Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-12-07FILE �� DATE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2004 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Eva Hoffmann, Vice Chairperson; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:17 p.m.); Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering (7:16 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner. EXCUSED: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS: Kate Hackett, Tompkins County Planning Department; Herb Engman, Town Board Member; Ray Wetherbee, Rochester;. Roger Langer, NH Architecture; John Fennessey, Conifer Realty; Boris Simkin, Developer; Bill Albern, Engineer; Mark B. Wheeler, Harris Beach, Vice Chairperson Hoffmann declared the meeting duly opened at 7:07 p.m., and accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 29, 2004 and December 1, 2004, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on December 1, 2004, Vice Chairperson Hoffmann read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m., and invited members of the public to address the board on any item that was not on the agenda. With no persons present to be heard, Vice Chairperson Hoffmann closed this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding a Resolution Supporting the Adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Kate Hackett, Tompkins C I work as a Senior Planner 121 E Court St in Ithaca. I the Comp Plan as well as happy to speak to those for questions. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved ounty Planning Department at the Tompkins County Planning Department, address of am here to answer any questions that you may have about additions, recent additions to the Comp Plan. I would be a few minutes if that's your desire or if you prefer to go with Board Member Hoffmann — Why don't you talk about it for a few minutes and then we will see if someone has questions. Ms. Hackett — There are a few things that I wanted to talk specifically about. The first are changes to the Comprehensive Plan since it was first published in April of this year. I believe you have received a document that highlights those, but I'll go over a few of those and then I wanted to also review for you three new sections of the Comp Plan and those are implementation strategies, the fiscal impact and the future development scenarios. For changes to the Comprehensive Plan, this document divides the major changes into sections of the Comp Plan and I'll highlight a couple of those starting with the housing, transportation and job sections. First of all, we went back into the housing section and added additional information about the condition of existing housing stock. Affordable housing is such a critical issue in Tompkins County we felt it warranted that addition as well we included some more detailed census data in that section that is composite census data for the County and the municipalities as well as census data with the student population excerpted from that. So that is a change to the housing section. And we added a couple of action items. I can review those specifically if you are interested. We also added some more information about the role of tourism and the importance of tourism to the economy in Tompkins County. We also had some structural changes in the housing, transportation and jobs sections. We took the rural economy or what was originally titled the rural economy section and changed it to rural resources and that was really to reflect a broader scope of that section and also to indicate why we needed that section in addition to the economy being addressed in the jobs and business section. We also then took the relevant sections from what was the finite resources section, particularly the agricultural pieces of information and data and put that into the rural resources and retitled the Finite Resources, Water Resources. As well we added an action item in the Water Resources Section and due to the fact that we have several major State Parks in Tompkins County we also added some additional information about the State Parks and the key role they play in the County. Then some minor changes in the neighborhood and community section. So that is a highlight of the major changes based on public comment that we heard over the course of the year. 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved So going on to the new version of the Comp Plan that was sent out, as I mentioned there are three new sections and I'd like to start with the section about the future development scenarios. This section looks at two possible development scenarios in the County, of course there are an infinite number. We chose these two based on statistical information and population data provided by the New York State Statistical Information Systems and looked at what we call a trend -based scenario, which is based on the existing population and settlement patterns in Tompkins County. Then the second version that we looked at was what we call the plan -based scenario, which would be what the development might look like in Tompkins County if the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan are implemented. So looking at the development scenarios and in particular what we are calling the Plan Based Scenario, it has an emphasis on notable development patterns so that we can focus development in areas that are already developed and already have infrastructure, increase the efficiency of systems such as water and sewer service and transportation and then also preserving the resources that we have: open space, farms, forest, recreational trails, etc. And I do need to reiterate that these development areas are not intended to prescribe any type of land use pattern for the municipalities, but to understand what some of the impacts are of the way that we are developing now and what some of the implications are of the way that we might choose to develop and also to understand those impacts on systems such as infrastructure, transportation, open space, and water resources. 1 have specifics about the planned based scenario if you are interested in terms of the number of new jobs, the number of new housing units. That is included in the information I believe that you received. We also have categorized development of the county into several major development types: urban center, rural center, suburban concentrated, all the way down to what we are calling rural scattered development. Then looking at what the development patterns might look like throughout the county and we have described a certain type of development or described that in the text of the development scenarios. In terms of highlighting some of the impacts that came out of the analysis for the future development scenarios I would just like to mention that when we look at transportation and the differences between. the two possible development patterns, specifically we see that based on the denser development patterns that would be implemented in the planned based scenario we have a decrease in the number of miles traveled everyday by commuters and that leads to significantly less traffic congestion in several areas of the County, specifically in Lansing, Enfield and Newfield. We recognize the people's behavioral patterns in terms of transportation might change, gas prices could continue to rise, people may continue to use alternative forms of transportation, but that would only highlight that there is less demand on the transportation infrastructure under the planned based scenario than the trend based scenario. In terms of the impact on water and sewer infrastructure, we look at the planned based scenario and the trend -based scenario. The planned based scenario again 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved based on a more dense development pattern we see that the number of households served by public water and sewer services goes up under the planned based scenario and the cost of providing those services to everyone actually decreases so that is an exciting impact there. As well that will allow us to devote more resources to deteriorating infrastructure instead of having to maintain the dual responsibility of creating additional water and sewer service and trying to maintain the deteriorating infrastructure that we may have. In terms of natural resources, the trend based scenario consumes about 600 acres more of land than the planned based scenario and importantly in the planned based scenario open space... in the trend based scenario as compared to the planned scenario open space is reduce by nearly 2/3 of what we have categorized as open space in the County so that is an important difference on encroachment in our natural features and our open space areas. We did also take a look at other development scenarios in addition to these. We looked at higher growth development scenarios but didn't actually include those in the analysis, but we have that data in the Planning Department if you are interested in that. We wanted to keep it basically to an amount of data and information in the Comprehensive Plan as digestible by most people. Moving on to the fiscal impact analysis. This was another way that we decided to try and take a look at the impacts of the impacts of the recommendations of the plan. Again, it is not intended to be prescriptive in any way, but just to help us to understand what some of the impacts are to the systems in the County. So we looked at some of the costs to the municipality based on land use versus some of the revenues provided . by that and we have some of that specific information, but the most important thing that has come out of that cost of community service study is that there is a popular misconception that residential development actual lowers property tax by increasing the tax base and that is not true in most cases. Of course, it can be true in the high end or the seasonal residential development, but in general that is a very popular misconception and actually costs us more to serve residential properties than commercial or industrial properties. Again, in this fiscal impact analysis as we saw in the future development scenarios we looked at the impact of development on municipal water and sewer user fees and also in this analysis we found that the cost savings to newly served individual users on public water and sewer systems was about ... would be about a 10% reduction in those costs. We also looked at the real property tax base and the sales tax revenues, all of which would be positively impacted by the implementation of the recommendations or development that we describe in the planned base scenario. Then also, I am not going to go into very much detail, but the third new section is the implementation plan and it contains 61 action items that are intended to help us start implementing the concepts of the comprehensive plan. Although 61 seems like a lot and it is a lot, it is only getting us started on implementing these strategies and 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved recognizing at the county level and at the county Planning Department, we don't have the resources to do this alone. So we went very specifically by each action item and identified a principle lead agency that would help us implement this action item and initiate that action item in the first three to five years. After five years, we will take a step back and evaluate and see if this is taking us down the path and having the results that we need to achieve the strategies and the principles and policies and action items and of course they will probably be amended at that time. In 10 years we will be doing a more complete review of the comp plan itself and the analysis that produced the comp plan. Then in 20 years we plan to either update the comprehensive plan or write a new one if that is what needs to be done at that time. So just to recap what we see as the purpose of the comprehensive plan is that we really intend for it to be used by us and hopefully by you as a framework for decision making and a framework that we can use as a common ground to help us move forward in the way that we want to and achieve the objectives of preserving our natural features and operating in the most efficient way possible. Again, it is not a way to prescribe what you should be doing at the municipal level. It is a way for us to communicate to you what we will be doing at the county level and also provide some resources to you in terms of open space planning and economic development. It really, to be successful in implementing this comprehensive plan the county cannot do it alone. It is going to require an Intermunicipal approach and internal sectoral approach. We need all the help we can get from the private sector, the non - profit sector and we hope that this document will provide the basis for that. It is not a perfect document. It definitely has weaknesses, but it is a place to start and move forward. With that, I don't want to take up too much more of your time, but I do want to offer you the opportunity to ask questions. Certainly you can ask them right now or you can call the planning department as well. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Go ahead if you have questions right now. Board Member Conneman — I commend you for re- titling it rural resources. However, the last time I looked Groton was in Tompkins County. Is that right? If you go to page 28, a lot of very productive farmland is in the Town of Groton and at the bottom of page 28 you ignore Groton and there are many great, fine farms up there which will probably be around for a long time. So I was just curious as to why Groton was left out. Board Member Mitrano — Where was it left out, George? Board Member Conneman — In the last paragraph on page 28. Ms. Hackett — Actually, that makes a lot of sense to add that because if you do take a look at the map that we have of agricultural resource areas we do have a significant section identified in the Town of Groton and so I think it does warrant that addition. 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Board Member Conneman = I would also say that there are a lot of motherhood and apple pie statements in here, which are okay, not very helpful to us or even to you, but that's just a general comment. I read through it and it's got a lot of that stuff in it. Ms. Hackett - It is a hard balance for us to strike of having to define concepts that my be difficult for member of the general public to understand and put together and that's really who we made this document for was somebody on the street so that they could understand and 1 think actually in the end that achieved part of the goals of staff at the same time there are tones of analysis that are left out of this document and it was difficult not to see that work reflected. Some of that work will be reflected in the appendices, which will be available in the office and certainly if you have a particular issue that is mentioned in the comprehensive plan that is of particular interest we would be willing to share that analysis with you or to come and work with you on that in more detail. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - Anybody else? Board Member Mitrano - So this includes the City of Ithaca as well as the Town? Ms. Hackett - Yes. Board Member Mitrano - Well I do want to say overall I think it's a terrific effort to balance a lot of considerations. It seems to certainly bring in some contemporary if not innovative concepts as well as balancing them with traditional areas that has always demarked the county. I would have a feeling, just having trucked around other areas in the Fingerlakes region, this is probably head and shoulders above what a lot of the other end of the lake or beginning of the lake depending on which direction you are facing communities have and we should be very proud of that. And I hope that the Town Planning Board as well as the other boards with which you work can help you with your endeavor to achieve these goals. Ms. Hackett - Thank you. 1 guess I would like to add also that as a result of this process issues are coming up that we were not entirely aware of in terms of the scope of the issues. For example, one of our action items is to host a bi- annual meeting with the planners of adjacent counties. We had our first one and consistently they said that their areas of highest growth are immediately across their. side of the Tompkins County border and it speaks directly to our affordable housing problem. And I just thought that was very interesting that they were seeing the ramifications of that very, very prominently in their own counties and how can we work with them to solve this issue as well as work here in Tompkins County. Board Member Mitrano - Let me ask from there. Are you in touch with any of the counties that would be touching areas like Geneva, Watkins Glen, Penn Yan? Ms. Hackett - Yes. All of those. E PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Board Member Mitrano — Because it would be great to be thinking about this truly in a comprehensive manner such as the Fingerlakes overall. I would be very excited about that and if there is anything I can do to help with that please let me know. Ms. Hackett - Thank you. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I wanted to .ask you how you are distributing it to the general public and to other counties. Ms. Hackett — In every possible way we can imagine. It is available on our website and we have an email list serve that we will send out a copy of the plan if people can handle that size of a document on their computer. We also let them know where to visit on the website. For those people who request a specific paper copy, we'll send that to them, although we won't directly send a paper copy to everyone on the mailing list just so we are not producing too many copies. There are copies now and there will also be final copies of the comp plan in every municipal hall and public library and we sent them to all of the lead agencies that were mentioned in the plan, all county department heads and in terms of the regional piece of this and adjacent counties we sent them to the contacts that we have, the people that we have been discussing these issues with. Its typically the planning department of those counties as well as the relevant state agencies that are required to receive the plan by law, but also those agencies that we have been working with, those include state parks, DEC, Department of Transportation and Department of State. Board Member Mitrano — Is it available on the web? Ms. Hackett — Yes, it is. And periodically we have sent out both postcards by postal service notifying people of important dates and also when things are posted on the web as well as the email list serve. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Are there copies in the libraries of the local schools? Ms. Hackett — Actually, no. That would be a very good idea. I don't think we have gone to that extent at this point, but I think particularly when the plan was finalized that would be an exciting place to have a resource like this. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Well, thank you very much. Now we have to vote on this resolution. Board Member Conneman — Jonathan, did you want to comment? Mr. Kanter — The only comment I would make is that l is a really good document. These are really hard kind you can't make everybody happy. So in terms of ba don't always end up with what you thought you would agree with Tracy in saying that it of documents to put together and lancing these kinds of things you end up with, but it is going to be very helpful. I think it' will be interesting to see how the county actually uses this 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved - January 4, 2005 - Approved document itself, the County Legislature and the departments. I know that was one of the original intents of it and to see how that is put into practice I think all of us municipalities will be interested in. The specific subject, I think a number of us are interested in affordable housing, which we talked about. I know one of your actions items is preparing a short and medium range housing needs assessment and I think that is something that a number of us will be interested in. I hope that is high on the county's priority list for doing. Ms. Hackett — It is. Its one of the highest priority action items. We have already been in discussion with several agencies in Tompkins County about collaborating on that. Mr. Kanter — That's great. Attorney Barney — Who drafted this? Ms. Hackett — The County Planning Department ... I assume if you are looking at the sample resolution. Mr. Kanter — Actually, this version is one that I did because really what we are asking the Planning Board to do is provide a recommendation to the Town Board, but if you have any... Attorney Barney- The second whereas is stated as a fact, which I'm not sure we know. You might want to say whereas this board understands the draft comprehensive plan... Mr. Kanter — Sounds good. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 =122: In Support of Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan, Recommendation To Town Board MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Planning Department, with the guidance, advice, and recommendation from the Tompkins County Planning Advisory Board, has developed a Draft Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan that addresses regional and inter - municipal issues that affect the daily lives of Tompkins County residents, such as housing, transportation, jobs, the environment, and neighborhoods and communities, and WHEREAS, this board understands the Draft Comprehensive Plan was presented at 17 community groups and advisory board meetings, and 14 open houses and public meetings in all municipalities in the county, for feedback and comments, and WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Legislature is scheduled to consider adoption of the County Comprehensive Plan on December 21, 2004, and the Tompkins County Planning Department has requested that the Town of Ithaca Town Board consider PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved passing a resolution supporting the adoption of the County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Town Board has requested the input of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board regarding the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan prior to considering such a resolution of support, and has referred the proposed draft of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan at its regular meeting of December 7, 2004, now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca support the adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann closed this segment of the meeting at 7:30 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments Renovations & Addition, 1028 Ellis Hollow Road Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened this segment of the meeting at 7:30 p.m. Ray Wetherbee, Project Coordinator with Conifer Realty We are here to discuss Conifer's proposed rehabilitation for the Ellis Hollow Road senior homes. Our architect here, Roger Langer with NH Architecture, is here to go over some of the plans and sketches. We also have my colleague, John Fennessey, project director out of our Syracuse office in attendance tonight. I thought what I would do is begin by briefly going over a few of the major points involving the rehabilitation itself. The final costs have come out to where Conifer is now proposing a $2.9 million rehabilitation of the complex with includes the addition of a new wing, creating four new units as well as sorely needed community space and recreational area. We are also proposing the installation of a new elevator. Currently there is no elevator on the site. We are also looking at reroofing and residing the entire complex, rehabbing the existing units. There are currently 100 and with the four new additions we are looking at 104. We are also going to be putting in a few more visually pleasing elements such as some dumpster enclosures and tool sheds rather than right now where there is a few dumpsters scattered about the property with no enclosures what -so -ever. A PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved A few other points you might want to discuss. The residents now are currently Section 236- assisted housing. Monthly rent ranges from $411 to $527 per month depending on the income. Ninety -one of the units will house individuals at or below 50% of the area median income and 17% or more of the units are regulated to special populations, frail and elderly. With regard to parking, I know one item that Sue and I touched on, there are currently 128 spaces. With the new tool shed and some of the new additions we are looking at reducing approximately 10 spaces, bringing it down to 118. Right now from what I am told, the property management personnel have explained that 30 to 40% of the residents have vehicles and the parking lot is never more than 75% full and that is on very rare occasions. There are three handicap parking spaces and we will be adding four for a total seven handicap spots. We are looking at switching out some of the light fixtures on the exterior of the building on the light poles. We won't be adding any, but we will be switching out the fixtures. And there our lighting plan was incorporated into the site plan submission. One to two other items to discuss here. We are putting some new trash chutes in the building. It will make it a little easier for some of the residents on the second floor to remove their trash. We are also going to be converting...I mentioned there is a new heating and sprinkler system. We are going to be converting it from currently electric inefficient to more efficient boiler system with new more efficient windows as well. And what I thought I would do at this point was to allow Roger to perhaps touch on some of the items here that I mentioned that we have here in our sketches. We can go through any questions myself and John might be able to help you. Roger Langer, NH Architecture As you can see on the site plan that we provided, the existing u- shaped building has an internal courtyard, which our proposal considers closing off the end in order to link the building on all four sides so that residents in one corner do not have to transverse the entire building to get to their friends unit which is just a short distance away. So our building would incorporate a new elevator. Currently the building does not have an elevator at all. It is not ADA handicap accessible. It just has a chairlift. This elevator and the second floor corridor link would allow residents to come in our new main entry, easily get to the elevator and go anywhere throughout both floor levels of the building so that the. complete building would be handicap accessible. Enclosing this area creates a nice private courtyard, a nice area for the tenants to convert to a garden. One of their desires, they currently have a garden out here at the east end of the property. So part of the goal would be for the residents to kind of create a gardening program where they could convert the interior courtyard into a nice beautiful garden space. Currently there are four exits or entrances to this courtyard. With the addition of this entry element and the community space over here, there would be five entrances /exits from that courtyard space. This has been reviewed with the fire Marshall that was one of his concerns making sure that we maintain egress from that courtyard as well as the relocation of the electrical transformers there on the inside of that courtyard to the exterior of the building. It allows elimination of the fire hazard of W PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved - January 4, 2005 - Approved the transformer as well as ease of replacement so that a new transformer would not have to be craned over the existing building. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — How would there be a way to escape from inside the courtyard? Mr. Langer — From in this courtyard there are doors that go right through a courtyard area to exits to the exterior and they will be open all the time. Because it is now secure, there is no reason to lock those doors. Any tenant could exit one side, walk through the courtyard and enter back into the building on the opposite side. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — But all of those exits would be through the existing building rather than the addition. Mr. Langer — There would be one through the addition as well. This area right here and I will show you the plan in a little while. This is the proposed community space portion of the building. So you enter right into the community room and to the main corridor and the main entry/exit of the building. This area over here is currently the community space and offices. That is the area that would be converted for new handicap access apartment units. Board Member Thayer — So those doors are open from the inside and not the outside, right? Mr. Langer — All of the doors on the interior of this courtyard are open at all times once this is enclosed. Board Member Thayer — Once you are inside the building, though, you can walk out, but. if you are outside you can't walk in. Mr. Langer — If you are outside in this courtyard you can walk into the building, yes. Board Member Thayer — But I mean outside. Mr. Langer — If you are outside the courtyard they do have security. One of the other things that we are adding is an intercom system to the. building so that if somebody comes after hours that a tenant can just use their telephone and buzz someone in at the front door. They would not need telephone service; they would just need a telephone. This is the proposed shed location. The reason for the addition of the shed is the desire not to store any flammable materials in. the building. The past owner upon occasion had stored a tractor and snow blower in the building. The idea is to get those kinds of things out of the building reducing fire hazard. The proposed location is over here near the proposed new maintenance area of the building. So it is in view and easy reach by the maintenance personnel located in the building. There are two proposed dumpster locations, one in each kind of corner of the building. Those locations were 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved chosen for their proximity and ease for tenants to get to the dumpsters to put out recyclables and things like that as well as picking locations that were easy for the dumpster driver to come and get to the dumpsters. The plan is to enclose those with either a board on board or a wood stockade type fence. It is our desire to leave those with no gates on them. We find that particularly with the elderly it is much easier without the gates maneuvering them during wind, bad weather. We also find that people leave them open, they flap in the wind; they get damaged and soon are taken off anyhow. This dumpster location would be well below the sight line because the Ellis Hollow Road is elevated above the parking area. Your view of the building would .not be diminished by the dumpster. You would kind of look over the dumpster area and see the building because of the elevation change in the road at that location. Lighting fixtures. We are reusing the existing 15 -foot high poles and planning new fixtures, which do not produce any up lighting of any kind. They were specifically selected because the lamp of the fixture did not come below the metal shroud of it thereby producing only horizontal and down lighting and no up lighting. Currently we are showing two proposed sign locations and I have brought a sketch of a sign to pass around. We also have some photographs. The existing structure and some signs that Conifer has used in the past at similar type properties. You can very much see the similarities between these photos and the sketch of the sign that is going around. Also included in this packet are photographs of other dumpstering enclosures and sheds that Conifer has built in the past. Also one other thing that is not shown on this plan that Conifer is considering because of the change and in order to help direct traffic within the property is some internal directional type sign located somewhere around here. The main connection, the two parking areas indicating that the office and community entry is over in that location so that people new to the site aren't parking down at one end and wandering around the outside of the building trying to find the main entry to the project. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I just noticed something that I had not seen before on this plan which is called C1 and that is right near that area where you said there would be some internal signs. There is a little rectangle that says gazebo. Mr. Langer — That is an existing gazebo. That is there.:. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Really? I was just there and I didn't see it. Mr. Langer — Its pretty unobtrusive, small wooden structure that has a screened in area. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Thank you. Mr. Langer — This is the floor plan and as you can see we have tried to create a nice large open beautiful community space for the residents. Currently the area they have is. dark. It's very little view outside of the windows. Very low ceilings. Not a big open 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved space that you would expect for our 100 -104 units of housing. So the goal here is to create a nice large open room along with a kitchen area of suitable size so that some functions can take place there. Currently what they have is a closet that is considered a kitchen. I don't know if you have been in. there at all. Also creating a little doctor's office, a main office entry, a little conference room type space and then of course the usual mechanical rooms, boilers, storage, things like that for the new equipment that is going into the building. So you can see this new main entry connects the corridors for each wing of the building and also goes over to the elevator connecting the floor levels and the corridor runs across this building as well, the second floor thereby allowing tenants to easily maneuver from one side to the other without transversing either the entire building or going to the outdoors. The proposed finish for the building are vinyl shakes, horizontal vinyl siding, aluminum trim on fascias and some other vinyl trim in terms of breaking up the two distinct areas of siding. Creating some racketed roof elements both on the existing building as well as our proposed addition. One thing we have submitted is a drawing with some colors on it. Board Member Thayer — You said vinyl shakes. Do you have a sample of that by any chance? Mr. Langer — This is not in the right color, but we do have a sample with us. The proposed colors are on this board. What we would like to use is a weather wood architectural roof shingle, very large roof structure on this building. We would like to use an architectural shingle to help break it up, give it some depth, and make it look a little bit more interesting. Also as part of our renovation we are adding some power vents to the attics. We are going to locate these on both the interior courtyard side of the building and the outside perimeter of the building. It will look like a little dormer on the roof structure, help break up that expansive roof and the idea of the power vent is that it is connected to a hydrostat. If the temperature or humidity gets too high in the space automatically the louver and the vent will kick in thereby exhausting air from the attic space. Board Member Conneman — The shakes will be gray. Is that what they are? Mr. Langer — Our proposed color for the shakes is this tannish tan color here in the middle. Our proposed color for the horizontal vinyl siding would be a clay color. The trim, it is our desire to do the trim in white. So that would be the fascia and any trim that you see separating the two shakers on the building and any trim separating horizontal siding from the shakes. Then using this dark green color as an accent, to paint the brackets, the columns that we have at the front entry, the sunburst above the main entry and there are diagonal brackets along side the windows both the interior courtyard and the exterior of the building. Board Member Conneman — So the diagram that we have, those are supposedly are the true colors? Is that what you are saying? 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Mr. Langer — No. Those are not. That was done for the submission. That was the initial plan. There has been some reconsideration at Conifer for the colors. It is sort of a reconfiguration of the colors that are shown here on this elevation. Mr. Wetherbee — We will still be using the same colors that you see, they are just changed around slightly. Where we had the white shakes shown on your drawing they decided it may be a little more visually pleasing to have those as the tan color. Where they show the darker trim, we actually decided to switch that to a white instead of having the shakes as white. We think the white shakes might be a little less nice so to speak as having them a little darker. Mr. Langer — I believe one of the concerns, also, was road dirt, things like that. Their fear that the white shake because of its shape would hold dirt a little bit more and be a little bit more visible than the tan color. So I believe that was part of their desire in switching out the colors. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — What is this an example of? Mr. Langer — Vinyl shake. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I must say I had hoped the colors in the drawing were a mistake on the light side because I like the building dark as it is. It makes it recede and it makes it look not as huge. So I am disappointed that you are proposing even lighter colors than the drawing. Board Member Mitrano — I agree with Eva. Mr. Wetherbee — The shakes were originally proposed as being white and we are actually darkening them a little more by asking that they be tan. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I must say that I am really disappointed in the color choice. It is a big enough building anyway with flat enough surfaces that 1 feel it needs those darker colors that it has. Mr. Langer — Well, some of the difficulty is ... we are showing you some of the darkest colors available in vinyl siding. You get dark colors you get fading, you get more expansion and... Board Member Mitrano — What does expansion mean? Mr. Langer — The vinyl heats up, it expands, it buckles and warps and once it warps it never goes back. Board Member Mitrano —.1t has more expansion than a light color because it is picking up more heat? 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Mr. Langer - The clay, which is on that board, is about the darkest colored vinyl siding you can get. That is the proposed color of the siding. Board Member Howe — Some of us think the color scheme looks fine. Board Member Talty — Yup. Mr. Langer — As usual everybody has their own opinion about colors. Board Member Conneman — It would have been helpful to bring the vinyl shake in the actual color. That is always helpful. We have great imaginations and that's the problem. Board Member Talty — So just to clarify what you said, you are telling me that the expansion rate on a light colored siding is less than a dark colored siding. Mr. Langer — That is correct. Board Member Talty — Just out of curiosity, what is the .expansion rate between the two? What's the difference? It's got to be tiny. Mr. Langer — Over a 20 -foot length of siding you are probably talking about a half inch. Board Member Talty — Really? Okay. That's a lot. Mr. Langer = Yeah, and again I'm talking about a long piece of siding. Some of the corner trim and things like that are the most difficult and that's the pieces that we want to keep white because we have. experienced the least amount of problems with the . lighter color vinyls. Board Member Talty — And does cold have an effect like heat has an effect? Mr. Langer — Not quite so much. It's because of the absorption rate of the dark color of the ultra violet; therefore it heats up and gets to a higher temperature than the lighter colors. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I understand that there are practical reasons for the lighter colors it reflects heat in the summer and there are other reasons too, but still with a huge building like this I think it looks nicer in a dark color. The little sample that you have there, the darker gray, right. Is that the darkest color available in this kind of siding? Mr. Langer — Currently if it is not the darkest than it is the second darkest color. I believe there is a dark green that many manufactures have discontinued because they've serious problems with it. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Well you don't want to trade maintenance problems with one material for problems with another material. I understand that, still aesthetically think I feel the way I said: What about the roof color? Is the roof color that you have chosen going to be pretty similar to what it is now? Mr. Langer — I don't remember. It is a fairly dark brownish color and one of the reasons for the selection of this is that it picks up a little bit on the proposed siding colors. It just has very tiny flecks of the tan color within the roof. Its not is as dark as we could get it. The trouble with going with a black architectural shingle is you actually lose some of that depth that is created by the three - dimensional roof shingle. So typically we often use this weatherwood color because it is dark yet it still allows you to see that depth and give the roof some character. Board Member Talty — I'm surprised that, correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn't more cost effective nowadays to have shaker shingles than three -tab shingles. Mr. Langer — This is the architectural. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Well, lets try to, unless you, have some more details that you want to tell us about right now. Mr. Langer — I think that covers my points. happy to answer those. If there are any other questions I would be Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Lets try to work on the things that have to do with the State Environmental Review. Actually there were some things on the short form here that I was wondering about. On point 6 it mentions that the acres affected are 4.66, but thought in the write up that you did, Sue, that you mentioned 5.3 acres. Ms. Ritter — That may have been wrong. That may have come off the Tompkins County Assessment information so that may be wrong. And that was just for the calculation of the density. I think it got its point across even if that was not the correct number. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Yes. Right. I just want to be sure that the correct figure in on the EAF. Ms. Ritter — I think I'd go with their number. Mr. Kanter — Actually I noticed 5:25 on the drawing C1. Mr. Langer — Drawing C1 indicates 5.253 acres. Ms. Ritter — Okay. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — So that is the correct number then? 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Ms. Ritter - Yeah. Lets use that since that is surveyed information. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - So we need to change that on point 6 of the EAF. The second thing is under point 8 it says, "will the proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions" and it is marked yes. Ms. Ritter - That should be no. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - That's what I thought with all those variances needed. And the last one, again it is the same thing in point 11. It just mentions the permits and approvals and such is the funding from the New York State Department of Housing and Community Renewal, but it does need the ZBA variances too, right? Ms. Ritter -Yes. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - We'll add that just to have that form filled out correctly. Now are there some things that we need to discuss having to do with the environmental review that you are aware of? Mr. Langer - Not that we are aware of. No. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - You have seen the... Mr. Langer - Oh, the plant? I have a copy of the Invasive Plants of Tompkins County, New York List. If it meets with the board's approval we are proposing going to a holly bush in lieu of the burning bush that has been indicated on the drawing. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - Okay. Board Member Mitrano - Do you have these problems in Rochester? Mr. Langer — Absolutely not. You will not find a burning bush on the New York State list of Invasive Plants. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - Can I ask you for a comment on that? Would that be okay? Ms. Ritter- I have seen the New York State list and I know what he is talking about, but can't say that I've compared item for item the County's with New York States. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - If you had looked at it, would you know which holly you were talking about? 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Mr. Langer - Actually no. I had just got your list when I got into Town this evening that's why I selected a holly because I noticed that was not on your list. It is an evergreen plant that is year round so it will offer landscaping year round for the residents. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - We have a lot of deer around here. You might want to check out whether the deer like holly or not. Mr. Langer - I had a conversation with one person who thought it was, but yeah, I'll check into that. Board Member Mitrano - As a rule they don't, but when they get very hungry they do. Board Member Conneman - They eat it in my front yard. Mr. Walker - If they are eating the holly they're getting really desperate. .Board Member Conneman - Dan, that's not true. female deer shows the little ones and says, "darling, Mr. Langer - So holly is the broccoli of deer food? They've got lots of other stuff. The this is good, eat some Board Member Conneman - At least in my front yard it is. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - One of the things that I have heard is that generally deer seem to be very good at sniffing around and telling whether plants have been fertilized a lot or not. If they have a high nitrogen content, they seem to go for them if they are grown by nurseries using a lot of fertilizer, wheareas if they have been grown with less fertilizers before they are sold then they are not so attractive. Mr. Langer -Thank you. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - You showed some pictures of enclosures for the dumpsters. Is that what you are proposing to enclose the dumpsters with? These wood slat things? Mr. Langer — Yes. We are proposing either a board on board wood fence so that it will allow air to pass through, that is my preferred fence type so that the boards overlap so that you don't get a vision through there but it does allow air flow. So that is my preferred detail of the enclosure. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - Now, there was also some mention of the swale to the north of the building between this property and the apartment complex just north of it and I noticed when I was up there today that some of those evergreens are huge in that little space and they come real close to the building. Are you going to do something with trees and tree plantings as well as regrading the swale and reseeding it? im PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Mr. Langer — We are going to clean up the swale. Do some tree pruning and things of that nature and once that work is done, kind of evaluate what is left there and if we see a need for putting additional plantings in there making sure that the view of the residents on that side that they have something pleasing to look at. We will add additional landscape at that time. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I imagine that the reason they planted those evergreens so close together in a row there is for ... to provide some privacy for the residents. It looks like it has gotten a little out of hand. I was a little puzzled by the statement that there is a problem with standing water in the courtyard in the western end and it sounded like it was because of some clogged pipes that you were going to check into, too. Mr. Wetherbee — I think there was some standing water we found around the perimeter of the building, but we believe that was due mostly to lack of eaves troths on the building itself where the rainwater sort of just fell and collected along side of the building. However, with regard to the drainage we do plan on cleaning out the swales and scoping the existing sewage to be sure that there aren't any irregularities in there. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — It sounded like it was in the courtyard. You don't remember... Ms. Ritter — I think they have a couple of culverts in there, I believe. I think they were going to clean those out so there may be some back up from that as well as what he was saying is that they are putting in better eaves that would lead out to the storm water system. Mr. Wetherbee — Right now inside the courtyard where they. have sort of a quazi patio area the rainwater runs. There are no eaves troths at all and the water simply runs off onto the patio from there into the courtyard, sometimes down the sidewalks and we plan on trying to corral some of the that through the eaves troths and I have to double check if there is drainage outside the courtyard. Mr. Langer — One of the areas that I remember is actually a connection that goes underneath the building that allows any water that does accumulate in one corner to go underneath the building and over to the drainage swale. I personally, know that, it may have been clogged when initially inspected. I got down on my knees and looked and currently it is all cleaned out. So it may be working better and it might be much less of a problem. Mr. Walker — The previous owners did not have a very good maintenance program so all those drainage structures are in really bad shape. We have dealt with it a little with Summerhill Lane. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Do you feel that it can be taken care of...? 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January.4, 2005 - Approved Mr. Walker — Yes. With the eaves troths taking the roof water then the drainage system that they have in the courtyard should drain it out. It's kind of a low area so they are going to have to maintain that drainage ditch. I think there has been some contention on whose responsibility the drainage system is because it is between Summerhill and Ellis Hollow and I don't think either party wanted to take responsibility for it in the past. Based on what I am hearing, I think new management will take responsibility because it is going to cause more problems for their building than anybody else. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Right. Okay. Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEQR. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - All right. I'm just trying to go through here to see if there was something else we needed to discuss. We talked about the parking spaces and the handicap parking spaces and I personally think it is just fine to reduce the number of parking spaces. Here it is not a problem at all. Board Member Conneman — Did you get a second to your motion? Board Member Thayer — No, I didn't. Board Member Conneman Well, I second it. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Okay. I have a question actually, maybe it is really not related to the environment, but what will the residents do when all this work is going on? Because you are not just doing the exterior, you are also renovating the apartments inside. Mr. Wetherbee — Inspecting the .complex, there are currently two empty units that we plan on renovating. In addition to that, our new construction calls our for four additional units and what we hoped to do is be able to use those six units to sort of take six tenants at a time out while we are rehabilitating their apartment. We also looked at worse case scenarios if something were to go arye with that plan I believe in the plaza right next door there is a hotel if we had to, but right now we are looking at the very least using the six to seven empty apartments that we should have in swapping the existing tenants out. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Okay. Is there anything that we need to ask any more besides what we have talked about that has to do with the environmental review? Ms. Ritter — I think that covers .it. It's on an existing piece of land that has already been developed. They are really doing more renovations and it's just the addition. So I think we pretty much covered it. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Right and there are various conditions in the resolution, too. It has been moved and seconded. 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved The board voted on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -123: SEAR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, Ellis Hollow Apartments, Ellis Hollow Road, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 -1.124 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and addition to the Ellis Hollow Road Apartments located at 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.124, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves installing new roofing and siding on the existing building, along with renovating the 100 existing apartment units and corridors, and construction of a new two -story addition on the east side of the building to include a large meeting room, a large conference room, a computer room, a kitchen, and a doctor's office. The project also involves converting the existing community space to four new one - bedroom apartments, construction of a storage shed on the east side of the site, and construction of enclosures to house the existing dumpsters. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Ray Wetherbee, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on December 7, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings entitled "Proposed Site/ Lighting Plan" (C1), "Partial Landscape Plan (C2), "Front Elevation and Partial Side Elevations "(A3), all dated 1118104 and "Partial First Floor Plan" (A 1), "Partial Second Floor Plan" (A2), and "Partial First Floor Plan" (A5) all dated 2118103, and prepared by NH Architecture, P.C., and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and addition to the Ellis Hollow Road Senior Apartments located at 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.124, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves installing new roofing and siding on the existing building along with renovating the 100 existing apartment units and converting the existing community space to four new one= bedroom apartments. The project also involves the construction of a new two- story, +/- 5,674 square foot addition on the east side of the building to include a large meeting room, a large conference room, a computer room, a kitchen, and a doctor's office. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicants Ray Wetherbee, Agent. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Any additional discussion? Any more comments from staff? Ms. Ritter — The only one thing I wanted to ask that I may have overlooked was the sign going in so we may need to get a variance for the sign. Are both of the entrance signs going to say the same thing? There is the one on the driveway to the east and then there is the one right at Summerhill Lane. Mr. Langer — Yes. Both signs will be the same. Ms. Ritter — So John Barney, two signs require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. So then we need to have a recommendation to the Zoning Board from the Sign Review Board. I neglected to do that. I forgot about the two signs. I guess would propose that we change the proposed resolution to preliminary and final site plan approval and recommendation from the sign review board. Attorney Barney — We can just put a further resolved at the end that this board recommends the granting of a variance to allow two signs. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann closed the public hearing at 8:19 p.m. with no persons present wishing to be heard. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I assume that these signs are within the size limit. Ms. Ritter — My understanding is it is. There are two signs and they will be within 25 square feet. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Mr. Langer - Each of the signs will be less than 25 square feet. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — And that is within the limits? I don't remember the figure. Attorney Barney — 25 or 24. Mr. Langer — Well, they will be less than 24. Attorney Barney — I think before you go to the Zoning Board you might want to have the actual dimensions shown. Mr. Langer — We will calculate the square footage and put it right on there. Attorney Barney — On the parking, we typically are supposed to get an agreement and have an area if in five years the parking turns out to be insufficient there this board can require the parking area that the reduction for it can be reinstated. Mr. Kanter — Unless that is waived by the Planning Board and that is what we are recommending. Attorney Barney — I see. Okay. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I just remembered another thing. We got some sheets showing the light fixtures, but I thought somewhere in the text there was mention of shoebox type light fixtures. Mr. Langer — That was part of our original proposal when we were preparing the property work out. With the height of the poles only being 15 feet, we would have to add probably 20 additional light fixtures to the site in order to get a decent coverage with a shoebox light fixtures. In lieu of adding 20 additional light fixtures, we thought it more appropriate to go to a different luminar. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — So these spread the light out more sideways, but is it a guarantee that there is still no glare. Mr. Langer — It is guaranteed that the lamp of the light is not below the metal shroud so that all the light is either horizontal or down. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Well horizontal could give you glare. It is when you see the light bulb you get the glare from the light bulb in your eye that you have a problem. Mr. Langer — You could get that from a shoebox light fixture as well. You do see the lamp. It is not invisible. So this fixture reduces the glare and none of it would get to the road particularly because of the road height level. You are well above the lamp. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - I am not just thinking about Ellis Hollow Road and the traffic there, but the traffic within the parking lots by the residents and visitors to the residents and the residents who are older are going to have more problems with glare than younger people. So it is really important that there be no glare. Mr. Langer - My only hesitation in saying there will be no glare is because I can't tell what your definition of glare versus my definition of glare. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - Our definition of glare as I remember is when you can see the.filament of the light in the bulb. Ms. Ritter - I think in this case this is a vast improvement to a lot of lights that we see around town with the light bulb is actually up into the element itself and I did talk to the manufacturer of the light and discussed this issue of cutoff and glare and I felt pretty comfortable after speaking with them. It certainly seems like an improved lighting fixture than many you see around because it is hiding the light up into the bulb itself. I mean if you get underneath it and you look up at it you are going to see the light bulb just like you would in a shoebox. If you look at the light you will see it. This was not something that I think would be offensive when you are not just staring at the light fixture itself. That is the impression that I get from these light fixtures. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - I am worried about the kind of situation where an older person comes driving along or walking along at night and gets blinded by the glare from the bulb and you can't see what is in front of you then or a driver might not see a pedestrian in the parking lot. Board Member Howe - But the way Sue described it, it doesn't sound like that would be the case. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - Well if they are further apart so that the light has to come and spread out more sideways from each light, then there is more chance of that than when the light goes down more sharply. Board Member Mitrano - We also want to make sure there is enough light. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - Yes. Absolutely. Mr. Wetherbee - Its sort of walking a fine line there between as you mention there is elderly citizens... one thing that we did consider is that how much light is enough and how much is not enough. The existing light posts that we have and the light diagram we made sure that ... obviously we tried to provide as much lighting as possible for the senior citizens so that they can see a little better, but with regard to the light bulb itself and the. glare and speaking with Susan and we thought the best way to prevent any excessive glare would be to make sure that the light bulb itself was up within the fixture and not sort of hanging down in the center of the glass area thereby reducing. 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Vice Chairperson Hoffmann - Yes it does reduce it. I can see that you have these lines on the drawing here C1, which I guess shows how far the light will spread. Is that right? Mr. Langer — Correct. Yes this drawing depicts foot - candle level out to 0.25 foot - candies. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — All right. That was the only additional thing that I had that I have a concern about. So I guess we are ready to vote unless there is any other discussion or comment. The board voted on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2004 -124: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the Sign Review Board, Ellis Hollow Apartments, Ellis Hollow Road, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 -1.124 MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty, WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan.Approval, and a recommendation regarding a second sign for the proposed renovations and addition to the Ellis Hollow Road Apartments located at 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.124, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves installing new roofing and siding on the existing building, along with renovating the 100 existing apartment units and corridors, and construction of a new two -story addition on the east side of the building to include a large meeting room, a large conference room, a computer room, a kitchen, and a doctor's office. The project also involves converting the existing community. space to four new one - bedroom apartments, construction of a storage shed on the east side of the site, and construction of enclosures to house the existing dumpsters. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Ray Wetherbee, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town.of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has accepted as adequate a short Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll, prepared by the Town Planning Department, and has on December 7, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 7, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, an Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings entitled "Proposed Site/ Lighting Plan" (C1), "Partial Landscape Plan" (C2), and Front Elevation and Partial Side Elevations (A3), all dated 1118104, and "Partial First Floor Plan" (A 1), "Partial Second Floor Plan" (A2), and "Partial First 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Floor Plan" (A5) all dated 2118103, and prepared by NH Architecture, P.C., and other application material. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and addition to the Ellis Hollow Road Apartments located at 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No: 62 -2- 1.124, as shown on drawings entitled "Proposed Site/ Lighting Plan" (C1), "Partial Landscape Plan" (C2), and Front Elevation and Partial Side Elevations (A3), all dated 1118104, and . "Partial First Floor Plan" (A1), "Partial Second Floor Plan" (A2), and "Partial First Floor Plan" (A5) all dated 2118103, and prepared by NH Architecture, P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. granting of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to issuance of a building permit, and b, submission of a revised site plan to include engineering notes stating that erosion and sedimentation control measures will be implemented on the site as needed during construction, with particular attention paid to protection of catch basins, prior to issuance of a building permit, and c. submission of a revised site plan to omit the symbols indicating. the handicap accessibility of the three parking spaces in southwest comer of the site, and d. submission of a revised landscape plan to replace the plant named burning bush, winged euonymus, with a plant not listed on the Invasive Plants of Tompkins County, New York list, and e. submission of details of new entry signage, including dimensions, color, lettering, and materials for review and approval of the Director of Planning, prior to issuance of any building permits, and documentations showing that the sign is not located in the County right -of -way, and f. submission of an original final site plan on mylar, vellum, or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby authorizes a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, pursuant to Sec. 270 -227 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, from the +/- 139 parking spaces required in Section 270 -227, to the 118 parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan, finding that such reduction will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, will leave adequate parking for all the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives the conditions relating to the reduction in parking spaces outlined in Section 270 -227 (A) (3) of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED That this Board recommends to the Board of Zoning Appeals that a variance be granted by such Board permitting the erection of a second entrance sign. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 36 -2 -3.2 and 36 -2- 3.3, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots, one 0.902 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with an adjacent parcel, and one 1' /Z +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albern, Agent. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — And for this we have had a lot of discussions before and there have been changes and additions made and some things are taken care of and some things, I guess, that have not been taken care of are added as conditions in the resolution.. Is that right? Ms. Balestra — Yes. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — So, Mr. Albern, you look like you are ready to talk to us. 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES . DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved William Albern, Engineer Good evening. I'm Bill Albern. Boris is sitting behind me. I think our presentation is going to be very, very short. You may have lots of questions but the presentation will be short. I think you have been through this often enough. I do want to go up to the board over here and point out what we are doing. The current presentation on the 33 -lot subdivision. We have 31 residential lots. The park sits in the southeast corner here, which adjoins an existing park. The problem that came up in the last meeting in August has been resolved. This piece of property is going to be retained by the developer and will be consolidated with a piece of property as purchased to the north. I expect that he will be back.to see you at some time in the future about a subdivision or something up there. That parcel connects back to Danby Road. So we are just 33 lot subdivision. Simple. No changes since the last time. Now below here there is a drawing of Eric Whitney's, which shows the turnarounds in specific detail. I don't believe that we have any questions or discussion with the proposed resolution and we ask for your proposal. Board Member Mitrano — Who is that developer, by the way, so we won't be so surprised when he or she comes in? Mr. Albern — Boris Simkin, Board Member Mitrano — What happened to the sidewalks? Where are we on the sidewalks? Mr. Albern — We have sidewalks. We have underground sewers. We have underground stormsewers. Board Member Mitrano — And French drains and Chinese walls and... Mr. Albern — Yes. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I'm looking for the page that we got from Planning staff. guess everything that was a little up in the air has been dealt with in the resolution. Mr. Albern — I hope so. Board Member Howe — So do we. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — So there is nothing that we need to add. Ms. Balestra — No. Not at this. point. The only thing that was added in the resolution was just a couple of revisions; revision of the restrictive covenants to include information about sidewalk maintenance, a couple of minor things. The rest of the conditions were as they were. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann = Oh, actually in the resolution I have a question. On the second page under 1a there was a request for a revision of Sheet RWD1 and in the We PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved middle it says, "and noting the dedication of the walkway to the Town of Ithaca ". Is that, the walkway to the Town of Ithaca park? Ms. Balestra — No. There is a walkway that is located between lots 18 and 19. That needs to be dedicated to the Town. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — The way I read it, it wasn't so clear. It is a good idea. I don't have any more questions. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann opened the public hearing at 8:35 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Vice Chairperson Hoffmann closed the public hearing at 8:36 p.m. MOTION (Rod Abstaining) Mr. Albern - Aren't one and two a bit redundant? Attorney Barney — One is you have the agreement; number two is you secure that agreement in some way that is satisfactory. But it should read instead of saying a bond "of', it's a bond "or ". PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004425: Final Subdivision Approval, Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision, Schickel Road, Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 36 -2 -3.2 MOTION made by Kevin Tally, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1.' This action involves consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 36- 2 -3.2, Low Density Residence District. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots, one .902 + /- acre parcel to be consolidated with an adjacent parcel, and one 1Y2 +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner, Boris Simkin, Applicant, William.Albem, Agent, 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 Subdivision Approval, on May 4, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The applicant, at the August 17, 2004 Planning Board meeting for consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the Westview Subdivision, proposed a modification to the subdivision to include retaining a .902 +A acre parcel located 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved to the north, rather than deed it to the town for future road right -of -way purposes, and 4. The Planning Board could not grant Final Subdivision Approval for the entire subdivision on August 17, 2004, because the proposed modification above would have created an illegal parcel, according to the minimum lot dimensional requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, and 5. The Planning Board, at the meeting of August 17, 2004, granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the entire 33 -lot subdivision and Final Subdivision Approval for Phase I of the subdivision, including lots 1 -5, 23 and 24, pending additional materials, modified plans and other conditions, and 6. The applicant has entered into an agreement with the owner of adjacent Tax Parcel No. 36-2 -2.1 to purchase that parcel, and proposes to consolidate the .902 +A acre parcel with Tax Parcel No. 36- 2 -2.1, and is requesting that the Planning Board consider granting Final Approval for the entire 33 -lot subdivision, and 7. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on December 7, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey plat entitled "Final Subdivision Map, Westview Subdivision, Located on Danby Road /Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, L. S., T. G. Miller, P.C., dated June 22, 2004 and revised November 15, 2004; subdivision plans including sheets 1 through 7 entitled "Final Plat - Westview Subdivision" prepared by William F. Albern, P.E. Engineering Consultant, dated November 22, 20041 sheet RWD1 entitled "Westview Plan, Walks, Roads, and Drainage," sheet RWD2 entitled "Westview Profiles, Sections & Details,' sheet RWD3 entitled "Westview Grassed Stormwater Swale Details," sheet SEC1, entitled "Westview Plan, Sediment & Erosion Control," and sheet SEC2 entitled "Westview Standard Details," prepared by Philip Erik Whitney, P.E., dated July, 2004 and revised September, 2004 and November, 2004, and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby modifies the Final Subdivision Approval granted on August 17, 2004, to include Phases ll, Ill, and IV of the Westview 33 -lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-2 -3.2, as shown on the survey plat entitled "Final Subdivision Map- Westview Subdivision, Located on Danby Road /Schickel Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " amended 11/15104, subject to the following conditions: a. Revision of Sheet RWD1 to include language regarding the location of sidewalks surrounding Larissa Lane and on the south side of Schickel Road, as well as noting the location of the proposed walkway between lots 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved 18 and 19, and 28 and 29, and noting the dedication, of the walkway to the. Town of Ithaca. Revision of sheet RWD1 to additionally include hammerhead turnaround specifications, according to the Town of Ithaca requirements, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, b. Revision of Sheet RWD2 to include the proposed walkway details and materials, C. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the survey plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office and Assessment Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits, d. Submission of a copy of the water supply and sewage system permits by the Tompkins County Health Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits, e. No building permits shall be issued for any of the Phases prior to acceptance by the Town Board for the water, sewer, and highway infrastructure, including sidewalks, and completion of such infrastructure, except that up to two building permits may be issued prior to completion of such infrastructure, if: i) Developer has in place a contract or commitment satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, Director of Planning, and Attomey for the Town for construction of all water and sewer improvements, A bond or other financial security satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, Director of Planning, and Attorney for the Town, in an amount equal to 125% of the reasonable estimate for the costs of such completion, as estimated by the Director of Engineering, is provided by the Developer prior to the issuance of any such permits, Under no circumstances shall any Certificates of Occupancy be issued until such improvements are completed, f. Submission of revised restrictive covenants to include a provision stating that homeowners will be responsible for maintaining and repairing sidewalks fronting on their lots, as per Article II of the Town of Ithaca Streets and Sidewalks Law, adopted 8124192, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, g. Submission of individual property deeds for each lot in the subdivision, including the language regarding sidewalk and drainage swale 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved maintenance and tree preservation, for review by the Town Planning Department, prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for each lot, h. Submission of a temporary easement for access to the 1.5 +A acre park until the road is extended to the park, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, in conjunction with the conveyance and acceptance of the park to the Town Board of Ithaca, prior to, the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, and i. Submission of deed easements and other agreements for access and maintenance by the Town of Ithaca to all stormwater management facilities and swales on individual lots for review and approval by the Town Engineer and the Attorney for the Town, prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, and j. the applicant shall preserve as much existing vegetation on the site as is possible during construction, and shall re- vegetate areas of disturbance in a manner that does not impede the function of the drainage and stormwater runoff swales on all parcels. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty, NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Howe. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Consider the Extension of Duration of Conditional Approval of Final Subdivision for the Overlook at West Hill Project at 1290 Trumansburg Road Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — Any comments from staff on this? Mr. Kanter — I think there is a representative for Overlook in the audience. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — If you want to address us, please come on up and introduce yourself. . Mark Wheeler, Harris Beach Mr. Wheeler - I represent the project developer Aris Investments. We have made a request of this Board for a 90 -day grant in the time period for obtaining approval and execution of the final plat by the Planning Department. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I think the papers that we got are pretty self - explanatory and I think it's very reasonable, under the circumstances especially, to grant this. Since 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved it's been moved and seconded and there are no other comments, let's go ahead and vote. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -126: Extendin_g the Duration of Conditional Approval of Final Subdivision Plat, Overlook at West Hill, 1290 Trumansbur_g Road MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Final Subdivision Approval in Town of Ithaca PB Resolution No. 2004 -032, subject to several conditions, for the Overlook at West Hill residential development, located at 1290 Trumansburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 24-4 -14.2, on April 20, 2004, and WHEREAS, the actions for the Overlook at West Hill project, which included subdivision approval and site plan approval by the Planning Board, and rezoning by the Town Board, were classified as Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and the Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Law (Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988), for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as Lead Agency at its February 26, 2004 meeting issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance in regard to the above - described actions, and notice and filing of said Negative Declaration were perfected pursuant to the provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617.12, and WHEREAS, Town Law Section 276(7)(c) states in regard to the duration of conditional approval of a final subdivision plat that "Conditional approval of the final plat shall expire within one hundred eighty days after the resolution granting such approval unless all requirements stated in such resolution have been certified as completed'; and WHEREAS, Town Law Section 276(7)(c) further states that "The planning board.may extend by not more than two additional periods of ninety days each, the time in which a conditionally approved plat must be submitted for signature if, in the planning board's opinion, such extension is warranted by the particular circumstances, and WHEREAS, the period of time required pursuant to Section 276(7)(c) to complete all of the conditions of approval in the Planning Board's resolution of Final Subdivision Approval for the above - referenced project expired on or about October 17, 2004, and WHEREAS, Mark G. Masler, Attorney at Law,. representing Aris Investments (the applicant) has requested in a letter dated November 18, 2004, that the Planning Board grant a 90 -day extension of the duration of the conditional approval of the final subdivision plat for the Overlook at West Hill project, pursuant to Town Law Section 276(7)(c), and WHEREAS, said extension is being requested because compliance with the conditions in the Planning Board's resolution of approval was delayed due to an Article 78 proceeding that was filed in Supreme Court of the State of New York, Tompkins County 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved - January 4, 2005 - Approved (Byrne v. Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, et al), challenging actions taken by the Town in regard to the above - referenced project, and. the petition by the Bymes' challenging the Town's actions was dismissed by the presiding judge on August 30, 2004, now therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the delay in the applicant's complying with the conditions in the resolution of Final Subdivision Approval, dated April 20, 2004, was due to the above - referenced Article 78 proceeding and not due to any fault of the applicant, and that an extension of the duration of conditional approval of the final plat for the Overlook at West Hill project is warranted by the particular circumstances, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby approves the extension of the duration of conditional approval of the final plat for the Overlook at West Hill project for an additional period of ninety days to expire on January 15, 2005, pursuant to Town Law Section 276(7)(c), as approved in and subject to the conditions in Town of Ithaca PB Resolution No. 2004 -032, granted on April 20, 2004. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Thayer. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Consider Adoption of Planning Board Schedule for 2005 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -127: Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Schedule of. Meetings --- 2005 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does adopt the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the, Year 2005. Unless otherwise notified, all meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month, commencing at 7 :00 p.m. and ending by 10 :00 p.m. FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH January 4, 2005 February 1, 2005 March 1, 2005 SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH January 18, 2005 February 15, 2005 March 15, 2005 34 April 5, 2005 May 3, 2005 June 7, 2005 July 5, 2005 August 2, 2005 September 6, 2005 October 4, 2005 * November 1, 2005 December 6, 2005 * [Rosh Hashanah begins at sundown on October 3rd.] A vote on the motion resulted as follows: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved January 4, 2005 - Approved April 19, 2005 May 17, 2005 June 21, 2005 July 19, 2005 August 16, 2005 September 20, 2005 October 18, 2005 November 15, 2005 December 20, 2005 AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board regarding Chairperson for the Planning Board PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004428: 2005 Planning Board Chair - Recommendation To Town Board MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that Fred Wilcox Ill, be appointed as chair of the Planning Board for the year 2005. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board regarding. Reappointment of Rod Howe to the Planning Board PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -129: Re- appointment of Plannin_g Board Member - Recommendation To Town Board MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that Rod Howe, whose term is expiring on December 31, 2004, be re- appointed as a member of the Planning Board. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Howe. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Planning Board Minutes November 16. 2004 MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the November 2, 2004 and November 16, 2004 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The motion was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS The Board was in receipt of a letter from Mr. Winter on behalf of Mr. Monkemeyer. Mr. Kanter — If you read the letter and you saw that map that they submitted, they submitted a somewhat revised Park and Land Use Map that shows now a 3.7 -acre parcel proposed to be dedicated in conjunction with the Phase III subdivision. The letter W PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved from Mr. Winter does indicate that Mr. Monkemeyer is now committed to dedicating the referenced 3.7 acre parcel in conjunction with the approval of Ithaca Estates Phase III, Board Member Thayer — That's in addition to the 10 acres? Mr. Kanter — No. The box there shows the upper portion and this 3.7 -acre portion, total 10 acres all together. He's proposing to dedicate this 3.7 -acre sort of trapezoidal piece. If you remember at the meeting where we last talked about this we had shown an area of about 4 '/2 acres that went all the way down to the proposed road leg that goes southwest off of the upper road. So it would have been a little bit closer in towards the Phase III subdivision and it would have been a little bit larger. With this smaller area a little bit farther away it's becoming a little bit more borderline in terms of whether it's something that we might think is acceptable. I indicated in my letter to Mr. Monkemeyer that this would be up to the Planning Board, but we'd be willing to pursue this with the Planning Board and see what the Planning Board felt about, this new piece. If it felt somewhat okay with it, we would set up a site visit to go out and look and make sure that the site area was conducive to our facilities. That's I guess what we're trying to get some feedback on. But now, at least, for the first time we actually have the letter from Mr. Monkemeyer's attorney. Board Member Conneman — That's legal and that's okay. Mr. Kanter — Well that's what this Board asked for. Board Member Conneman — I realize that, but is that... Mr. Kanter - There's nothing legal, at this point, about it. But it would allow them to come in and pursue their Phase III subdivision at which point we would make it, we would lock it in with conditions if we decided this park area was appropriate. I'm still not. too convinced. Board Member Conneman — Do you have any idea why he didn't go down all the way? Board Member Thayer — It says its got a retention pond in there, you can't use that for a lot. Mr. Kanter — It shows a retention pond and leg going down the depth is about 200 feet, I also assume that with that proposed road which is the depth or R30 LDR lots. Board Member Thayer — He's trying to get a lot there. With a retention pond in it? Mr. Kanter — This is all words on paper. He hasn't shown any kind of detail that would indicate how big a retention pond or even if one's really appropriate there: Board Member Conneman. — So our next move is to go out and look at it? 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved — January 4, 2005 - Approved Mr. Kanter — That would be the plan. Vice Chairperson Hoffmann — I'm unhappy enough with the location of this that I don't know if I'd want to go and look at it until we have something that's a little bit more appropriate. I think that this is just too much to the north, too close to Ithaca College and College Circle Apartments rather than close to where the people who are going to live in his development and would live on the other side King Road would be. We're not wanting to exclude these students, but we're trying to serve other residents too and this is just, off on the edge for the other residents. Mr. Kanter — It's certainly up farther than the originally proposed park that was down below the roadway. Board Member Mitrano — Will we ever get anything better in your opinion, Jon? Mr. Kanter — If you listen to me, I would be pretty negative about it just because of all the time we spent with Mr. Monkemeyer on the previous park area which had its own problems but it was large enough and approximate enough to the development area that we would have been able to do some good things with it. 1 have no idea until I look at it and the real question is do we want to really spend more time looking at it at this point. Board Member Mitrano — The only thing I could say about looking at it is maybe we get out there and we see how improbable it is and then at least you can say you went out and looked at it. Board Member Talty — Would we have the company of Mr. Monkemeyer during that visit? Mr. Kanter — We will have either the company of Mr. Monkemeyer or a representative asked them to have somebody to show us exactly where the boundaries of this are. Board Member Talty - I would strongly urge Mr. Monkemeyer to make that journey. Board Member Conneman — On the other hand the attorney was a much more reasonable person. He kept saying, did he not, I will propose that to Mr. Monkemeyer. I can't guarantee that he will accept that. Attorney Barney — That was the planner. Mr. Kanter — He's actually a surveyor. Board Member Mitrano — Who is the attorney? Attorney Barney — George Winter. He's the fellow that just won Randy Kuhl's seat in the New York Senate. 38 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES DECEMBER 7, 2004 Approved - January 4, 2005 Approved Board Member Conneman — Obviously the surveyor conveyed the message that got us here. Attorney Barney — Mr. Winter called me and I reiterated that we need something more than just talk at this point. We need some pretty definitive commitment. This letter was, think, partly in response to that. Mr. Kanter — They sound like they're cooperative at this point, although .it's really going to be a matter of whether this particular parcel is going to be appropriate. Attorney Barney — George does say that Mr. Monkemeyer will accompany the Town officials. Mr. Kanter — And they did agree to wait until after the deer hunting season. Mr. Kanter - Is it the opinion of the board that we should try to set up a site visit? Board Member Thayer — How accessible is this? Mr. Kanter — It's pretty accessible up to the area but once you get there it's very difficult to really see inside the boxed area that they're proposing because it's really heavily thickets and brush and it's not really cleared out. But there ' is kind of a clearer roadway /pathway that's been cleared out that goes up to it. And you can also see some of the perimeter of it from the surrounding College Circle property. Although, again, not too far into it. You get a sense of the upper part of it which would be the future phase actually is the more level part and that's easier to see from the edge of College Circle. The lower part is the harder part to see and understand what's going on in there. That's why if they have somebody showing us around at least we could see what was. involved. The Board agreed to set the date. for a site visit at their January 4th, 2005 meeting. If a time is decided prior to that meeting, Mr. Kanter will let people know. Cancellation of December 21, 2004 Planning Board Meeting The Board confirmed cancellation of their December 21, 2004 meeting. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk 39 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, December 7, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding a Resolution Supporting the Adoption of the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan by the Tompkins County Legislature, 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ellis Hollow Senior Apartments Renovations & Addition, 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and addition to the Ellis Hollow Road Senior Apartments located at 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.124, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves installing new roofing and siding on the existing building along with renovating the 100 existing apartment units and converting the existing community space to four new one - bedroom apartments. The project also involves the construction of a new two-story, +/- 5,674 square foot addition on the east side of the building to include a large meeting room, a large conference room, a computer room, a kitchen, and a doctor's office. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Ray Wetherbee, Agent. 7 :45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 36 -2 -3.2 and 36- 2 -3.3, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots, one 0.902 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with an adjacent parcel, and one IV2 +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albem, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Extension of Duration of Conditional Approval of Final Subdivision for the Overlook at West Hill Project, 1290 Trumansburg Road. 7. Consideration of Approval of 2005 Planning Board Meeting Schedule. 8. Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2005. 9. Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Re- appointment of Rod Howe to the Planning Board, 10. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 11. Approval of Minutes: November 2, 2004 and November 16, 2004, 12, Other Business: 13, Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 27347470 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) f TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, December 7, 2004 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public. Hearings will be held.by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, December 7, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and addition to the Ellis Hollow Road Senior Apartments located at 1028 Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca . Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.124, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal involves installing new roofing and siding on the existing building along with renovating the 100 existing apartment units and converting the existing community space to four new one - bedroom apartments. The project also involves the construction of a new two -story, +/- 5,674 square foot addition on the east side of the building to include a large meeting room, a large conference room, a computer room, a kitchen, and a doctor's office. Conifer Realty, LLC,_Owner /Applicant; Ray Wetherbee, Agent, 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Westview 33 -Lot Subdivision located at the intersection of Schickel Road and NYS Route 96B (Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 36 -2 -3.2 and 36- 2 -3.3, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes extending Schickel Road towards the east and creating a loop road for 31 residential lots, one 0.902 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with an adjacent parcel, and one 1' /z +/- acre lot for a park site in the southeast corner of the property. Igor Cheikhet, Owner; Boris Simkin, Applicant, William Albem, Agent, Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings.. . Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, November 29, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, December 1, 2004 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGW IN SHEET DATE: December 7, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION 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 Tioi;a Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M.; as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: November 29, 2004 Date of Publication: December 1, 2004 a. eAx Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 1st day of December 2004, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20