a little bit more level. Mr. Harrick — It is. That's correct, phase one certainly has the most level of the land available on the site. Mr. Sieverding — Under ADA requirements, when we have flat apartments that stack upon one another. Such as all of these apartments here. That ground floor has to be ADA accessible. Board Member Hoffmann — Every single one of them? Mr. Sieverding — Every single one of them. Beyond that, we've elected to make the ground floor accessible. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Herman. Anybody else? Staff comments at this point? I'll give the public a chance to speak. Can I have a show of hands of those this evening who will be speaking. Given the number, I will not put any restrictions on time. I ask you to come forward to the microphone, give us your name and address and this Board will be very happy to hear what you have to say. John Yntema, 993 Danby Road — With your permission, I'd like to pass out written copies of what I'm grind to say. It might be easier for you to follow. Chairperson Wilcox — That's fine. Mr. Yntema — (Statement Attached) sEE =AC* HM Fr #1 Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, we'll give you the honor of going last. 21 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 - APPROVED Pauline Layton, 1029 Dandy Rd- The forest above the controversial drainage pipe and so on, it has a lot of oak trees in it. I don't know if you know„ but oak leaves don't disintegrate that well, especially in the kind of mild winters we've been having lately, they really don't disintegrate very well. So, for instance, last Sunday, when I went walking in that area the existing pipe below the foot bridge was half clogged with oak leaves. It's more than and eight inch pipe, I don't know what it is, but anyway the plan for the new pipe is going to be a 30 inch, but it doesn't has a trash wrack. So it's probably going to be even better at getting stuck full of oak leaves. If there's a rain storm over night, even if the trash rack was bare of oak leaves to begin with, by the end of the rain storm maybe it will be full of oak leaves and maybe the water will not be going down the pipe anymore. In order to have some margin for error,. I really think that it would be better, instead of just having a ditch in the back to have something more like a retention pond. It seems likely that sooner or later, there will be some interesting problems, especially after only getting inspected once in a blue moon. I think it's vital that the whole area along the connector road should be part of the drainage plan and this plan needs to be adjustable as problems pop up. I feel the need to really stay conscious of what's happening here and not just get jolted away until the next time that five foot deep gullies appear, which is what happened in the years 2000, all of a sudden the road had big gullies in it and they were forced to pay attention for the first time. Another point I'd like to make, in the last few years, now that College Circle has actually been getting quieter, Ithaca College itself has become much more of an offender at playing loud music, especially during the day time hours. Before every game they play maybe half an hour of very loud music over the p.a. system. Then, of course, they have official celebration, especially around graduation time, and those have even louder music. I wonder if the community center at cCollege Circle is likely to be used for officially sanctioned outdoor parties with loud music. Normally and event in the Town of Ithaca that was going to that loud would probably have to get a permit, I would hope. Here, where the college is really in a residential neighborhood, rules about permits like that, I think ought to apply. Even with a permit, there should be some upper limit on how much volume you can generate even in the daylight. If you can hear the music half a mile away, that's too loud. If you can hear it well half a mile away, that's really too loud. About the plan to remove an existing walkway down from College Circle to Danby Road. It's true that this walkway looks really awful because JMS has never bothered to take care of it. People do use it. Bicyclists use it, it's very convenient for bicyclists. Students at College Circle, who want to go visit their friends in Cayuga Vista or vise versa, that's a great way to go. If they couldn't use that walkway, there would be a greater tendency for these students to cut across people's yards , which is already a problem at certain times a year. Especially the annual Ithaca College/ Cortland football game. I expect the walkway also gets some extra use during the graduation ceremonies. Maybe there could be some kind of compromise, like maybe the thing to do would be to leave the culvert over the ditch in place so that people who waned to get across the ditch up to College Circle could do that and to have lights and sidewalks the rest of the way. That would somewhat reduce the temptation to go up people's driveways. As for noisy parties, hopefully all the resident advisors are going to be alert and call the campus safety patrol themselves so that I and other non - student inhabitants won't need to do it so often. The resident advisors will face the same problem that we do, when there is a party just past College Circle over the line at Monkmeyer's and the resident advisors won't like it when they call the Sheriff's Office 22 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED and get told that there's only one patrol car on the road and he's already out on a call, which is often the response that you get. I don' see why the deputized peace officers of whom Vice President McAry informed us of at the last Planning Board meeting, why they can't cross the border of Ithaca College and take action elsewhere on South Hill anywhere that Ithaca College students are involved. And that's what I have to say. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Pauline. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask you a question? About the use of the walkway, you actually observe students going back and, forth across 96 there regularly? Ms. Layton — Yes. Well, I tend to be up at the upper end of it and see people come trudging up with their books or something. We can't really see the whole length of it, but yes, obviously they're using it. Board Member Hoffmann — And the other question is about them cutting across people's yards. Does that happen actually for many of the people who live there? Ms. Layton — It seems to be a problem. I think it's more of a problem when there's drinking parties and people are going to parties down across the road and then they're going to a party up n the Circle and to get from one to the other they're drunk and they don't really care where they're going, but gosh, it's a nuisance. It's kind of surprising to find a whole bunch of people in your yard all of a sudden. Chairperson Wilcox - I think surprising is a polite term. Pauline while you sit down, I'll acknowledge that you sent an e-mail on Sunday, March 31St and the members of this Board were provided copies of that for this evening. Who's next, Joel. Joel Harlen, Dryden — I'm going to tell you the facts about life around here. I do know what's going on up at College Circle Apartments. He's right, you need a connector road to get anything started. As for the parties, it starts out with College Circle Apartments. When the kids get back. They start partying until 3 or 4 in the morning on the weekend that they are do back. They come walking back and forth from he main campus. As for security, I do know that, what's going on up there too. They have the main force just wandering around, but they can't be there all the time. Even Hudson Heights Apartments has this, they have people walking around, by foot with walkie talkies. Ask me, I had the experience of it many times up in that area with security. They'll probably be doing the same thing with College Circle Apartments once they get it going to campus way. I don't know why everyone's complaining about their parties because I go up there, do a little dumpster diving and collect cans. Sometimes I make it late until about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. They're partying, hooting and hollering at the top of their lungs. You ought to hear the girls, cussing and swearing at each other and at their boyfriends walking down the street. But that's nothing, I don't know why they're complaining, what they ought to do is go live in College Town, the same thing is going on, only worse. Up there, when they came back and when they leave, it looks like a garbage dump, it looks like a tornado hit it. It looks like a snow storm up there on College Ave, nothing but cups. What they do is terrorize the neighbors. Park in their parking lots, in their yards, urinate on their 23 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 -APPROVED porches and throw bottles around, bust up furniture, bust up the people's plants and shrubs and stuff like that. One lady, during block parties, she had to put a yellow tape around the house and she had to stay out there until 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. This is on block parties when the used to 2,000/ 3,000 kids on Linn St. You ought to hear about Cayuga Heights, them frats party until the cops come and shut them down, which is about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. With their stereos or bands in the frats, they have a disco, not disco, but disc jockey going. You can hear that music all the way down into the downtown area. If the wind gets right, it goes clear across to West Hill, you can hear the music. So everybody's complaining about their turf, but you've got all the problems in other area, but you've got other problems in other areas of the campuses. Cornell, I image is so big, that they can't possibly do what IC is doing, having a person walk around with a walkie talkie. There's a lot of hidden areas up there on campus and Ithaca College is way ahead on security while Cornell is lacking on. I think Cornell is too huge of a campus to patrol by foot, you know, there's a lot of hidden spots. Spots you have by the gorges. I pretty well know what goes on day and night because I'm out all hours of the night and day, especially when the kids are leaving and when they come back. I'm all over the Finger Lakes picking cans up. Watkins.... Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, can I bring you back to Ithaca College? Mr. Harlen — But then I come back, the parties. They're going wild on both campuses at the same time. One thing they did, what Ithaca College needs to start think of, is curtailing their tailgate parties, like Cornell did, they shut them right off because it got so wild. They partied, man, I'll tell you, there must $400 or $500 worth of stuff down by that tennis court. They dumped everything, broke glass, have food fights. Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, I got you back to Ithaca, now can I get you back to Ithaca College. Mr. Harlen - I'm letting you know what goes around here. I see what's going on and I can tell you, that's what the mayor likes about me. I'm in and out all day and night. I get different ideas if I'm out at Oswego Harbor Fest and Elmira and all that stuff. I come back and report what we should do. What other towns have, we don't have. I bring proof back, too. I'm letting you know that I see the partying and let me tell you, they through some good stuff out. I'm out when it snows. Sometimes I'm up at College Circle Apartments and it's a blizzard... wind blowing. I get down town and there's just a little bit of a trickle of rain and no wind at all. But I know what's going on with the partying and all, I feel sorry for these people, but College Circle is nothing, they're at a distance. Try living around Cayuga Heights, hearing that music blasting way down through all Cayuga Heights. And Collegetown, have you guys ever been up there to see the party when they leave on senior week? Go check it out. That's all I go to say. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Jeff Kirshman, 1005 Danby Rd - I didn't know there was so much good stuff in the dumpsters just behind my property. A couple of things, I'll be very quick. First, I look forward to a very interesting summer of explosions, dirt moving and such. One of the things, where my property is at is where the road narrows at 96, as it heads south and I've already see my neighbor's mailbox wiped out as they 3J PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED play a drag race game when it goes from two roads to one road. My point is here, that you're going to have heavy laden trucks turning on to the highway at that point and many of those people are moving much too fast as they come over the top of the rise of that hill. I would ask that the Town Planner and the Town Engineer, who is every responsible for that traffic plan take a good look at that when those trucks are heading out. You're going to have a large number of them and many of these people don't drive that well, I've seen it. Two: concerning the drainage patterns throughout that area, considering whether you approve a road or not or approve a ditch or not or approve a pipe tonight or not, it seems to be part of that infustructure and I'd just ask that they take concems as they come through that 25 foot area because there are a lot of other trees there that are old and mature on both my property line and on the other side. Finally, there have been large number of parties up there, there have been a large number of people through that area. There are people who utilize that path way between there on a regular basis — I don't think anyone can answer that. I've seen dogs and folks come through there. I've seen one crazy idiot on a scooter actually heading down hill from that spot, I have no idea what happened to him. But they do use it on an occasional basis, how that will effect it once the roads are available behind the property, that will have to be seen. I wish you all the best of luck. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else this evening? Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Board Member Conneman — Is Mr. Yntema's suggestions unreasonable, Dan? You're the engineer. Mr. Walker — No, they're not unreasonable and I think that they're the recommendation that I basically made. Chairperson Wilcox — With regard to the storm water drainage being in place before. Mr. Walker — Just to reiterate this sentiment, the erosion control plan that they did submit has a sequence basically described that they would install the water control structure first. Chairperson Wilcox — And we've already asked John Barney to write the language to add to that draft resolution. Mr. Yntema also talks about the building of the connector road first. Do you see a connection between having that connector road completed and operational before construction begins in College Circle? There's a road there today. A service road would be a polite term for it, it's a dirt road, it's a muddy road as it gets closer and closer to College Circle. You can't, right now, get from that road to College Circle there is a barrier at the property line, but that barrier could easily be removed and a pipe put through the ditch. That would be sufficient, presumably to allow vehicles to cross over. Board Member Conneman — But that's not his point, his point is that it should be used for drainage 25 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Yes and the point is, I think the issue that keeps coming up is that the plans on the Ithaca College property are ones that are only conceptual, if you will. On the property to the north we have seen some drawings, one in particular, but those plans are conceptual. Though we have hinged any occupancy of the additional apartments to the construction of that road and the walkway/ bikeway. Board Member Hoffmann — But most recently, we heard that the road may not be in the location that we have been seeing on some of the maps that we have been shown but in an entirely different location. To me, that makes a big difference because it may have an entirely different impact on the surrounding area. If it's put closer to the wooded area, by the South Hill swamp area that we want to protect, for instance, that may not be so good. Chairperson Wilcox — Then we could say no. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but they might come up with some reasons why it is better to do it that way. For some reason having to do with drainage. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely, it could happen. We don't know. Board Member Hoffmann — So I continue to feel very uncertain about having this come in as two different applications when the two projects are so clearly connected with each other. Board Member Mitrano — What does Mr. Walker think? Chairperson Wilcox — Your name was mentioned again, Dan. Mr. Walker- The question was as far as the Ithaca College plans? Board Member Mitrano — Please advise with respect to my Yntema's letter. Mr. Walker — As far as the storm water drainage, I agree that that's got to be put in there before they do any other major site work. I made that recommendation, I believe that will be in the resolution. The sequence of operations for the construction that's in the packet that we got for this meeting does identify that the first thing that they're got to do working on wet lands, pond expansion and then the second structure is this drainage onto the Ithaca College property. Board Member Mitrano — So we're good on that? Mr. Walker —Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — But what about the road? How do you feel about that connector road I mean. Mr. Walker — Well, as a way to get fill for excess excavation off the site, if Ithaca College has a use for it and if the site plan is approved by this Board because the quantity of fill will require that kind of a review, it's going to be cheaper for them to move it that way then to take it out on the road and haul it We PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002-APPROVED around. Can they build it without taking the fill over there? Yes. And can they build the road without a lot of extra fill? Probably. They can build an adequate road. Can they optimize it to minimize costs? I would think they could, too and use up a lot of that excess excavation from the site. I'd like to see some plans. Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, please down. Thank you. Any other comments in regard to Mr. Yntema's presentation. Board Member Mitrano — Well, what does staff have to say about resolution/ concerns regarding the thirty foot leeway.? Do I have the measurements correct? Chairperson Wilcox — The right of way where the pipe would be installed? Board Member Mitrano — Yep. Mr. Walker — It's tight and it's steep, a contractor will have to know what they're doing, but they can build it in that space. Whether or not the contractor will want to take more room, if they're limited to that space, they won't be able to. Will contract people end up walking across the property line some time? Probably, as a matter of fact, I might end up walking across the property if I'm inspecting it so I don't get knocked over by any equipment. It will take some effort to stay in there, but it can be done. Chairperson Wilcox — Attorney Barney, specifically Mr. Yntema writes "I wonder if the machinery can dig the ditch without encroaching on my neighbor's property or mine." Will there be some mention of this in the resolution? That's a legal matter. Attorney Barney — We assume that people, when they need to build something, with the extent that they need to get on someone's property to do it, they go to that property owner and get an easement for that purpose. Chairperson Wilcox — The contractors must act legally? Attorney Barney — Yes, and if they fail to act legally, it's not the Town's responsibility, it's going to be IAD's or the contractor's responsibility. We don't normally put in our resolutions "we will abide by all laws and conduction the operation in a lawful manner." That's implicit. Board Member Mitrano — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Pauline Layton speaks people walking on other people's property. behavior or to put it in a resolution. People a not get drunk and not make too much noise. are expected to abide by ite of many of the same issues in frustration with noise and find it difficult as a Planning Board to legislate good re expected not to walk on other people's property and The Town has a noise ordinance and property owners Attorney Barney — I think that the concerns over the management controls is really a response to all those problems to a certain extent. I think the willingness to consider the increased density is in conjunction with the fact that it's going to be operated by Ithaca College. 27 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Question, if I can. It's come up with regard to when the water detention and storm water management systems were originally proposed back in 1988 and 1989 and approved by the Planning Board at that time and things have changes, the requirements have changed between then and now. Could the owner of the property go in and put in the remaining approved units under the approval and conditions that existed in 1988, 1989? Would IAD, assuming that they bought the property, would they build out what was approved 12, 13 years ago? Attorney Barney — That's an interesting question. I think they probably could, as long as they were built in conformity to exactly what was approved. One could make the argument, that's since this has been done I phases, that they could be required to get the approval for that phase. I'm not quite sure that's right. It's moot here because they're coming in for a revised plan, clearly a revision of plan requires this Board's approval. Chairperson Wilcox- We should just make our representations again that -I work in a building owned by lad up at the Cornell Business and Technology Park. You have represented. Attorney Barney — Had professional connections. Board Member Howe — This might be another question for Dan about the issue of the semi - annual inspections of the drainage system versus more regular inspections. Do you have thoughts about that? Mr. Walker — For the size of the structures, a semi - annual inspection, formal inspection is appropriate. An annual inspection, even. The structures that are in place here, as far as potential for clogging with leaves and things, they're large. In that structure on a big pipe going down, is a re- enforced concrete box that's 6 by 101 1 think it is, it's pretty large and the bars are 12 inches apart in the trash racks and it's a thirty inch pipe. It's designed to have the trash rack bars at an incline which tends to be somewhat self - cleaning. So I would think that the semi - annual inspection is fine. Plus, with the caveat that after any major storm event that there were be another inspection, which would be normal operating procedures. We'll have Town staff that will be doing inspections up there on an annual basis in terms with the agreement for operating a storm water system. I don't see that that is a problem here because these are designed to be trouble free structures. Board Member Hoffmann — One of the things that I noticed when I read about the wetland area is that at the moment there is purple leustrife growing there and that's one of those troublesome plant that's very hard to get rid of. I noticed that in the planting plan for that same area, once it's been expanded there were other types of plants listed, but not purple leustrife. I'm wondering how it is going to disappear. Do you have some plan to actually get rid of it so that it doesn't come back? Mr. Sieverding - There is quite a substantial amount of excavation that takes place in order to deepen that basin and so all that material is going to be removed with several feet of dirt underneath it. Board Member Hoffmann — And that will for sure make it sure it doesn't come back? Wo PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 - APPROVED Mr. Sieverding — That's a tough thing, purple luestrife, I think is all over the countryside. I don't know how you effectively control plants like that from invading that type of an area. Certainly, what ever was there would entirely eliminated by virtue of all the re- grading that needs to take place in order to create that space. Chairperson Wilcox — That doesn't prevent it from coming back. Mr. Walker — There's a technique that they're using up in Sapsucker Woods right now. Contractor's go out there and cut all the blossoms off purple luestrife before it blooms and goes to seed. You could put that in as a stipulation. Chairperson Wilcox — Buy lots of scissors. Mr. Walker — Establishment of the wetland is years and there is going to be some replanting Board Member Hoffmann — I think that there that, but I don't know if it's anything that would couple of years ago, but I've forgotten the dete going to be somewhat labor intensive for the first few and that's what's going to have to happen, are some new techniques, I remember hearing about be practical here. I heard a lecture about it at Cornell a As. Mr. Walker — Well there's some wasps or something that they are breeding to kill this stuff too, I think. Basically, it's a fairly small area, there's just going to have to be some hand cutting to establish the maintenance of it. We can make to Town Planner responsible for supervising that, he'll keep an eye on it. Mr. Kanter — I'll supervise it. We can have your engineering staff do it. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, can I keep you on the spot for another couple of minutes? Maintenance of the storm water facilities is an issue that keeps coming up. The resolution only calls for an agreement satisfactory to yourself and the Town Attorney. Comments on, given these particular structures here, their size, the existing problems, how frequently should they be reviewed and cleaned. Mr. Walker — Let me read you the paragraph that I've written. "Owner of the property is responsible for proper operation and maintenance of the storm water management facilities. Town of Ithaca reserves the right to inspect the facility on a regular basis when deemed necessary by the Town Engineer and does this annually or after major storm events." That's how we inspect our structures. "To ensure that the public and private facilities that are potentially impacted- by storm water discharges from the developed site a re adequately protected. If maintenance deficiencies are found, the Town Engineer will notify the owner in writing and the owner shall cause these repairs to be made within thirty days of such notice. If the owner fails to complete the repairs to the satisfaction of the Town of Ithaca Engineer within thirty days, the Town of Ithaca reserves the right to have the repairs made and will charge the owner for the cost as such incurs. The Town of Ithaca reserves the right to enter the property and make emergency repairs to the storm water maintenance management facilities in the event of a threat to the safety of the facilities and properties." That gives us the right, if we have a storm event like we had in '93 where we had 20 inches of snow melting and six inches of 29 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED rain on top of it, we'd be going around looking at our trouble spots and if we saw there was a problem, get in there and clean it out. But on structures of this type, as long as they're mowing it to keep the woody vegetation out of it, that's an annual inspection type. Chairperson Wilcox — Plus they have the gates which collect debris and things like that. Mr. Walker — Right, the structures which have been designed and TG Miller did a very similar structure to this on the Ithaca College campus for the storm water pond below the road way. Which was before this Board probably eight years ago. It was a while ago, it's been in place now for quite a few years. Ithaca College has done a good job maintaining that. On occasion we go by and take a look, there are ducks living in the pond and everybody's happy. The structures are large enough that they are pretty much self - cleaning. This structure is not in the middle of the woods, neither of them are. The one structure is closer to trees, so is there is a tree falling down, we have to be aware of that. But the leaves and other debris that normally flow through these structures will pass quite easily. Chairperson Wilcox — You read about the Town's right to go, what about the property owner's, should they have a regular maintenance schedule, inspection schedule and how often should that be? For a structure like this one. Mr. Walker- For a structure like this one, again an annual inspection or after ever major event. They'll be mowing lawns around it, which is what they're doing right now to maintain the areas and that's basically what the maintenance people will be doing. The structure out in the Ithaca College property will have to have annual maintenance just to keep the brush out of the water way. We can put in some annual inspections in the maintenance agreement because we'll have to draft an agreement with Ithaca College with basically the same type of language in it. Chairperson Wilcox — Attorney Barney, I made numerous commitments on behalf trees that will be fell to put in this drainag The question is this is not on the College they're committed to doing this part of the construction, it's work that's done off of drainage easements? think this one is best addressed to you. Mr. Segricci has of Ithaca College, one of which is the replacement of the e along this thirty foot strip. They've said that they will do it. Circle property, this is on Ithaca College property. Though presentations here, then it has to be done in order to begin College Circle property, are we in need of some sort of Mr. Walker — The language in the presentation said that Ithaca College would be constructing this channel. Chairperson Wilcox — But it's not on College Circle property? Mr. Walker — No, Ithaca College is going to construct it, not the College Circle people. That's what is written in here and that's one of the concerns I had. Chairperson Wilcox — Even though that's not one of the two parcels that we are considering to give site plan approval to? Mr. Walker — Right. 30 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 -APPROVED Attorney Barney — I think, don't we have a provision in here that says storm water diversion, detention and so forth is going to be satisfactory to Dan and myself. We don't limit this agreement actually to these folks, it could be Ithaca College as well. Mr. Walker — Basically, we're not going to give them the go ahead to start mass earth work on the site until this drainage is in place. Chairperson Wilcox — Whether that's drainage structures that must be built on this property or an adjacent property that they've committed to. Mr. Kanter — The site plan they'll be approving will be approving the specific portion on the Ithaca College property as part of the site plan of College Circle. Chairperson Wilcox — Part of the site plan of College Circle is to deal with some of the drainage on a neighboring parcel of land owned by someone else. Attorney Barney — Aside from Ithaca College permitting them to be there, it's really a College Circle project. Chairperson Wilcox — Part of the site plan of College Circle is to deal with some of the drainage of the neighboring property owned by someone else. Attorney Barney — It might not be a bad idea to at least have an agreement between IAD and Ithaca College permitting them to be there. Chairperson Wilcox — You can write another one. Board Member Hoffmann - What about the walkway? I thought we had essentially talked about the walkway as something that would disappear, but now we've heard some comments tonight about it perhaps being useful to have there. Anybody have any thoughts about that? Chairperson Wilcox — The walkway exists, the question is will be allow them to remove it. It exists today, it was built as part of phase one of College Circle. We heard representations that it doesn't get a lot of use. I haven't heard anybody say that it gets a lot of use. It certainly gets some use, it exists. I'm more concerned about where is leads to. It just leads out to 96131 Board Member Mitrano — And one of their concerns is that it encourages people out there. Chairperson Wilcox — Did you want to address it Herman? I don't think College Circle or IAD made any representations as to why they wanted to get rid of it, other than it's not being used very heavily. It might be a liability issue. Mr. Sieverding — It's viewed as a potential liability because of where it does dump out is in the middle of the shoulder along Rte. 96. There is no sidewalk there, there is no designated path over to Cayuga Vista or anything like that and the sense is that to the extent that you're going to have pedestrian traffic moving back and forth theirs is going to be a connecting road and a pedestrian walkway. 31 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — But what about students who walk out of this development and walk up, for instance, to the pizza place by King Rd or to the sandwich shop on 96, there aren't any sidewalks for them either. Mr. Sieverding — I'm not sure that you want to encourage that traffic by building a sidewalk that takes them to the edge of that highway and says "okay guys you're on your own ". Board Member Hoffmann- I guess my point is they aren't really any safer if they go in and out on the entrance way into this development from Rte. 96 and then continue on the road. There aren't any crosswalks there either. Of the two places, the walkway or the road, the problems are the same. But you're not going to close the road because of liability of pedestrians using it? Mr. Sieverding — It's just a question of whether you want to encourage that kind activity. When there isn't a sidewalk adjacent to that highway that allows for safer pedestrian access & I think when you build a sidewalk on your property and it leads to a situation where there isn't a public sidewalk, I think there is some implied liability there, like where are you sending these people. So the sense is that let's eliminate that potential liability problem. Especially since it gets very marginal use. Chairperson. Wilcox — Anybody else? Comments from staff? RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -33 = Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, College Circle Apartments Phase 2, 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -i -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3. MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the approved site plan for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed development includes the construction of 60 apartments that were previously approved by the Town in 1988, with some proposed modifications to the parking, building layout and circulation. The proposal also includes a community center building, Ithaca College campus integration infrastructure and a request for additional apartment occupancy. Ithaca College proposes to enter into a long -term agreement with Integrated Acquisition and Development to operate and maintain the College Circle Apartments as campus student apartment housing. J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on March 5, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, and 32 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED 3, The Planning Board, at Public Hearings held on March 5, 2002 and April 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted, drawings and details included within the bound submission titled "Site Plan Approval Submission — College Circle Phase 2," dated February 5, 2002, "Supplemental Information," dated March 12, 2002, and "Final Site Plan Submission," dated March 25, 2002, and other application material, and 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 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 modifications to the approved site plan for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, as shown on drawings and detail sheets included within the bound submission titled "Site Plan Approval Submission — College Circle Phase 2," dated February 5, 2002; "Supplemental Information," dated March 12, 2002, and "Final Site Plan Submission," dated March 25, 2002, and other application material, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of a revised Planting Plan for approval by the Director of Planning, to include native, non - invasive plantings on the eastern edge of the site to provide a buffer with the neighboring property, prior to issuance of any building permits; b. That any blasting on the site shall occur only on weekdays between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm; C, That a routing plan for trucks hauling material off of the site shall be submitted for review and approval of the Town Engineer, prior to issuance of any building permits, and that such truck traffic shall occur only on weekdays between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm; d. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, prior to issuance of any building permits; e. Submission of an agreement, prior to the issuance of any building permits, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering and the Attorney for the Town pursuant to which Ithaca College and the Developer agree to maintain the stormwater diversion detention and piping facilities on their respective properties together with an agreement to the Town allowing it to repair any damage to or remove obstructions from any such facility and back charge the costs of such activities to the landowner where the problem needed to be corrected; 33 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED f. Submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of any building permits; g. Obtaining the necessary variance regarding reduction in size of parking spaces, prior to issuance of any building permits; h. Construction of the drainage channel and culvert shown on sheet C503 to be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering, prior to the beginning of any other site work that will divert water to such channel and culvert. i. Submission of an agreement satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town Director of Engineering, pursuant to which Ithaca College grants appropriate drainage easements over properties owned by Ithaca College that are necessary for the construction and maintenance of the drainage facilities for the project. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby approves the requested increase in total occupancy of the 149 apartment units in the College Circle development from the previously approved 600 persons to a total not to exceed 750 persons, subject to the following conditions, and recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals act favorably on the same request for increase in occupancy: a. Obtaining approval for the same increase in occupancy from the Zoning Board of Appeals (as a modification of the ZBA's condition in the variance which was granted in 1990); and b. Ithaca College submitting plans to this Board and obtaining the necessary approvals for the Town and any other government agencies from which approvals may be required for the proposed new connector road to provide full vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access between College Circle and the Ithaca College campus, and completion of construction of said connector road to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for any buildings in Phase 2 of the College Circle apartments; and C, Submission of evidence of a signed long -term agreement between Ithaca College and Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp. committing to Ithaca College's leasing, management, and supervision of the College Circle Apartments as campus housing (as described in the College Circle Site Plan Approval Submission dated Feb. 5, 2002), with the contingency that if Ithaca College chooses to terminate or change its agreement with Integrated Acquisition & Development (or a successor owner) relative to its involvement in, management of, and supervision of the College Circle Apartments, then the maximum occupancy of the project shall be reduced to no more than 690 persons, provided that Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp. (or a successor owner) provides management controls on the occupants similar to those provided by Ithaca college and as further described in the "Site Plan Approval Submission, College Circle Phase 2, Supplemental Information, March 12, 2002," (e.g. at least one on site full time 34 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 71 2002 - APPROVED resident director and at least one resident manager for every 125 occupants) compliance with such provisions to be confirmed by the Planning Board upon review at that time; if such controls are not in place, the occupancy shall be reduced to no more than 600 persons; all without prejudice to the developer to apply for occupancy of up to 750 persons, if it is so advised and if the Zoning Board of Appeals permits such increased occupancy. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the requested reduction in size of parking spaces from the required 180 square feet to requested dimension of 8 %' x 18' is appropriate for the College Circle development, and recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals act favorably on this request. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Attorney Barney — I was just adding a new h & I as conditions for the first "resolved" h. reading "construction of the drainage channel and culvert shown on sheet c503 to be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering, prior to the beginning of any other site work that will divert water to such channel in the culvert. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that sufficient Dan? Would that cover what you want? Okay. Please continue. Attorney Barney — i. Would be "submission of an agreement satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town Director of Engineering, pursuant to which Ithaca College grants appropriate drainage easements over properties owned by Ithaca Collage that are necessary for the construction and maintenance of the drainage facilities for the project." And then addressing the question we had on the modifications to "c" in the second "resolved ", it's just on the top of page three, after the parenthetical 125 occupants change the statement to be reasonable satisfactory to the Planning Board" to read "compliance with such provisions to be confirmed by the Planning Board upon review at that time." And change the next phrase to read instead of "If the Planning Board does not approve" change it to read " If such controls are not in place, the occupancy shall be reduced to more than 600 persons." So this gives it kind of an empiric approach to it, rather than a Planning Board discretionary. Then the "if' that we talked about should be added. Chairperson Wilcox — Are those changes acceptable Rod and Tracey. Okay. First page, John, "resolve to a., submission of a revised planting plan" and I want to add "for approval by the Director of Planning ". It doesn't say who would approve or advise. Mr. Kanter — Plus we might add native, non invasive plantings along the eastern edge of the site." " 35 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 712002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. I think we had a sufficient discussion of that so that you know what we're looking for and it's purpose. Anything else? Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:56 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a resolution re- confirming a Recommendation to the Town Board on the enactment of a local law rezoning +/- 15.266 acres from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III development, located on Conifer Drive off Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.16. Estate of Anthony Ceracche and Home Properties of New York, Owners; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent. Attorney Barney — When we looked at this the last time, we talked about a very simple re- zoning to multiple residence. When I got down to drafting the Local Law that effected that re- zoning, I went back to see what we did the last time. So we turned up the Local Law that we did the last time and it actually had a number of provisions in it to assure that there would indeed be low income housing there, that there would be compliance with establishing the median range of the housing income would be for the people that lived there. So, I went ahead and drafted a local law basically parroting most of that same language, we submitted it to the developer and today, the developer came back, they had a couple of minor changes. As a point of discretion, we wanted to have you have a chance to look at this and make sure that in the recommendation that you're making or have already made to the Town Board recommending approval of this Local Law, that you see the full scope of what it is that I have kind of done for you. I wanted to be sure that you were comfortable with it. (inaudible) Chairperson Wilcox — As you have said, this proposal of law is consistent with the one enacted previously to re -zone Phase I? Board Member Hoffmann — I'm glad you caught this because it is very important that there is this provision about keeping these apartments for low income families for a certain amount of tenants. I had completely forgotten about that. Attorney Barney — Of course we have a track record with this organization that we didn't have the first time. We were very nervous about what he was going to do and how he was going to do it and that was what lead to all the provisions the first time. Now, I think there's less nervousness and concern because they've demonstrated that they run a pretty good operation, but it still seems appropriate to establish rules across the board, they ought to be more or less the same. Now you should know that it came up in our discussions today with Chris Rogers, the developer, that the Local Law that you have now in front of you, modified as of today, calls for 72 of the 96 units to be low- income units. Basically, the 72 in phase two, they are committed to making low- income, but they don't know for sure whether the 24 in Phase III will or will not be low- income and they don't want to be locked into that. Actually Jon and I talked about it to the extend that we're the policy- makers, which we realize we are not, but the thought of having some market -rate apartments in with the low- income housing is not altogether bad, figuring that you have 56 already in Phase I and 72 in Phase II, 24 market -rate might be a nice mix. Again, if there's a concern or feeling that that's not appropriate, you should express it now. iM PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I think from the beginning we have made special concessions for this group because they have been providing lower -rent housing and that was something that was very much needed in this town. I have never really liked this singling out groups — single mother housing or elderly housing or whatever, I think that's a terrible concept, generally. It sees as if, because of financing structures and so on, it has to be done in a certain way. Especially when it comes to this kind of project. I don't know, I'm a little hesitant about giving up some of those units to market rent apartments when there's a bit need for lower rent apartments in the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — The question is; will there be a need when they go and build those last two buildings? And I think that's what they're asking. Board Member Mitrano- So it allows them not to, but it doesn't say that they won't? Attorney Barney — They basically don't know whether they're going to qualify for another program or if they have investors for it. They just didn't want to have in the re- zoning it say everything up there is going to be low- income when they don't know exactly. They'll be back before the Board for Phase III. Mr. Kanter — They'll be in, but it will be in at the next meeting, April 16th for final approval for Phase II and III. Chairperson Wilcox — They're committed though, the buildings that they're committing to build which is Phase II only, will all be low- income. Attorney Barney — Well, the local law says that 72 out of the 96 must be low- income. What they're doing is the 72 that they have approval for and they get the low- income credit. Chairperson Wilcox — Which would ensure that it's Phase II? Mr. Kanter — So you're talking about a desirability of a mix of market rate and affordable units. It's actually better to mix them, literally, not to segment them into Phase II and then others in Phase III. I we're going to do it (change some numbers) allowing some mixture is a good thing. Chairperson Wilcox — So, John Barney, you believe that a motion to reconfirm our recommendations is appropriate? Attorney Barney — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:48 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -34 - Reconfirming Recommendation of Proposed Rezoning, Linderman Creek Apartments, Phase 11 &Ill, Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte 79). MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board re- confirms its recommendation to adopt the local law rezoning Phases 2 and 3 of the Linderman Creek project, and specifically recommends the adoption of the 37 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED proposed local law entitled A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP REZONING PORTIONS OF TAX PARCELS NOS, 27-01 -13.12 AND 27.- 01 -13.16 LOCATED ON N.Y.S. ROUTE 79 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT (Linderman Creek Apartments - Phase 2 and 3)" as revised and presented to the Planning Board at its meeting on April 2, 2002. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Other Business: Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — We have an important one to do, the minor one is that I want to remind everyone that lives on South Hill or the City of Ithaca that Italian Carry-Out is open. It opened last Wednesday. George Conneman — What do they do that is so special? Board Member Mitrano — The sauce is pretty good. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know, but I stopped by Friday, they opened Wednesday without advertising, hoping that they'd just start slowly, it was packet Thursday night and Friday night it was unreal. I waited an hour and a half for my pizza. They were busy. We may think about increasing the size of the parking lot. It'll drop back off. We have a potentially important issue that came up after the agenda was distributed. The Cornell athletic fields that we reviewed at our last meeting. Jon Kanter, I'll go as long as I can and when I make a mistake, you can fill in the rest of the story. A member of the public came in after our review and reviewed the plans and came to the conclusion, confirmed by Susan, that the athletic fields will not affect 1/10 of an acre of Hawthorne Forest, but 1/2 and acre of Hawthorne Forest. The question before this Board and I will give you a chance to speak and I appreciate your coming in just for this, is is that sufficient for this Board to go back and re -do the SEQR review and potentially to throw out or negate the preliminary approval that we already gave it? Do you have anything to add to what I said? Ms. Ritter — No really. Chairperson Wilcox — Please speak so that we know that you were here. Mr. Ritter — We're intending to send, as soon as we receive the information, we actually haven't received anything. I believe they're going to submit a memo and it will have this information in it as 9 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED well as some other updated information. They'll submit that to us and we're planning to send that over to the County for the GML review. Part of this, I think we need to get a feel from the Board just right now as to how they feel in terms of the significance of this, but I think we need to talk to John Barney, who is busy right now about some of the legal issues involved in this because it sounds like, what I had heard from Cornell is that you would just reconfirm the neg dec , otherwise you would pos dec it and that would mean you would think it was quite significant and would need to do an Environmental Impact Statement. It doesn't sound as though you just really do a re- review of the SEQR, according to what I had read. Is that correct? Attorney Barney — There are two provisions in the SEQR regulations which allow the Board or the lead agency, if there are substitantive changes or substantive new information. But basically, substantive material that comes to your attention, that you can reconsider whether the neg dec was properly being considered. If you're going to change it or even if you're really going to discuss it, you need to give the applicant notice of that and give them an opportunity to be heard before �rou make a decision. So the purpose of this discussion tonight is to whether the change from the 10t of an acre are such that you at least provide for the substantive discussion as to whether you want to modify your neg dec. If you want to discuss it, I suggest that you schedule it on an agenda and let Cornell know. Board Member Conneman — Do you know, Sue, how the error was made? Was it intentional? Ms. Ritter — It does not appear that it was intentional at all. It just sounds like it was an over site. Board Member Hoffmann — The question that I would that it was ' /z acre that was affected, but all the text in acre, which is the one that we should hold it to? If you one thing and in the words you write another, which them approval, with the paperwork saying that it's regardless of what measurements of the actual draw acre? have is that if the plans show, when measured, the approval that we are given talks about 1/10 write a check and you in the numbers you write is the one that you should go by? If we gave 1/10 of an acre that's going to be affected, ings show, shouldn't we hold them to the 1/10 Attorney Barney - The problem is that we now have new information. Can we hold them to say that they can construct it, but only damage no more that 1/10 acre? I think that we probably can. The site plan only shows 1/10 of an acre of land that will be impacted. I think what you need to decide whether, if you had known that before would it have made a difference in your determination on whether there is a significant environmental impact here. Board Member Conneman — The haven't raised the question of whether that area is 7.7 acres, is it larger than that? Ms. Ritter — I think it might be 6.6 acres between 6 and 7 acres. Board Member Conneman — No one has come back and actually said it is larger? Ms. Ritter — No. 0 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 -APPROVED Mr. Kanter — So it's definitely a much bigger percentage? Chairperson Wilcox — We've gone from 1/10 of an acre of 6 1/2 to 7 to' /2 acre. Ms. Ritter — Which is a more substantial size of a small area. Chairperson Wilcox — Were there any other issues uncovered by the review of the plans. Ms. Ritter — Not really in terms of the Hawthorne Forest. It's just that as far as the GML review goes, the county had never seen, for instance the pest management plan so the were under the impression that because the SEQR from that we had submitted to them said no fertilizer or pesticide was going to be used. So as long as we're resubmitting for this issue about the 1/2 acre of Hawthorne Forest, we'll submit for that. As well as, I had talked to Lorraine, that if the can get their parking study done and any kind of transportation issues, if they submitted that as well, we could get that to the County and have all these things covered. Mr. Kanter — So I guess we just wanted to get a sense from the Board of whether the change in the acreage of disturbance was a significant impact. Chairperson Wilcox — Would move it from a negative declaration of significance to at least the potential of positive. Mr. Kanter — Well, either and /or compelling some sort of mitigation and possibly changing the plan. Chairperson Wilcox — The preliminary approval, we put a lot of clauses in there about dealing with the birds and everything else. Ms. Ritter — The fellow who found the '/2 acre, I believe he is going Town of Ithaca be submitting a letter and he's still pushing for consideration of having a retention wall. I mentioned that to Lorraine and said maybe here consultant could look into that possibly. He's not proposing it so much right at the edge of the field now, I think he's putting it along the edge as sort of a compromise. Chairperson Wilcox — It's a way to reduce the amount of fill and therefore the encroachment into the Hawthorne Forest? Ms. Ritter — Essentially. Chairperson Wilcox — I shouldn't say fill, let me say cut and fill at this point. If I remember correctly, I thought when that gentleman got up and spoke and he said that if he did some type of retaining wall, it would be even worse off because there's "x" amount of room that needs to be done for the playing field to let the participants play. Mr. Kanter — Those were the remarks he made, the issue would go away without having actually gentleman who came in and talked to Sue wa sbut I think he was kind of off the cuff reaction so that looked at it on the plan. I think the next step is this actually looking at it enough to see that you could .X PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED actually do this and Sue's suggestion to Cornell was maybe you better have your consultants look at it and come back and tell us if this can or can't be done. Attorney Barney — They seemed to be a little sloppy in their calculations, So maybe they miscalculated it. Board Member Conneman — How do you go from 4,000 square feet to 21,000 square feet. Board Member Mitrano — Is the question whether we would, based on this discussion, already expect a change in our position about SERQ or is the question should we review SEAR? Attorney Barney — Well, it's really two questions. The first questions is, do you want to reconsider the SEQR determination? The second question is, you gave preliminary sign plan approval based on a certain statement, even if you find that there's no significant environmental impact of 1/2 an acre, you may want to change some of the conditions. Both are those something that you need to consider. Chairperson Wilcox- Okay, re- review SEQR. Board Member Mitrano — I'm not saying that I'll vote against it. Chairperson Wilcox — We may come to the same additional conditions on the preliminary approval, conclusion with regard to SEQR, but we may add Board Member Conneman — Well, they essentially were saying "it's only 1/10 acre, so why would we want to move the field ?" well, now I'd say maybe I do want to move the field. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't think in the big picture the change in acreage is a significant difference on the environmental impact, but I thin it gives us an opportunity to have them adjust the field a little bit. SO that they don't have to take away so much of that forest. Mr. Kanter — It sounds like you're saying, it may not be a significant environmental issue, but then why would you want to change the configuration of the field. Board Member Mitrano — Well, the difference between a site plan and a SEQR consideration. Mr. Kanter — Well, the point is that you want to conserve as much of the forest because of its wild life and plant habitat, that is definitely an environmental issue. Board Member Mitrano — Okay. Board Member Mitrano — Can you think about the reserve of.what you're saying, if you move the field in such a way it's to not have an impact on the forest then it's not going to be an environmental issue. Mr. Kanter — In that sort of sense it's like Cornell, in order to avoid the pos. dec. will have to go back and redo the site plan. So either way, it's a very key environmental issue, it's just a question of how the process of working it. 41 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano – Well, I'd like for them to come back. Chairperson Wilcox – This is a potentially controversial issue and we must be very careful of procedure. Board Member Mitrano – Right. Mr. Kanter – One thing that Sue and I talked about is that to help determine how significant this issue is, it might be helpful to get as many of the planning Board Members out to the site and look at it. Somehow have them actually flag the area that is to be disturbed and actually walk out and say here is this part of the forest. I think going out and looking at it might help to make some reference of how important an issue this is. Board Member Hoffmann – When is this likely to come up? Mr. Kanter – Well, I think we're talking about April 16th , if we decide Cornell should come back and re -visit the issue. Putting that on the April 16th meeting, which is one of the unfortunate reasons why we didn't think we could cancel the meeting as well as Linderman Creek. Chairperson Wilcox – The Board has clearly spoken with a uniform voice that we'd like to go back and re -do the SEQR process and potentially also re -do the preliminary approval. You. John Kanter, have mentioned some of the legal obstacles and I think this Board relies upon either the Town attorney or the assistant town attorney to keep us out of potential landmines. But your point is well made that we're not allowed to say that it has an impact, move the field, therefore it doesn't have an impact. We've got to look at the actual proposal as submitted and determine whether it has an impact or not and if it does how large and impact and whether it can mitigated. Board Member Mitrano – Will Larry be here that night. I will not be here that night. Chairperson Wilcox – I believe he's coming back for one meeting, which will be the next one and then he misses a few more. Board Member Mitrano – I'm not trying to over state it, but I won't be here that night. (inaudible murmur) Attorney Barney – I'd like, if you could arrange it, I'd like to be present. Chairperson Wilcox – Any thought to moving the meeting from the 16th to the 23`d. I heard whispers that we will lose two on the 23`d. What's wrong with May7th and then we could push Jacobs to the 7th as well. MS. Ritter – May 7th I don't think is real full at this point. Chairperson Wilcox —Let's move Cornell Athletic Fields to May7th. 42 PLANNING BOARD APRIL 2, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED - MAY 7, 2002 - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — So the pizza Italian Carry out was real good. Board Member Conneman — I want to know what's happened to those trailers by that furniture place on Elmira Rd, Chairperson Wilcox — They're still there. Board Member Conneman — They look like hell. Mr. Kanter — Apparently Andy Frost had a conversation with Mr. Quick cash and he's having problems with him . Andy's going to be sending him a follow up letter indicating that he's still in violation and he needs to do something about it. We may be talking about it at the Town Board Meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — Right now, it's and enforcement issue. He's running goofy commercials on TV. Mr. Kanter — So far he has not contacted any of us to talk about the site plan and from what Andy told me, he is opposed to submitting a site plan. He says it cost more money then he has to invest in or something like that. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there any other business? Other business from staff. AGENDA ITEM = ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the April 2, 2002 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:21 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lori Quigley, Deputy Town Cler 43 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting Tuesday, 02 April 2002 Testimony of John Yntema ItIMCGI :• �FXN •� - My name is John Yntema. I live at 993 Danby Road. I have several observations and concerns, and some suggestions for addressing the problems. 1. What follows assumes that diverting the stormwater runoff from College Circle, to the Ithaca College retention pond by their south soccer field, is not likely to occur. If I am mistaken, please correct me now, because that would affect what I have to say. Construction of the drainage ditch, headwall, trash rack, and drainage pipe adjacent to my neighbor's property and mine, should be completed before any other construction or excavations begin. A. The hillside, where the new Phase 2 Apartments are to go, is very wet, a fact very obvious to those who were on the field trip to College Circle on 25 February. Assorted plant life on the hillside helps keep some of this water from running downhill into the trench behind current College Circle buildings. When the hillside is excavated for the new buildings, there will be increased runoff, since there will. no plant life remaining. This additional runoff should be provided for, BEFORE there is any construction or excavation. B. Without that proposed drainage system in place, any heavy rain will again flood my neighbor's property and mine, and could cause the same or worse damage than it did before. Any repeat of that damage is neither welcome nor necessary. C. Included with the March 12th Phase 2 documents, was a letter from Ithaca College's Carl Sgrecci, committing the College to several things, including construction of this stormwater drainage system, shown on Sheet C -108, BEFORE construction activity begins for Phase 2 at College Circle (my emphasis). I ask that you include that requirement in the resolution which will probably be approved tonight. i12 ' Yntema to Planning Board 02 April 2002 2 D. Mr. Sgrecci's letter also commits the College to maintaining the storm drainage system, by "semi- annual inspections and after any major events," and that, "Repairs will be made as quickly as possible after a deficiency is discovered." It doesn't seem unreasonable to require weekly routine inspections, particularly since it seems the drainage ditch, headwall, and trash rack may not be readily visible by anyone passing by and not intent on checking these places. I would ask that you also include at least a weekly inspection by College personnel, in the resolution. It will take only a brief amount of time, and is only a minimal effort in maintaining the drainage system. E. As I testified at the March 19th public hearing two weeks ago, there are 41 30 ft. tall red pines in the area through which the drainage pipe is intended to be laid, running down to Danby Road. Mr. Sgrecci's March 12th letter also commits the College to, "replacing any trees that may have to be removed in connection with this [drainage] work so the natural appearance of the area will be restored to its current state as much as possible." I trust you will require the College to honor this commitment, too. F. I should also mention that there is a telephone pole with guy wires at the Danby Road end4 of the narrow College property where they intend to run the drainage pipe. There's not a lot of room to maneuver there. G. Speaking of maneuvering, there isn't much digger or whatever heavy equipment is to be used to underground drainage pipe will be installed. The widtl College land is approximately 30 feet. I wonder if the ditch without encroaching on my neighbor's property some mention of this in the resolution? •IT, • •.• room for a trench - dig the ditch where the i of that narrow strip of machinery can dig the or mine. Will there be A. In documents submitted for today's meeting, Ithaca College is committed to constructing the Connector Road by August 2003 -- 16 months from now. Mr. Sgrecci's March 12th letter notes that this road was going to be used by trucks taking away some of the excavated material, presumably from College Circle to the Ithaca College campus. It would seem imperative that the connector road should be in place before College Circle construction work begins. Yntema to Planning Board 02 April 2002 B. Also, the connector road should be in place before College Circle construction begins, because it will have drainage problems that must be addressed at the same time as the construction and installation of the drainage ditch, headwall; and the drainage pipe, which will pass nearby our properties, down to Danby Road. 3 C. At the present time, a sizable amount of stormwater drains onto the back of my property, from Ithaca College property to the east, partly from the gravel road adjacent to their southern soccer field. This is not part of the other stormwater which drains from Ithaca College and College Circle, and floods my neighbor's (Mr. Kirschman's) property to the south, and then onto mine. Presumably, the connector road will have two lanes, and be wider than the current one lane gravel road. This means more runoff, and where is that going to go? That's another reason why the connector road should be in place, before construction at College Circle begins. D. On page 2 of the March 12th Phase 2 Supplemental Information, item 13 indicates agreement, "with the condition that the connector road must -be completed before Certificates of Occupancy will be issued.." Waiting, until Certificates of Occupancy are requested, is much too far in the future. As mentioned before, I feel that the connector road should be installed, and a Town - approved plan for draining water from it should be in place before any construction begins -. excepting, of course, the stormwater drainage system, which I mentioned above, under Item 2. May wisdom be your guide. Thank you. . TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca,' New York 14850 Tuesday, April 2, 2002 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination, Jacobs 2 -Lot Subdivision, 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 2 -1.2, Residence Districts R -5 and R -30. The proposal is to create a 5.36 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33- 2- 1.21), which contains a residence off of Calkins Road, and a 15.34 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33 -2- 1.22), which contains the mobile home park on Seven Mile Drive, out of the 21 +/- acre parcel. This subdivision follows existing parcel boundaries that did not receive Town subdivision approval. Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs and Roland W. Fellows, Owners; Paul A. Jacobs, Applicant. 7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination, Lowe 2 -Lot Subdivision, 136 Snyder Hill Road. 7 :50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61 -1 -12.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 8.97 +/- acre parcel into a 4.83 +/- acre parcel and a 4.14 +/- acre parcel, which contains the existing house. John E. & Audrey M. Lowe, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications in the approved site plan for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed development includes the construction of 60 apartments that were previously approved by the Town in 1988, with some proposed modifications to the parking, building layout and circulation. The proposal also includes a community center building, Ithaca College campus integration infrastructure and a request for additional apartment occupancy above that which was previously approved. Ithaca College proposes to enter into a long -term agreement with Integrated Acquisition and Development to operate and maintain the College Circle Apartments as campus student apartment housing. J.M.S. Realty, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant. 8:30 P.M. Consideration of a resolution re- confirming a Recommendation to the Town Board on the enactment of a local law rezoning +/- 15.266 acres from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III development, located on Conifer Drive off Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 -13.12 and 27- 1- 13.16. Estate of Anthony Ceracche and Home Properties of New York, Owners; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent. 8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 9. Approval of Minutes: March 5, 2002. 10, Other Business. 11, 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, April 2, 2002 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, April 2, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Seven Mile Drive and 182 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 2 -1.2, Residence Districts R -5 and R -30. The proposal is to create a 5.36 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33 -2- 1.21), which contains a residence off of Calkins Road, and a 15.34 +/- acre parcel (Tax Parcel No. 33 -2- 1.22), which contains the mobile home park on Seven Mile Drive, out of the 21 +/- acre parcel. This subdivision follows existing parcel boundaries that did not receive Town subdivision approval. Paul A. and Linda S. Jacobs and Roland W. Fellows, Owners; Paul A. Jacobs, Applicant. 7:50 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 136 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 61 -1 -12.1, Residence District R- 15. The proposal is to subdivide the 8.97 +/- acre parcel into a 4.83 +/- acre parcel and a 4.14 +/- acre parcel, which contains the existing house. John E. &. Audrey M. Lowe, Owners /Applicants; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications in the approved site plan for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed development includes the construction of 60 apartments that were previously approved by the Town in 1988, with some. proposed modifications to the parking, building layout and circulation. The proposal also includes a community center building, Ithaca College campus integration infrastructure and a request for additional apartment occupancy above that which was previously approved. Ithaca College proposes to enter into a long -term agreement with Integrated Acquisition and Development to operate and maintain the College Circle Apartments as campus student apartment housing. J.M.S. Realty, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant, 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, March 25, 2002 Publish: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 rThe 'Ithaca ti.� 3: Wednesday;` March 27,' 2002 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET ()ATE: April 2, 2002 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION )i �-�,� � tom,. C� �° • , , i L� � 1: /a 6 h 10 r A PW� RA o N,v t-/A) !� aM ,.- �`tl �Od CLM )i 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 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York, on Tuesday, April 2, 2002 commencing at 7:30 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting : Date of Publication March 25, 2002 March 27, 2002 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27th day of March 2002. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20