Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-08-02FILE TOWN OFITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE TUESDAY, AUGUST, 2, 2005 The Town of Ithaca. Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, August 2, 2005, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Nicole Tedesco, Planner. EXCUSED Rod Howe, Board Member; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning. OTHERS Nancy Hewett, 230 Strawberry Hill Circle #2; Sue Hemsath, 111 Strawberry Hill Circle; Travis and Kathy Cleveland, 723 Hudson. Street; Andy Sciarabba, Jr, TG Miller Engineers; Joan Jurkowich, Tompkins County Planning Department; Debralee Street 290 Burns Road; Deborah Levin, 211 Strawberry Hill Circle #3; John Rudan, 100 Wildflower Drive; Nancy Leemig, 221 Strawberry Hill Circle; Georgina Leonard, 221 Strawberry Hill Circle #4; Jess Harper, 240 Strawberry Hill Circle #2; Ann Shumante 231 Strawberry Hill Circle #3;. Irvan Ward, 230 Wildflower Drive; Herbert Deinert, 130 Honness Lane; Nell Mundy, 126 Honness Lane; Bill Paledino, Ellicott Development; Jim Hilker, 255 Burns Road; Chris Stratakos; 124 Honness Lane. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on July 25, 2005 and July 27, 2005, 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 July 27, 2005, Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Chairperson Wilcox congratulated Nicole Tedesco on her promotion from student intern to fulltime planner. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m., and asks if any members of the public wished to speak. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding adoption of the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan, pursuant to the NYS Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Chairperson Wilcox — Joan, did you want to say anything or you just here because you have nothing better to do on a Tuesday night? Joan Jurkowich, Tompkins County Planning I am here to listen to what anybody has to say about it. Chairperson Wilcox — And answer questions if we have any? Very good. Thank you. Joan gave a presentation four weeks ago, I believe, and filled us in. We have reviewed the plan. Comments from the board? Board Member Conneman — The only comment I had ... this is the final report? Ms. Jurkowich — Yes, that is the final report we will be asking each of the towns and villages to adopt. Board Member Conneman — Well, there is probably, between the time this happened and the event is that there will no longer be a waterfront- enhanced facility such as a restaurant or housing near the Town park. Ms. Jurkowich — I understand that. Board Member Conneman — I just want to be sure that that is noted in the minutes. Some of us have strong feelings about that. Ms. Jurkowich — I understand. Board Member Thayer — To say the least. Mr. Kanter — Of course you have to recognize that the site is still zoned for similar uses and the plan is more general and specific. Board Member Conneman — I think, Jonathan, that Cornell Athletics now has control over the site, the way that I understand it. The Real Estate Department turned it over to them. P PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Kanter - That could be, but the zoning is still a waterfront business zone or whatever we are calling it, lakefront commercial.. Board Member Hoffmann - My comment would be that I think it is very good that there is a coordinated plan for what to do along the waterfront of the lake as much as this plan covers it. Board Member Thayer - I would echo what Eva says and I would move the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox - I have to let the public speak first. Joan, you may have a seat. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. and invites members of the public to address the board. With no one interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. Board Member Thayer moves the resolution; Board Member Talty seconds the resolution. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 =073: Recommendation to Town Board Re_gardin_q Adoption of Cayu_ga Lake Waterfront Plan MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. Town of Ithaca representatives have been participating with the other Cayuga Lake waterfront municipalities, including the City of Ithaca, Villages of Cayuga Heights and Lansing, and Towns of Lansing and Ulysses, in the preparation of the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan (the Plan), and 2. The Tompkins County Planning Department has been coordinating the preparation of the Plan under a grant from the NYS Department of State pursuant to the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP), and if adopted by the participating municipalities and accepted by NYS, the Plan would become the LWRP and would provide the participating municipalities with more leverage in acquiring state and federal funds for implementing waterfront projects, and 3. The Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan - Final Report (December, 2004) has been completed and circulated to the participating municipalities, and 4. The Plan contains 13 Waterfront Revitalization Policies (outlined in Chapter Three of the Plan), which would provide guidance to the participating municipalities for planning and development in the waterfront area, and these policies are consistent with the goals and objectives in the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993), and 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED 5. Adoption of the Plan would require that certain local, county, state and federal actions proposed within the waterfront boundaries are consistent with the adopted policies in the Plan, and would provide a process for consistency review based on those policies, and 6. The Town of Lansing is acting as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the Plan on behalf of the participating municipalities, pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town Board adopt the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan pursuant to the NYS Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. . The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mitrano. Conneman, Thayer, Talty. The vote on the motion was carried. Chairperson Wilcox - Thanks, Joan. Mr. Kanter - And thanks for all of Joan's good work on the plan. I don't think it would have gotten done and it did take a while, but it probably would have gotten lost if Joan hadn't come back and put it together. Board Member Thayer - Great job. Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentlemen, since many of you probably don't spend your time attending board meetings such as these, let me explain the procedure to you. The first, for each of the subdivisions coming up, the applicant normally will make a presentation. The Planning Board will ask questions. We normally focus on the environmental review first, if this board should make a negative determination of environmental significance, then the application is considered legally complete, we then open the public hearing. The applicant once again has an opportunity to speak with regard to the actual proposal, we may ask questions. We then give the public a chance to speak. We may ask you questions as well then once we have gathered all the information from the applicant and from members of the public, questions from ourselves, possible comments from the board, we try to make a decision on. So that is how we will proceed and I say that because very often it happens that we vote on the SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) Determination and people look at us and say what is happening, are you voting on approving it, you didn't give us a chance to 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED speak. Once we do that, then we go to the public hearing. So having said that, proceed on. SEQR Determination Spitsberg 4 -Lot Subdivision, Wildflower Drive. Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Andy Sciarabba, Jr, TG Miller Engineers & Surveyors The owner of the property is PJTM Corporation. The application before you is for the subdivision of an existing 3.05 -acre parcel, which on the drawing that we have here is in yellow. The 3.05 acres are off of Wildflower Drive and the proposal is to subdivide the parcel into four lots, three of which will become residential building lots, the fourth is a small out parcel, parcel A of about 0.07 acres that will be consolidated with tax lot 60. -1- 21, which is currently on Honness Lane. The existing property is currently mostly brush with some trees. There is some natural screening on the south side of the property as well as on the east side along the bike path. There is a drainage area that runs from the east side of the property to a swale that actually there is a culvert that crosses the bike path and there is a swale that transverses the south portion of the property. The proposal is to serve all three of the lots with a common access driveway, which we have represented in the hatched area, 20 foot wide improved driveway. We have reviewed that design with the fire department as far as slopes, turning radii, proximity to the proposed building locations. I don't know if Tom Parsons had given the board a letter approving that, but he was happy what we had laid out and what we had sent in originally in our conversations. As far as utility services, there is an existing sanitary main, an 8 -inch pvc line that is currently capped on the west side of Wildflower Drive. We are proposing to extend the sanitary line across the east side and then bring a manhole up to lot 3 off of that sanitary main, which will be dedicated over to the Town. We will serve the laterals for the three homes. Domestic water. There is an existing 8 -inch water main again on the west side of Wildflower Drive. We will tap off of that with one -inch domestic service lines and bring them up to the corresponding homes. Part of the discussions with the fire department was fire coverage. Then we took a look at the existing fire hydrants in the area. There is currently one hydrant on Honness Lane and another hydrant up at the intersection of Strawberry Hill Circle and Wildflower Drive. It was recommended that we add one more hydrant, which we have done, directly across from the new driveway access and that will just tap right off of the 8 -inch main. To deal with some of the stormwater and drainage issues that are coming through the site right now, again, as I mentioned there is a big 11 -acre area that drains through the property to the south and pretty much cuts off the northern portion of the Stratakos property. They have a garden on the north side and you can see in between the garden and the lawn you get some erosion from the stormwater runoff there. What we are proposing to do in consultation with the Town Engineer is to take this stream, 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED reroute it to a piping system that will run along the south side of the new access drive. So we will pick it up in a swale and take it to a piping system that will then tie into the existing storm vault that is down on Wildflower Drive, pretty much eliminating that swale or the runoff going through the back of that property and we should be improving the drainage in that area. That pretty much covers utilities unless I missed anything. That is the proposal before you. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? You mentioned a conversation with the City Fire Department. Mr. Sciarabba — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — I was actually looking through the materials because I had not seen ... did they provide you with anything in writing? Mr. Sciarabba — No. I emailed Tom Parsons a copy of the plan and he was going to write a letter to the Town, but I assume that didn't happen. Ms. Balestra — We didn't receive anything to my knowledge. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of the existing drainage issues on the site right now other than what you talked about? Are there any other drainage issues? Mr. Sciarabba — Not... right now there are two other swales. The grading on the site right now, there is a semi - improved access. I think the owner of the property at one point talked about building a Town road in there to serve the three lots and in discussions with the Town on this application they indicated that it was not preferred. So as far as drainage on the site, there are additional swales that tend to run around the existing grading and cul -de -sac, but as far as any drainage issues with flooding on the property or major erosion, I am not aware of those issues. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, we have your memo on it. Any additional comments? Mr. Walker — No. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you please clarify for me? I thought I heard you say that you are planning to redirect this ... the water and the stream that goes along the northern side of the three current properties along Honness Lane. Mr. Sciarabba — Correct. If you look on the... Board Member Hoffmann — But you don't show that on the drawing. Mr. Sciarabba — On the engineering plan, if you look on the engineering plan that shows the proposed swale. R PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Ms. Balestra —Sheet C100. Mr. Sciarabba — This is just the plat drawing. On the engineering plan we are showing pretty extensive grading to take that swale up and create a berm to take that drainage over to the new access drive. Board Member Hoffmann — So then the water is directed out to Wildflower Drive? Mr. Sciarabba — Well, actually, it will be picked up right about at this point in a pipe that will run along the south side of the access drive and .tie back into the existing storm system on Wildflower Drive. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Mr. Sciarabba — Currently it is all swales and overland runoff and when you start trying to channel that and pick that up and redirect that, we prefer to get that into a piping system so that you can control it because you may have erosion problems downstream if you don't. Board Member Hoffmann Lets see. Dan, did you say that you looked at that and it was something that was going to work? Mr. Walker — Yes. We have been working with the engineer and were aware of a couple of existing drainage problems on the corner property and the next one up and water sheet flowing across and not being handled by the little ditches there. This will cut off most of the drainage area from that ditch and carry , it safely to the existing drainage system on Wildflower. Chairperson Wilcox — May I quote from you memo for the public who are here? "The stormwater management plan and erosion and sediment control plan meet Town of Ithaca and NYS DEC criteria for the scope of the project. The proposed diversion along the south side of the property will alleviate drainage problems that have occurred on the properties south of the parcel." Eva, the floor is yours. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm all set for now. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else at this point? Okay. Comments over here? Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to do something a bit unusual, although I have done it before. If someone would like to make a comment about the drainage, which I suspect is one of the issues that the residents are concerned about, I will give you that opportunity now. You will also have a chance to speak when the public hearing is open, but if you have... my point being that drainage is an environmental concern and I will give anybody who would like to address the drainage issue, tome right now is the most important issue, I will give you that opportunity now. 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Deborah Levin, 211 Strawberry Hill Circle #3 I am one of the closest buildings to this property. We are to the north of this. You didn't say anything about drainage to the north. Is there any concern about drainage to the north? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm going to take that question and when the next person speaks I will ask Andy to address it. Chris Stratakos, 124 Honness Lane I am the parcel where you are apparently rerouting some of the drainage and we have had a problem. We talked about rerouting to the north of our property and then you said it would go down ... the drainage path that you were going to develop there and into the wildflower drainage. Does that include that large graded drainage spot that is the one that causes the problem at out house? Will all the water then go back into that? Mr. Walker — It will be going into that. We will be cleaning that up a little bit. It is in a little bit... it isn't very pretty right now. Ms. Stratakos — Its terrible. I don't even care for pretty. I mean pretty doesn't concern me. My son drowning almost did concern me and the danger of it concerns me. So the fact that it is no longer go to run through the back of my property, the drainage ditch that we kind of covered and stuff to try to protect it as much as we can doesn't bother me as that it might all be rerouted and going to that same drainage ditch where I think that the big problem is. Mr. Walker — It will be taken underground directly into the storm drain at the outlet next to it. Ms. Stratakos — And it won't come out the top as it does now because now we get water as it comes out of that ditch as is gets clogged and that is where the problem is. Mr. Walker I think that is a problem and I have looked at this with the Highway Superintendent and the Deputy Highway Superintendent and there have been some clogging problems with the debris that can come in because of the way that the grade is setup and we are going to take some steps to alleviate that. Ms. Stratakos — That is my main concern in terms of environmental and we didn't talk about noise and things, I assume, under SEQR and the issue with noise during construction and things like that. Chairperson Wilcox — If we think it has a potential significant impact. Ms. Stratakos — You have to determine that, right? You have to analyze and make a determination? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 . APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — We have to analyze those impacts, which we believe are significant and need to be mitigated, that are correct. Ms. Stratakos — So I don't know if this is the time to ask this question or if I should wait until later. Chairperson Wilcox — If it is an environmental concern you should ask it now. Ms. Stratakos — I was just curious as to what you determined about the noise issue and how it was mitigated or how it is expected to be mitigated if it needs to be. I think really... its not only my property that has a drainage area of concerns, but it seems to be coming in behind Ms. Mundy's property and then gets rerouted north right there at the right angle it looks like. Is there going to be any issue in that part of the property now with that right angle turn? How is that going to be handled? Mr. Sciarabba - Can I address the question now? Chairperson Wilcox — If you want to, that's fine, go ahead. Mr. Sciarabba — What we try to do as we turn the corner, we are trying to shallow out the swale and keep the slope down a little bit to help keep the grasses down. Some of the problems that you may be seeing with this swale as mentioned from the Town Engineer was that it has not been maintained very well over the years. It has a lot of brush and stuff and debris. So the areas that we are not regrading we are proposing to clean out to improve the flow characteristics so that it stays a channel way and gets into the piping system. Ms. Stratakos — I don't think I have any more questions now. Thank you. Jon Rudan, 100 Wildflower Drive I have a concern about the capacity, somewhat the same as Christine had. Given a previous experience on Woodcrest Avenue where the Town of Ithaca put in drainage and wasn't capacity and then when sticks got in and the like happened, houses would get flooded... neighborly houses would get flooded. So I worry about the capacity of the system to take that. I'm sure it can be done, but it is a concern that the pipe be big enough so this be and be down channeled because when we lived in the apartments on Sunnyhill, everything worked fine upstream. When you got downstream by Burger King the road would overflow because there wasn't enough carrying capacity beyond Burger King to get it to the same place where you are pushing all the water now. That water ends up there and I've gone through two feet of water in front of Burger King to get across. So I worry about those things. They can be engineered, but they need to have enough piping, so to speak and that is a concern that I would have. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Jon. Anybody else? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Herbert Deinert, 130 Honness Lane have three main concerns. One is since Mr. Spitsberg wants to subdivide a lot that now consists of, I believe, approved 4 separate lots into the three, obviously I wonder what type housing he is proposing to put up there provided the new plan is approved.. The real reason why I am concerned with the type of housing that he wants to put up there is the fact that the current property belonging to Mr. Paolangeli as it is designed and as I see it on the map here, cuts very deeply into what until very recently we thought was our property. The original property line ran like this. When we bought the house in '69 from the Ithaca Attorney Amos Spire, we thought we should have a somewhat natural down drain and there happens to be a brook in the back of it. We asked him to extend the property line since he also owned what is now owned by Mr. Paolangeli to the brook. Now, Amos Spire, for some reason that we can no longer reconstruct extended only the west side of our property by 18 feet, but neglected to extend or neglected to record since he also acted as our lawyer at the time to record 18 feet on the east side. So .we have a rather lopsided kind of property, however, this line as far as I can tell is erroneous. The line should actually from two triangles up to this disputed area.. The lower part, the lower triangle belonging to us and the upper triangle, 1 hoped as soon as the property was being sold be for sale so that we could obtain it also. That seems no longer to be the case. I talked to Mr. Paolangeli late this afternoon and he said the contract is already proposed, it is legally . binding so Mr. Spitsberg has a right to purchase it just as it is designed here. I am not quite sure where to go from here. This line is erroneous. It should continue here. I have made a copy of the map that in, believe 1990, was drawn by a surveyor named Kenneth Parker and I if it is worth your while just for the record I would like to hand it to the board. The blue lines indicate on the left the additional property that Michael Paolangeli, Mr. Paolangeli's son, is now going to own because this property will be extended to the front as well. I was hoping to get that upper triangle also. Chairperson Wilcox Are you in anyway claiming that that piece of land, I'll show the board. We're talking about this little triangle right up here. Are you in anyway claiming that you have a survey that indicates that that land is disputed. right now? Mr. Deinert — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Deinert — According to the survey...I was originally mislead by this line right here which doesn't seem to be a property line at all. It is simply an arrow that goes around the corner. This map seems to be correct, but still the fact remains that whatever in this area is being sold and is indeed being subdivided into three instead of four lots works out very ... what we thought was part of our property. In fact, it extends to beyond the brook, which we thought was going to be the natural boundary on the north side of our property. 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — But there is no dispute over the property line right now? That is my concern and frankly if there is a dispute and this board had been through it before, I won't speak for the other board members, they will make their own decision, but at that particular time we had an applicant who was proposing a subdivision and we had a neighbor who had a survey that showed a different boundary line. The way that this board for that particular applicant resolved it is we had a valid signed survey by a licensed surveyor and we had no reason not to believe that the survey in front of us was correct. Mr. Deinert — I am not disputing the survey either, at this point, but I do want to mention it in order to emphasis the concern over the type of housing that Mr. Spitsberg is going to put up there. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else? Okay. Nell Mundy, 126 Honness Lane I'm the one in the middle who is getting all this drainage. I am very much concerned about this. The land is elevated in such a way and I can see chaos here. I don't quite understand what they are doing with the ditch. We have a very deep ditch and even it overflows and I can imagine when we start stirring up the soil and destroying the trees around that we are going to have much more coming down on us and I am really very much concerned that we are not taking...I don't quite have a clear picture of how you are planning to drain that land that is above me and quite elevated. Right now we do have enough drainage problems, but the ditch helps it greatly. Are you planning to destroy the ditch? Mr. Sciarabba — No. Actually, we are hoping to improve the ditch. Ms. Mundy — So pardon me if I ask questions, I couldn't here it. Are you going to leave the ditch where it is? Mr. Sciarabba — We are going to leave the ditch where it is to here and then we are going to bring it up to the... Ms. Mundy — How are you going to bring it up? Mr. Sciarabba — Regrade the area. We will build a berm on the downstream side ... dig a new ditch that will go north. Ms. Mundy — Oh, my. Mr. Sciarabba — So actually it will take it further away from your property. Ms. Mundy — If you dig another ditch it is going to...I don't think you can take the water up. 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Sciarabba — It will still be going down hill if I did it right. We will be becoming north. We are going to size it so that it is at least the same size as the current ditch, clean out the current ditch that has the capacity that it needs. You have to understand when we are talking about drainage also that piping systems and ditches aren't designed to handle every, every storm. If you get a 25 year or 100 year storm, that is going to exceed the capacity of a lot of the municipal storm systems at the roads. So what we try to do is maximize what we can to improve the conveyance of the stormwater in the 10 -year storms. We are taking that north of your property so it should improve it. Ms. Mundy — It would be nice if it would. I have spruce trees across here and I am fearful of what may happen to them. I am very much concerned about the drainage because as l see it.now, the land ... the big hill in back of me goes way up and right now we have all the drainage we can possibly tolerate. Chairperson Wilcox — The engineering drawings submitted by the applicant and in the opinion of the Town Engineer, the Town Engineer has stated that this will improve the drainage conditions behind your house. Ms. Mundy — I would hope so, but I don't quite see it yet. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Your welcome. A couple of questions that were brought up that we didn't address correctly. One is the capacity of the system. Dan, you have reviewed the capacity and believe it is adequate. Mr. Walker — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — The type of housing, um, is there anything that you want to say on that at this point? What do you want to say on that at this point, Andy? Mr. Sciarabba — My understanding is that it is single - family housing. It is not two family housing. As far as size, square footage, the type of house I don't have information on what Mr. Spitsberg plans on building. He will need to submit a building permit for each of the homes and will be reviewed by the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — Zoning does allow structures with two units. The zoning does allow structures with two units. Ms. Balestra — Medium density residential zone, which also allows 15,000 square foot lot. Chairperson Wilcox — That's a good point. That is a very good point. The minimum lot size in this area is 15,000 square feet. These lots are about 0.75 acres, a full acre and well over an acre. So we are talking 30,000 square foot plus, up to potentially 45,000, 50,000 or 60,000 square feet. So these are large lots given what the zoning allows, but then again we have to deal with the lay of the land and the drainage that exists as it. is. 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED That is the plan that they have come up with. Noise? Anybody? Construction noise is part of subdivision when houses are built. First you must understand that this board is considering the subdivision. The subdividing of the land. This board is not considering what may be built on that land. That is a permitting process. Noise does occur during construction. It is a short term and generally, in my opinion, does not need to be mitigated. Board Member Hoffmann — I think one could make arrangements to make sure that the contractors don't start too early in the morning or go too late at night, but if they stick to normal working hours, which I think most of them do, then most of us have to put up with that. Chairperson Wilcox — The last comment had to do with drainage on the north side of the property. Andy, do you know where... it is shown on the survey map as land owned by Eastwood Commons. Do you know where that drains right now? Does that come down across the subdivision right now? Mr. Sciarabba — There is a corner of the property that drains to Eastwood Commons and Strawberry Hill Circle runs to the intersection of Wildflower and there is a storm drainage system that we can use down to Hartwick and takes that down. What comes down to Wildflower is the front yards drain down into the roadway where there is a gutter system and then its conveyed down to the existing storm piping system. Chairperson Wilcox — But this doesn't have any impact on that? Mr. Sciarabba — No, because all of our drainage from the site will be picked up in the existing swales and taken to the existing system on Wildflower. Board Member Hoffmann — I have trouble hearing you, too. Just clarify for me again which corner is it that is draining in a different direction. Mr. Sciarabba — There is a very small ... this triangular piece here of the site currently drains to Eastwood Commons. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So that would drain towards one of the houses that one can see on .the plan called sheet one, which is probably the one that you have up there too. I think that that's the part that one of these people was concerned about. Mr. Sciarabba — As far as increasing any sort of drainage problem in that area, on the engineering plan where we show the home being sited roughly and the setbacks, the impervious area, which would be the home and the driveway wouldn't be sited in that triangular piece that is running off the site. So if you did plan to clear any yard in the back there it would be a grassed area that would continue to run to the north area on to Eastwood. So we are not taking drainage from a roof or drainage from a driveway area that would really could have an increase that would be of any significance. 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — We should also point out that when and if the homes are built, assuming the subdivision occurs, the disturbance will be greater than an acre of land and the owner of the property and building will be subject to the NYS SPDES permit requirements, which have to do with erosion and sedimentation control and that has to be approved by the state and that would deal with potential drainage and erosion problems during construction. That is that black fencing you tend to see along sites, also potentially hay bales can be erected in certain areas to prevent the runoff of soil during construction. That will be proposed by the engineers and approved by the State at that appropriate time. Mr. Sciarabba We do have as part of this application package an erosion and sediment control plan that the Town Engineer has already reviewed and approved. We will be submitting that to the State. Board Member Thayer — Are we comfortable with the property line problem? Attorney Barney — I don't see anything that challenges this survey. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions, comments in regard to the environmental review? There being none, would someone like to move the SEQR motion ?. Chairperson Wilcox moves the motion and Board Member Mitrano seconds the motion. Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -074: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Spitsberg 4 -Lot Subdivision, Wildflower Drive, Tax Parcel No.'s 60-1- 25.2 & 60 -141 MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed four -lot subdivision located on Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -25.2 & 604-21, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 3.05 +/- acre parcel into three residential building lots with a single common driveway and one .0069 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -21. PJTM Corporation, Owner; Theodor Spitsberg, Applicant; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on August 2, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Part l/ prepared by the Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Spitsberg- Wildflower Subdivision, Theodor Spitsberg, Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," including Sheet No. 1 entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Plat," Sheet No. C100 entitled "Engineering Plan," Sheet. No. C200 entitled "Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, " and Sheet No. C300 entitled "Construction Details, " all dated June 7, 2005 and prepared by T.G. Miller, 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 Subdivision Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None.. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:42 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4W lot subdivision located on Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60.-1- 25.2 and 60. -1 -21, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 3.05 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with the adjacent Tax Parcel No. 60. -1 -21. PJTM Corporation Owner; Theodor Spitsberg, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the subdivision as proposed at this point? Andy, would you like to say anything at this point? Mr. Sciarabba — No further comment. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. and invites members of the public to address the board. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Herbert Deinert, 130 Honness Lane Actually, I have only a question of clarification.. When I talked to Mr. Paolangeli this afternoon, he assured me that the only reason that he would possibly want to obtain that triangle that we have been talking about is my desire to pay additional tax because it is absolutely useless to me and it is kind of a no man's land he says, it's a buffer between my property and the other property. Nobody could possibly ever build there. In fact, the new owner couldn't possibly even trespass there. Its for me to keep or its for me to deforest, its for me to replant, to reflower, that is what I would like to ask the board. Is that indeed the case? It's this kind of no man's land, my land to use, but not his land to trespass on. What is the legal definition of a buffer? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure what you are asking. Let me try it this way. The zoning requires setbacks from the property line in terms of where the house can be built. Is that where you are going? In terms of... Mr. Deinert — Mr. Paolangeli called it a buffer. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, he can call it a buffer, but in the zoning ordinance we refer to it as side yard, front yard setbacks, which is the distance that this house, the structure must be from the property line. Mr. Deinert — Yes, and he spoke about 70 feet I believe. Chairperson Wilcox — In this zone, side yard is? Mr. Sciarabba — 15 feet. Chairperson Wilcox — My guess was 15, but I didn't want to say it. They're going to look it up, but lets assume that it is 15 feet. So the structure cannot be closer than 15 feet to the property line. Ms. Balestra — Its 15 feet. Mr. Sciarabba — Fred, if l could point one thing out, though. What we did is we held a 30 -foot rear yard setback along all the properties. on Honness Lane so this setback is currently 30 feet, not the 15 feet as a side yard setback. So you got 30 feet from that property line. Your current property line that the building cannot be constructed in, which is this line here. Mr. Deinert — So actually, building could take place within 15 feet of ... (not audible). Mr. Sciarabba — No The building can only be within this envelope here.. Chairperson Wilcox — They are essentially on their drawings they are committing to not building within 30 feet of their property line, where the zoning only says 15. And of course, you can still negotiate with Mr. Paolangeli or whoever to purchase that piece. I 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED don't know what the response would be and how far you'll get. Any piece of land is for sale at the right price, but you certainly have that prerogative to negotiate to acquire that little piece. John Rudan, 100 Wildflower Drive I have a question, which got prompted by a process of protocol. This afternoon a new sign showed up on the site there is a meeting on the 15th for the ,Board of Zoning Appeals, So I am trying to understand if what you are approving today and then there is another meeting of the Zoning Appeals, what's going on? I don't mean that negatively, but from a process standpoint I sort of understood that having seen this plan and the proposal that everything in your sense would be coercer and now it looks like its not so it raises a question of what is really happening. It could be perfectly innocent, but it raises the question why the sign showed up today. How you want to answer that I will leave to you, but I have two concerns. One is when the road is built, I live right across the street and thankfully the way they put the road it doesn't run if somebody loses control it won't run into my house. But still I am concerned about the slope and the likely runoff. There is no curbing there to catch anything so I could see with a fairly big rain and a fairly decent velocity coming down that hill all of the runoff is going to end up on my side, the other side of the road. have a concern, particularly as melting snow and all of that is going to affect traffic. Secondly, in the drawing we submitted to the Town of Ithaca, the hydrant is currently being placed right in the middle of a proposed second driveway on our lot and that doesn't really work well for me. I am going by the drawings of which I have a copy of and that is if you look at where the hydrant is relative to the telephone pole, I took great pains to leave enough clearance.between all the boxes, which front my lot to make sure that I could put another driveway there and now it looks like you are putting the hydrant in the middle of that space. So I would like some consideration to moving that. Chairperson Wilcox — Explain that to me, John. I am looking at... Attorney Barney — Look at.C100. Mr. Rudan — The extension is fine, but I assume this circle with the four things is the pole. Then there is a telephone riser and then the hydrant is right here. I have drawings, which were given to the Town of Ithaca that show a driveway right there. So that hydrant ends up in the middle of the driveway. The driveway is not there now, but this is the hydrant and I would want consideration that that be moved so I still have room here to put a driveway. Board Member Hoffmann — Do you have a driveway at all right now? Mr. Rudan — Yes. We have a driveway to our garage here, but we are going to put a second driveway and in time we expect we will have an apartment in the house and that would be parking for the tenant, which I think is permittable under everything we know 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005. APPROVED as far as zoning goes. So my point is the fire hydrant, in my sense, in the wrong place. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, John. Anybody else? Christ Stratakos, 124 Honness Lane Just procedural, what was said for the SEQR were to apply here as well. I did see the sign go out there, but my understanding I think Mr. Walker, when I spoke to you on the telephone I asked about variances and I think the variance dealt with just with maybe the front lots on the street or something. Mr. Walker — It was an area variance for lots 2 and 3 because they have a large size, but they don't have required frontage for that zone. We have done this in a lot of different places in the Town. Instead of having a new Town road with a cul -de -sac, which would give them all the legal frontage, the Town really doesn't want to take care of another little tiny road there so we have asked the applicant to prepare this plan to a shared driveway with access to a Town road. That means that each property has to have some frontage on a public road and it is going to be 20 -foot strips for each lot. They need 100 -foot strip normally under zoning. So that is what the variance is for. Ms. Stratakos — And mine really was a process question and I don't have a problem with that. Is that the only variance so that we know now what the variances will be or is there a possibility that when the owner goes before the Zoning Board of Appeals that there might be more variances that we haven't heard about yet? So it's a process question. Do we go before the Zoning Board of Appeals and list them again? Attorney Barney — You may. It is a public hearing Chairperson Wilcox — We are aware of three. Ms. Balestra — They are almost all related to road width. The required road width in this zone is 60 feet wide and lot 2 doesn't meet that road width requirement. Then 50 feet back from the road, which is the setback that is required, lots area required to be 100 feet wide and lots 2 and 3 do not meet that. Ms. Stratakos — So they are all related to the same, not height or anything like that. All right thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Therefore, should this subdivision be approved by this board, then the applicant would go to the Board of Zoning Appeals and ask for the variances necessary so that they could then build upon those lots. Attorney Barney —.But they could ask for additional variances. They are not limited to these variances, these are variances they must have in order for this subdivision to be affected, but they could come in and. say that they want to build a 40 foot house or `E:3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED something other than that that is required for the subdivision. So it is probably a good idea to take a look at the notice in the paper. Ms. Stratakos — But we usually get a notice directly being that close. Mr. Kanter - Yes. You would. You are adjacent. We have a lot of new single - family homes have been requesting height variances above the 38 foot permitted height. Chairperson Wilcox — That answers the question that someone else asked about the zoning. Ann Shumante, Eastwood Commons I am representing .residents of Eastwood Commons as president of their residential board. I really have been only... most of my questions have been answered in this discussion and I appreciate that. First, I want to say that we are encouraged by the fact that the developer plans to put three single - family homes on the property as opposed to a larger and more dense development. I do have a question as to whether or not accessory apartments are planned in these single family homes, which I understand can be single family plus accessory apartments. Ms. Balestra — We don't know at this point. Chairperson Wilcox — We don't know and actually that is not really for this board to... its not a determining point for this board generally. There could be special circumstances, but... Ms. Shumante — It is a concern to us. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely, which is why I mentioned before that the zoning does allow duplexes... I'm sorry, structures with two units. Ms. Shumante — I am aware of that and as I said we are relieved to have it developed into three single - family houses. We are also pleased at the apparent intention to leave a fair amount of the trees and natural growth on the lot. That area is a wildlife refuge for many of our four - footed friends who wander through my backyard with regularity, but... and I recognize that we can't build around the deer population or the rabbits or the squirrels, or the birds or the whatever, but it does help to know that you are going to leave those things there and that as I understand this plan the trees along the edge of the property line on the north side you intend to leave. That is good for us. One other small factor, access to the recreation way for that area is through Eastwood Commons land at this point. Should the residents or the developer expect to have access to the Recreation way he would need to make an access to the Recreation Way or they would have to go up to Honness Lane and come in that way. There should not be an expectation .that they can cross the private property of Eastwood Commons. iue PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED We don't mean to be nasty neighbors, but we do need to protect that area as much as we possibly can. Those are my basic issues. Chairperson Wilcox — Can you help me out here and maybe I just missed it on the map. You are saying that to the east of this property that is under discussion between this property and the old railroad right -of -way, which is shown as being owned by Cornell University you have a strip of land or the Eastwood Commons homeowners association owns a strip of land? Ms. Shumante — The property runs along here and this is the Recreation Way. Eastwood Commons is over here and we have a bench and access to the Recreation Way, which goes through our property. Chairperson Wilcox — Right, but they could in some way potentially create access from these two lots directly. Ms. Shumante —Absolutely and that. is what I am recommending. Mr. Kanter — Although the interesting point is that the third house does not have direct access to it so if people were interested in that maybe there should be some kind of an easement allowing that house to gain access through back property to the Recreation Way. Board Member Hoffmann - You mean on lot one? Mr. Kanter — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right. Lot one, they would have to trespass across someone else's property to get to the East Hill Recreation Way. Board Member Hoffmann — But on the other hand, the developers, as I understood it, plans to keep that 30 -foot wide buffer undeveloped. Mr. Walker — Fred, one comment on the East Hill Recreation Way. We really, to preserve the privacy of most of the residents along the Recreation Way, the park policy is basically to provide a vegetative buffer that isn't crisscrossed with 500 paths. So officially, a few years ago we built a sidewalk on Honness Lane, which connects to the Recreation Way so that is the official route so I don't think that we should be dictating new connection points as part of this subdivision. Ms. Shumante — I wasn't asking that it be dictated I was point out... Chairperson Wilcox — I think that he was correcting me is what he was doing. Mr. Walker — Our policy on the Recreation Ways is basically to provide a barrier between the Recreation Way and adjoining properties. NEI PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Kanter — Well, except where the landowner wants access then we do provide it. Board Member Hoffmann — But are you saying that there could not be a negotiated agreement between Eastwood Commons and the people who will own these properties to allow them to use your access point? Ms. Shumante — For them to reach that area, they would have to go through an undeveloped area that belongs to Eastwood Commons, which is not developed, not mowed, not cleared. There is certainly, I cannot say that there aren't people who go through there, they do, but we would prefer not to have it a public pathway. Board Member Hoffmann — I thought from what you said before that it was actually a cleared access, but I understand now that it isn't. Ms. Shumante - There in between there. Oh, answer and it probably structures these might footage, those kind of q is an area that is not at this point cleared that property line runs I did have one other thing and this you many also not be able to isn't in your pervue but we were concerned about what kind of be. Are they one story, one and a half story, two story, square uestions? Chairperson Wilcox — And the answer is we, we don't know. Ms. Shumante — We don't know. Board Member Hoffmann — I can maybe add something to that. The plans that we were given that are called C100 and C200 show sketched in, in outline, which would be the developed area of each lot and within that it shows a house on each lot. I guess that could ask Mr. Sciarabba if those houses are indications of where the houses are likely to be and what they are likely to look at, at least the footprint on the ground. Mr. Sciarabba — When we do the subdivisions we try to put the houses where we think that they might sit and generally we try to put a representative type of footprint on there, but by no means is that the exact siting or size of the house. That is going to be dependent upon what Mr. Spitsberg submits in his building permit for each individual home. So we try to give a general idea of the area to be disturbed, clearing limits as well as the house siting. They actually want us to move one of the houses on lot two to avoid taking out an additional tree. So he is very cognizant of trying to keep the trees on the site that are there as part of the building process. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and that is a good idea, but in that case in particular, I was actually thinking of proposing, if that dashed outlined that is here is not in fact indicating where the line is going to be, I would like to put something in the resolution... Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask you to hold off until I finish the public hearing? 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else like to speak? Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Before we do that, John Rudan expressed a concern about the hydrant. Is the location of that hydrant... did you put it in that specific location for an engineering reason? Mr. Sciarabba — That can be relocated. It is there to be close to the centerline of the access drive for the fire truck access. We can relocate that north of the pole to stay out of the proposed driveway. We weren't aware of a future driveway. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that a hardship for you, per se? Mr. Walker — It may be an issue for the Town. If you notice that there is a gray area in the roadway, that portion of the roadway has to be disturbed to install water services and sewer service across the road. Notice that the hydrant is located on the edge of it so because the water main proximity is pretty much under the shoulder there, it means that if we move it to the north we end up disturbing of the gutter and road section. We may be able to shift it further to the south with the storm utility boxes there, so yes we can accommodate the driveway, but we would prefer not to get out of that shaded area just because of the disturbance of the roadway. Mr. Rudan — If they come south, I think they would be all right. Chairperson Wilcox — Good. Anything else? Board Member Hoffmann — One of the other concerns that Mr. Rudan had, too, was runoff from the new road that is being proposed under this property. Is that likely to happen? It looks like there are ditches on both sides of that road or swales or whatever you want to call them. Mr. Walker = The road is designed with a pitch so that the water tends to runoff, not accumulate and run right down the road because we don't like that either. So the grading of the road will be to shed the water to the sides. If we get 3 inches of rain in 15 minutes, yeah, we are going to get some water to run across the road, but 99% of the time... Chairperson Wilcox — The road will be crowned, I think is the word that is usually used. Board Member Hoffmann — So it is not likely to be a problem except for in a very unusual case then. 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — You wanted to say something about the potential location of the house on lot two as shown? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, because if one could avoid placing the house or doing any digging in the area, which drains to the northeast, I think that would be a very good idea so I would like to have something added in our resolution about that. And it looks to me like that dashed line that you have already would be outside of that drainage area that goes to the northwest. Is that right? Mr. Sciarabba — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — So maybe we could ask that they stick to that dashed line when they... if they have to disturb the soil in that corner that they don't go further to the north or east than that dashed line indicates. And actually, the dashed line goes right through a white pine there so maybe you were planning to avoid that anyway. Mr. Sciarabba — That was one of the trees that Ted wanted to try to save, so... Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, I am looking at C100, which has the ... which is shown as the setback line. It is labeled SB around lot 2 particularly. Is that... Board Member Hoffmann — No. I'm not looking at SB. I'm looking at the thicker dashed line. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, you're looking at ... okay. I'm sorry. Thank you. Okay. Does the fact that those lines appear on these drawings, which we are using to make a determination require the applicant to hold to them since this is the information that we are using to base our decision? Attorney Barney - ...(not audible)... Board Member Hoffmann — The only reason that I am suggesting it is so that we don't add any more drainage to the north in particular because the existing houses to the north are quite close to the property line and it looks like there is a very steep slope there. Attorney Barney — It slopes to the... (not audible)... Mr. Sciarabba — There is currently a fill pile that is kind of straddling the property line between lot one and lot two. That is a topsoil pile that is going to have to be removed in order to build the homes. So that is kind of creating that kind of gully. When they build the house and they do the front yard, a lot of that drainage will actually come down to Wildflower, not go. to the north. It's really a very small triangle in the corner then. It currently drains there and I don't anticipate us really adding anything more to that. If they did, they would clear a tree and some brush and then put a grass area in there. Again, not adding any real significant runoff to that area. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — Is that your interpretation, to, Dan? Mr. Walker - Yeah, that area has been disturbed. There is a spoil pile in that area. It shows on sheet C200 they have some drainage lines around the back of the house sites there and the intention there is to collect the water and bring it into the drainage . system along the driveway and not send it to the north. We will be paying attention to that during the building permit process. Board Member Hoffmann — So you don't think anything added to the resolution is needed then? Mr. Walker - Um, no. Attorney Barney — They have to comply with Dan's review and the sediment and erosion control plan. The plans seem to show, unless I am misreading the line, it appears that I am reading the lines and it drains mostly to the west. Mr. Walker — There is a lot of little lumps and bumps there because of. the way they push material up in there during all the construction processes and I think during construction of the Eastwood Commons they just shoved a lot of material over there that was waste and sort of leveled it out, but it will be cleaned up I think when they build. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, as long as in the cleaning up process it doesn't create drainage problems. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? All set over here? Ms. Balestra — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Board Member Thayer moves the motion and Chairperson Wilcox seconds the motion. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, you talked about a condition or Jon mentioned a condition requiring a 30 -foot buffer around the outside? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the 30 foot buffer is indicated already, but what it said somewhere in the text was that the developer was planning to leave ... to be careful in protecting the big trees, but especially in the buffer to not disturb the vegetation all together. Am I correct? Yes? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — And it doesn't say that anywhere in our resolution so I am wondering if we need to add that, too. TJA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney is writing as we speak. We will also like... I heard the noise. We would also like to add a condition having to deal with the movement of the hydrant to the south as well. While we are waiting, for those people who live in this neighborhood I have a connection to it. I grew up at 1346 Slaterville Road. I know Mr. Deinert because I was his paperboy. I'm 50 now and I was 12 at the time so 38 years ago roughly. I knew this area before it was developed and similar across on the other side of Honness Lane, Mr. Kanter — While John is looking at that, we heard earlier something about a letter from the fire department. We should have a condition about that. Chairperson Wilcox — You have something from the fire department other than something verbal? Mr. Sciarabba Nothing in writing at this point. Chairperson Wilcox Okay. I think it is appropriate that we get them on record as saying that. I'll pause while they write. Ladies and gentlemen, for those of you who are here for the other subdivisions and the for the review of the proposed Rite Aid, we apologize; we are running a little long and we will get to those items. I'm sure we'll get to those items. I should also point out that we generally don't go passed 10 o'clock, but I think that we should have sufficient time to address the other two subdivisions before us and to review the proposed Rite Aid across the street from the East Hill Plaza. . ,Attorney Barney Then in "d ", if we could expand that a little bit to say that the easement we need for lot 1, and these are for lines to cross other lots for the benefit of these lots. So the easement of lot 1 is to cross 2 and 3 for sewer; easement for lot 2 to lot 3 for sewer; easement for lot 2 to cross lot 1 for water. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? We all set over here? Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -075: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Spitsberg 4 -Lot Subdivision, Wildflower Drive, Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -25.2 & 60 -1- 21 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed four -lot subdivision located on Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -25.2 & 60 -1 -21, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 3.05 +/- acre parcel into three residential 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED building lots with a single common driveway and one .00694A acre parcel to be consolidated with adjacent Tax Parcel No. 604-21. PJTM Corporation, Owner; Theodor Spitsberg,. Applicant, and 21 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on August 2, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part /l prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 2, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and .Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Spitsberg- Wildflower Subdivision, Theodor Spitsberg, Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," including Sheet No. 1 entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Plat," Sheet No. C100 entitled "Engineering Plan," Sheet No. C200 entitled "Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan," and Sheet No. C300 entitled "Construction Details," all dated June 7, . 2005 and prepared by T. G. Miller, P. C., and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE, BE /T RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined .from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 21 That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed four -lot subdivision located on Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -25.2 and 60 -1 -21, as shown on the survey entitled "Spitsberg- Wildflower Subdivision, Theodor Spitsberg, Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," dated June 7, 2005 and prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat and three dark -lined prints (Sheet 1 only), revised to reflect the statement in condition "h" below, and with revised sheet title to state "Final. Subdivision Plat" and including the original signature and seal of the registered land surveyor, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b. granting of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and W: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED c. submission of copies of the easement/maintenance agreement for the shared driveway, including reference to condition "h" below, for review and approval by the Attorney" for the Town, prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and d. submission of any water and sewer easements between Lots 1, 2, and 3, easement to Lot 1 to cross Lots 2 and 3 for sewer, easement to Lot 2 to cross Lot 3 for sewer, easement to Lot 2 to cross Lot 1 for water, for review by the Town Engineer and the Attorney for the Town, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and e. submission of a 20' sewer easement to the Town of Ithaca for the extension of the sewer main, for approval by the Town Engineer and the Attorney for the Town, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and f. submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county or state agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent as per NYSDEC SPDES General Permit GP- 02 -01, and g. within six months of this approval, consolidation of Parcel A with the adjacent Tax Parcel No. 604-21 to the south, and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for the consolidation, and h. No curb cuts shall be allowed on Wildflower Drive except for the one curb cut for the proposed common driveway, and revision of the subdivision map to note the prohibition, and i. Submission "of a letter from the Ithaca City Fire Department indicating that fire and emergency service concerns have been adequately addressed prior to the signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and f No construction or disturbance of land shall occur within any of the 30 foot buffer shown on the map, along the outside perimeter of the subdivision, and k. The fire hydrant on Wildflower Drive to be moved south to a location approved by the Town Engineer. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED SEQR Determination Cleveland 2 -Lot Subdivision, 1032.5 Danby Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:22 p.m. Travis Cleveland, 723 Hudson Street I am proposing a subdivision of this almost acre lot for sale to my father and that is it. Chairperson Wilcox — You are the... I'm trying to get resituated here with the one in front of me. Okay. I'm all set. I have a question... wish I had a surveyor here because I was looking at the original survey done by TG Miller, which is dated April 11, 2003 and I was looking at the recent survey, which is dated June 29, 2005 and noticed that some of the dimension are just a little bit different, whether they are the lengths of the lot lines or the directions of the lot line. I don't know whether that is just normal. Attorney Barney — Like where? Chairperson Wilcox — I'll give you an example. John, if you turn them both... 119.99 and 120. So they are slightly different directions. Attorney Barney — The directions are basically dependent upon what north they are using. North can either be magnetic, which actually changes or it can be true north, which theoretically doesn't. Surveyors are a little bit vague these days as to which they are using and what meridian it is. The 119.99 to 120, 1 wouldn't lose a lot of sleep over. Chairperson Wilcox — I know. They are just different and we have a survey in front of us that is certified by the surveyor and I have no reason to believe that it is not accurate... yeah some of them are because they went to center line of the road in one and not in the other. The larger ones are certainly resulting of that, but even if you add the two together to account for that there are minor differences. I am not concerned. It was more of curiosity and my apology for the board. Thank you for indulging me. Questions from the board with regard to environmental review of the applicant? Concerns about access to the remaining parcel over that small right -of -way between lacovelli and Hawker residences? Chairperson Wilcox asks for a motion on the SEQR. Board Member Talty moves the motion and Board Member Conneman seconds the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -076: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Cleveland -2 Lot Subdivision, 1032.5 Danby Road, Tax Parcel 39 -14 MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED 01. This action is the consideration of preliminary and final subdivision approval for the proposed 2 -1ot subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -9, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing ,off a +/- 0.733 -acre parcel from the +/- 2.6 -acre parcel for the construction of a new residence. Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on August 2, 2005 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat entitled, "Survey Map, No. 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, dated April 11, 2003, and a plat entitled, "Lands of Travis L. Cleveland & Kathy A. Cleveland, Danby Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York State," prepared by R. James Stockwin, P.L.S., dated June 29, 2005, and other application materials, and 4. The Town ` Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty, NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 8:26 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2M lot subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39.- 1-9, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED 0.733 -acre parcel from the +/- 2.6 -acres parcel for the construction of a new residence. Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Owners /Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions of Mr. Cleveland while he is at the table? There being none, you can have a seat, sir. Thank you very much Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:26 p.m, and invites members of the public to address the board. With no one interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:27 p.m. Ms. Tedesco — I wanted to add something that was brought to my attention by Dan Walker. There is a large ditch that runs from the southeast to the northwest on the property. It is not a permanent stream. There is no stream there, but I believe there is some intermittent flow there. Mr. Walker — It is an intermittent drainage way and it is .an established drainage way, which takes a lot of drainage across Danby Road. Ms. Tedesco — What we may want to do is add a condition requiring along with the site plan a drainage plan, drainage controls. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to come up? I want to make sure that they can hear it. You want to repeat that in your nice, full voice? Ms. Tedesco — The ditch that runs from the southeast to the northwest, it was dry when I went out there for a site visit, but I understand that it does carry water occasionally and so what we would probably want to do, along with the site plan, require a drainage plan to make sure that if you do ... well, I assume you want to build a house on that southern parcel, correct? 6 Mr. Cleveland — Yes. Ms. Tedesco — That you don't disturb anything regarding the drainage and that you would build the structure towards the roadside not behind the ditch. Chairperson Wilcox — You have the aerial? Ms. Tedesco — Yes. If you take a look at the aerial photo, just everything to the west here, just to leave all this drainage undisturbed and then to keep these setbacks here. Then just put the house on that side. Mr. Cleveland — Actually that drainage starts on the property beside me, 1044 Danby Road and this is just preliminary, but I was actually, if anything were to ever be built there... as I said my father is probably going to build a house there, we were actually thinking of redirecting it around where it is now, around that parcel and back into the ditch down below. 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Walker — You mean towards the back of the parcel, around the building, but into the existing drainageway? That is fine. Basically the condition I would like to see on there is just that prior to any building permit a site plan be provided to show all the earthwork and drainage improvements for approval of the Town Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Chairperson Wilcox — And if you should proceed in that manner, then you would at least... if you provide documents that show you are going to redirect the drainage in that manner and you are consistent with what you said... Mr. Walker — Right. There is a natural drainage pattern. You can see it on the aerial photo, it comes across and there is a dark line through the back through the center part of the larger lot there and then there is a whiter area that is where the water goes now. We have a lot of problems down on Stone Quarry Road where drainage has been changed over the years and it causes problems. We have it under control now, but we don't want to change the drainage any more so the main concern that I had is that we continue to go in the same drainageway. There is plenty of room on that property to do that. Mr. Cleveland — I don't plan on, at this time, changing anything other than maybe trying to help dry that lot out because it is only wet during the rainy, season or after winter, of course. The most that we had planned as of right now was to bulldoze the lot and keep it on their property as it is right now. If need be, we would... Mr. Walker — As it goes behind that foundation it does get a little less defined because it spreads out over and then collects back again. Mr. Cleveland — And it did start previously. It has worn the ditch down through there just in the last few years. Before you can see the path if you walked on the adjoining property that it was where it was going originally and it just happened to turn now because of wear and tear, whatever. Chairperson Wilcox — So therefore, you suggest, John Barney is writing, but you suggest something that says essentially that... Mr. Walker — That the flow be maintained in the same general drainageway that it flows in now and... Chairperson Wilcox — And the way to accomplish that is when a building permit is requested... Mr. Walker — So before any site work... if any site work were to be done, you don't show any site work .on here now, but if you wanted to move ahead with preliminary site work they would need to submit a drainage plan and grading plan to me for approval prior to doing the site work. 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — In order to insure that the drainage stays the way it is or is rerouted in such a way that is consistent with the existing drainage. Okay, Mr. Barney can write. Are you comfortable with that? Mr. Cleveland — Actually, I do have a question. Since it does start on the neighbor's property, how would I go about doing that? I can't start from their property. I can't do on their private property to reroute their... Mr. Walker — I can work with you to work with the neighbor to try to work out a good drainage plan and I'll help you do that. Mr. Cleveland — I can take care of it on my property, but I can't on... Attorney Barney — Not without their consent. Mr. Walker — But it may be to their benefit, too, to clean things up. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? Mr. Kanter — Is there any thought about further subdividing or developing the large remaining lot in the back because the access to that is going to be quite limited? Mr. Cleveland — In the future, we have considered it, but right now I do have a usage variance coming up on the 15th for that property. Mr. Kanter — Right, because of the frontage. Mr. Cleveland — Because it is landlocked as it is other than the driveway. Mr. Kanter — Because that width. is 46 feet at the road or something like that. Chairperson Wilcox — The County said 30. Are you talking about the driveway? Mr. Walker — That is only a 10 -foot strip. Chairperson Wilcox — Ten foot? Is that it? Mr. Walker — That is about the width of the driveway. Mr. Kanter — I would say this is one, of those cases where it is pretty obvious that it would be limited for future development, but we might want to actually make that as a condition that there be no further... Chairperson Wilcox — I was going to say, you are really limiting yourself access to your lot, if you will, to 1032.5. 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Cleveland — With the area variance, though, I understood that that could be in the future. Attorney Barney — What the area varia structure, which may be as many as two be back to this board for subdivision and a subdivision would allow more than one are boxing yourself in pretty tightly by just nce would get you is the right to build one units, but that is all. Then you would have to quite frankly .I don't know of too many times in permitted with just a 10 foot access. So you limiting yourself. Chairperson Wilcox — I can't speak for this board or future boards, but if you are talking about taking that parcel and subdividing it, you are talking a 10 -foot driveway to serve it. Not only the existing house there, but all and any future homes. It certainly would not be looked upon favorably. Attorney Barney Presumptively, you might not even get your variance because the presumption under 280a of the Town Law, which is what you would be going under is a 15 foot width and you are 5 feet short of that now and 15 feet is pretty, minimum. You might want to rethink this a little bit and see if you want to instead of going to 120 feet on the southerly piece... Mr. Cleveland — We did consider doing a 60 -foot subdivision, but the. way that it is as it is, I was just going to cut that whole lot off because it was a residence before, but I was just doing it because it was easier. Chairperson Wilcox — My sense of this board is we would approve what is being requested tonight and we could go ahead and do that, but it doesn't ... the subdivision doesn't occur until the plat is filed with the County and you could tell us don't approve it tonight or we could approve it, which I assume the board will do and you could decide, wait a minute, maybe I shouldn't file this with or ... maybe you could say I don't want you to approve it, I want to come back with a revised plan, which I think we might...I don't know how we would want to deal with that procedurally. Mr. Kanter — I suppose that you could consider granting preliminary subdivision approval tonight and then bring back a modified plan for final. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you comfortable with this as proposed or do you want to ... the question is yours at this point? Mr. Cleveland — I believe I should probably revise it. Chairperson Wilcox — So that you don't limit yourself to access to what I'll call the rear lot, if you will. You really do limit yourself there. Mr. Cleveland — All right. That is probably what I would want to do. 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox Procedurally, how should we proceed at this point? You can withdraw the application, number one. We can adjourn it and come back, but then again we have already done the SEQR. Mr. Kanter — I think the SEQR could probably stand if the revision basically just has to do with access... Chairperson Wilcox — Or we could modify the SEQR. So what we can do is adjourn this and when you have either come back with this plan or come back with a revised plan and we can pick it up from there. That saves you from having to submit another whole new application. We could approve it and then you go away and change your mind and then you are back paying the fee and a new application and the 25 copies and everything else. You are going to have to submit 25 copies of whatever you revise, but at least we are starting in the middle rather than from square one. Does that make sense to you? It's your call. Mr. Cleveland — No. Let's leave it as it is. We'll just go ahead and you can approve it tonight and I will just... because with the variance... it doesn't get approved unless the variance goes through, correct? Attorney Barney — Correct. Mr. Cleveland — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — So we'll proceed. Mr. Kanter — If the variance doesn't come through, you'll probably be back anyway. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Mr. Kanter — Could I just add, though, if nothing else for the record and the minutes, we often times find it valuable to go back when we have these discussions because some things we don't put in as conditions and maybe we should, but that if this subdivision is approved as shown on the plat, it is very unlikely that this board would approve any further subdivision of the larger remaining parcel. Chairperson Wilcox — We should put that right in there. Absolutely.. Ms. Tedesco — Also I would like to have a condition included about site plan and drainage plan, etc. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. That one Mr. Barney has already written up for us. Do have a motion? Board Member Conneman moves the motion and Board Member Talty seconds the motion. 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — All right, John. Read away. Attorney Barney — Item c would be, submission of a site plan showing the proposed drainage in the subject lot to be established in connection with construction on the site, the plans to be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Then I will add one additional condition, Mr. Kanter, you want to give a shot at it. Mr. Kanter You mean the one I just said? You want that as a condition? Chairperson Wilcox — The one you just said. Attorney Barney — Subject to the condition that no further subdivision or development occur on the lot to the northwest. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like it there and I get nods all the way around the table. Mr. Cleveland — Excuse me. Does that limit me to development if I wanted to... because it is a multiple residence zone? Mr. Kanter — It's not multiple residences. Mr. Cleveland — High density. Chairperson Wilcox — It prevents you, but what we are saying is that you would not be allowed to subdivide that large parcel again. Mr. Cleveland — But I can build on that parcel? Attorney Barney — Build what? Because you already have a house there. Mr. Cleveland — Right, but in the future... Attorney Barney You would have to take that house down because you are only allowed one principle structure in a residential zone. Mr. Cleveland — For high density? Attorney Barney — What you are basically doing with this subdivision is creating a 2.6 acre lot that goes with the existing house and a 10 foot driveway, which is probably not wide enough for a' fire engine to get in, which is a concern that the BZA may have because they want to see the ability for emergency vehicles to be able to get to the property. 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Cleveland — I noticed that it does show 10 foot on here, but I believe that it is actually bigger. Attorney Barney Lee Dresser is a pretty good surveyor and I suspect that these boundaries are fixed by the Halker deed and the lacovelli deed, aren't they? Chairperson Wilcox — One would presume on? All right. So you understand what is going Mr. Cleveland — Yes, pending variance, this property will not be able to be developed in the future. Attorney Barney — No. Basically with the condition there will be no further development on the 2.614 -acre parcel unless and until a larger access is provided. Chairperson Wilcox — Take your time. I don't know what you want to do with the large parcel in the back. My guess is that you... Mr. Cleveland — Eventually I would like to develop it. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Develop it means what? Subdivide it into lots and create single - family homes? Mr. Cleveland — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — If we approve this subdivision with this condition and you go to the County Assessment Department and file that subdivision, one of the conditions that we have attached is that you can't subdivide that piece of land back there and if you can't subdivide it, you can't build any houses on it. Mr. Cleveland — But if I cut this subdivision in half that I am trying to subdivide now with a 60 foot... Chairperson Wilcox — I want to make sure that we are clear. You are looking to subdivide this off right here. That is not the issue. The issue is this access to this and as a condition that we are going to impose that if we subdivide this off as you have shown it on the survey map, then we will impose the condition that this piece of land cannot be subdivided again. If you can't subdivide it, you have a parcel with a house. So you can't build any other houses on it. Mr. Cleveland — If I leave a 60- foot...: Chairperson Wilcox — If you somehow leave some sort of access presumably here to get into there then you have at least a much better chance. I can't commit this board to 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED something in the future, but at least you have a 60 -foot right -of -way, which is considered reasonable, at least for access to and in and out, ditches, etc: Attorney Barney — I'm not sure it even has to be 60 feet quite frankly. If it is a private drive it can be... ` Mr. Walker — Well as we saw in the previous subdivision, there were three lots and two of them sharing a driveway with basically a 40 foot wide access way split between the three lots with easements. So I would say probably the fire department knowing, having seen the site, probably a 40 -foot wide strip would provide enough access fora driveway to reach that back lot. Chairperson Wilcox — Having said that, what would you like us to do? Mr. Cleveland — I guess I would like to post -pone it so that I can resubmit. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second. I need to withdraw them at this point, right? Attorney Barney — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — George and Kevin, can we withdraw the motion? Board Member Conneman - Yes. Board Member Talty — Withdrawn Chairperson Wilcox — The motion is withdrawn. We will now suspend, post - pone... Attorney Barney — I would suggest that at the applicant's request that the board... somebody make a motion to post -pone this for up to 60 days and then come back to this board. If the applicant is not ready to proceed in 60 days that it be denied at this juncture and come back as a new application. That should recite in the record, Carrie, that that is at the request of the applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved. Seconded by Kevin Talty. You understand where we are going? Mr. Cleveland - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -077: Request for Postponement of Application, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Cleveland -2 Lot Subdivision, 1032.5 Danby Road, Tax Parcel 39 -1 -9 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty. RESOLVED, that upon request of the applicant, Travis and Kathy. Cleveland, the Planning Board grants postponement of the Cleveland subdivision application for up to 60 days, if the applicant is not ready to appear before the board at the end of 60 days, the application will be denied and the applicant will have to make a new subdivision application to the Planning Board. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. SEAR Determination Hilker 4 -Lot Subdivision, 255 & 277 Burns Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Jim Hilker, 255 Burns Rd We are looking to subdivide off a roughly 8.5 acre parcel off of my father's land, Bill Hilker, which is at 277 Burns Road for the purpose of building one single family residence. Chairperson Wilcox — I am looking at the survey map and I am looking at the large parcel, which is shown as lands of Willis S and Shirley S. Their current access is off the old railroad right -of -way? Mr. Hilker — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Is it legal access? Mr. Hilker — You would have to ask my father about that. Chairperson Wilcox — Nonetheless, the subdivision as proposed, would provide an access strip of 150, foot at the street on Burns Road. Mr: Hilker — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — To the parcel. Okay. Can I ask another question about survey maps? Attorney Barney — That is what got us into the last simple two -lot subdivision. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — I know, but this one was actually noted in the comments and actually resulted in a condition on the draft resolution and has to do with the accuracy of the meets and bounds that are shown on this map. Mr. Kanter — The scale and dimensions for that matter. Chairperson Wilcox — It has a look and feel, which seems, you know, 10 or 20 years ago, but that is fine. That is not what bothers me. What bothers is me is one, is it to scale and two, the lengths or dimensions are in neither whole feet or in tenths, which seems a bit odd. Then the directions are in degrees minutes and usually we see degrees minutes seconds. I just don't know, again I have this; it is signed by a licensed surveyor... it doesn't strike me as being what I am used to. Attorney Barney — Part of the answer is the equipment that the surveyor uses. Some surveyors use laser equipment that they claim to get the accuracy within a hundredth of a foot. Even that I think is a little bit of a stretch because...I don't think that Mr. Schlieder uses the laser type stuff. I think he is still more old fashioned with the type of equipment used 10 -15 years ago. Typically we would see surveys in those days that would be rounded to the nearest foot... again quite frankly, surveying is not quite as precise as we would like to believe it. If we take two surveyors out and you have them survey the piece of land and you don't show them the other survey, you will get different dimensions and different bearing, not if you have the real modern equipment by significant amounts, but... (not audible) ... I think Lee Dresser do their field measurements and then they take them back in and feed them into a computer and the computer comes up with some additional adjustments that make it close from a geometrical standpoint. I don't know if Mr. Schlieder does that. I'm not sure that that necessarily makes the other folks more accurate because a computer is filling in some gaps if there is a discrepancy of what the field measurements area So I would not lose any sleep over that. Chairperson Wilcox — In light of that, when we continue, could you look at condition d that was proposed? We are not there yet, but when you get an opportunity in the resolution for approval that was provided as drafted. Okay. I'm sorry. Are we still on SEQR? We're still on SEAR. Board Member Hoffmann — There is a scale. Chairperson Wilcox — There was some concern about... Mr. Smith — If you just look up in the upper right hand corner, there is a 250 -foot dimension and they don't look to be the same length. There are just some of those type of things that we were noticing. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — For those members of the board, we are pointing right up here where these two widths are both labeled 150 feet, but do not appear to be the same width on the survey. Questions with. regard to the environmental review? We all set over here? Mr. Smith — Yeah. You had a letter on your desks tonight from the environmental review committee, which walked the site and didn't have any problems with it. Board Member Hoffmann - I just have a question first. I understand that there is probably a reason why you want to put the house where it is indicated on this survey map, but it makes for a very long driveway. Mr. Hilker = Yes. It does. The purpose for putting it there is that it really is the only location on the entire 8.5 acres, just that one point up in there .to place a house. Everywhere else is steep slopes and is not appropriate for construction whatsoever. That right there is very gentle slopes, almost very close to flat. Chairperson Wilcox — All set Eva Board Member Conneman moves the motion and Board Member Talty seconds the motion. Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote. Approval, Hilker 4 -Lot Subdivision, 255 & 277 Burns Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 48-1- 14,312 & 48 -1- 14.311 MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at 255 and 277 Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 48- 1- 14.312 and 48 -1- 14.311, Conservation and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing +/- 8.05 acres from Tax Parcel 48444.312 and +/-- 0.42 acres from.the northeastern edge of Tax Parcel No. 48 -1- 14.311, which will be consolidated to create a new +/- 8.47 -acre lot. Willis S. & Shirley S. Hilker and James & Elizabeth Hilker, Owners, James Hilker, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and .I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED 3. The Planning Board on August 2, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey Map of Proposed Lot Changes at 277 Burns Road" dated July 7, 2005, prepared by Howard R. Schlieder, NYS P. E. & L. S., and other application material, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. The vote on the motion. resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None, ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was. carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 8:55 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4- lot subdivision located at 255 and 277 Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 48. -1 -14 -.312 and 48. -1- 14.311, Conservation and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing +/- 9.05 acres from Tax Parcel 48.-1- 14.312 and +/- 0.42 acres from the northeastern edge of Tax Parcel No. 48. -1- 14.311, which will be consolidated to create a new +/- 8.47 -acre lot., Wills S & Shirley S Hilker and James & Elizabeth Hiker, Owners, James Hilker, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:55 p.m. and invites members of the public to address the board. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:57 p.m. Board Member Conneman — Do you want to include something relative to what the Environmental Review Committee indicated? Is that necessary? Chairperson Wilcox —*The Environmental Review Committee was pleased that it would be a gravel driveway. They don't Want a paved driveway back there. We may, as soon as they are done, put that in as a condition. Any other discussion? We are having 41 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED some discussion over here about a condition. We are some discussion about requiring that any driveway, to the house be gravel or not -paved is the sentiment of the board given the location and given the comments from the ERC. Now again, we are doing the subdivision, we are not approving the building of a house, I understand that, but the board would apparently liked to ... and the applicant has agreed that they have no intent on building a blacktop driveway. So we have their consent as well. Are treading on thin ice here legally? Attorney Barney - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I know. We are doing subdivision and not... Mr. Smith — They are more just making a statement rather than require gravel. It's more for the erosion part of it. Chairperson Wilcox — That's why I said we would talk about it. John, and the legal issue is as far as you are concerned? Attorney Barney — Well, them to any particular circumstances where, a engines that you want a legal question, I am not impose. legally I'm not quite sure that you have the authority to limit type. Leaving that aside, practically speaking there are gain, for safety or for bringing in heavy vehicles such as fire solid base than you might get with gravel. So leaving side the sure from a planning standpoint that is something you want to Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Board Member Mitrano — I would stay away from it. Board Member Talty — I am not comfortable with putting that in. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Any questions? Further discussion? Board Member Mitrano makes the motion, seconded by Board Member Thayer. Attorney Barney.— I see problems with the survey map and I think that they need to be addressed. There is a deviation of a lot line that is shown here that is not shown in terms of a piece. As I do a very quick sketch here, where did Jim go ... a 150 feet at one place is a different length on the map than 150 feet elsewhere on the map. I haven't sat down and tried scale off whether the 1370 feet at the south end is equivalent to the 1125 on the west side, but it seems to me that with all due respect to Mr. Schlieder, he may have done this late in the day. It probably ought to be done with a little more degree of accuracy. I don't know whether I would agree that it needs to be the nearest 100th foot, I think that is what our subdivision regs require, but I would certainly say to the nearest 10th of a foot would not be inordinate requirement. 42 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have an issue with changing 100th to 10th? Okay. Attorney Barney - I think. that you probably want it...I mean most of your surveys will show a scale right'on it. Chairperson Wilcox — So that. is the only one change that you are suggesting? Attorney Barney — Yes, Chairperson Wilcox — Did you see a copy of the resolution that we were handed? Mr. Hilker —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -079: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Hilker 4 -Lot Subdivision, 255 & 277 Burns Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 484- 14.312 & 48 -1- 14.311 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 ''lot subdivision located at 255 and 277 Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 48 -1- 14.312 and 48 -1- 14.311, Conservation and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing +/- 8.05 acres from Tax Parcel 48-1-44,312 and +/- 0.42 acres from the northeastern edge of Tax Parcel No. 48 -1- 14.311, which will be consolidated to create a new +A 8.47 -acre lot. Willis S. & Shirley S. Hilker and James & Elizabeth Hilker, Owners; James Hilker, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca. Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on August 2; 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment, Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part l/ prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on August 2, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey Map of Proposed Lot Changes at 277 Burns Road" dated July 7, 2005, prepared by Howard R. Schlieder, NYS P. E. & L. S., and other application material. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 43 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grant: Approval for the proposed subdivision and acre lot located at 255 & 277 Burns Road, "Survey Map of Proposed Lot Changes at prepared by Howard R. Schlieder, NYS conditions: Preliminary and Final Subdivision consolidation to create a new + / -. 8.47 as shown on the survey map entitled 277 Burns Road" dated July 7, 2005, P.E. & L.S., subject to the following a. obtaining the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and b, submission of a Surveyor's Certificate statement, as shown on the Final Subdivision Plat Checklist, prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and C. submission of an easement / maintenance agreement for the existing drive'that will provide access to the new +/- 8.47 acre parcel and possibly the remaining lands of Tax Parcel 48 -1- 14.312, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, said approval to be issued prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and d. revision of the plat to correctly identify the tax parcel number of 255 Burns Road (48 -1- 14.311), ensure that the plat is drawn to scale and that all boundaries are fully dimensioned to the nearest one -tenth foot, and showing the original boundary of the 255 Burns Road parcel with the 0.42 acre parcel proposed to be subdivided off, with labeling indicating that the parcel is to be consolidated with the new 8.05 acre parcel, resulting in a new 8.47 +/- acre parcel — each parcel should be properly labeled with reference to which parent parcel each is to be subdivided off of, and e. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the revised final subdivision plat, and three dark - lined ''prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and f. within six months of this approval, consolidation of the two pieces of land to create the new parcel, as shown on the subdivision plat, and submission to the Town. Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for the consolidation, and .. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED g. submission of a deed restriction to the Attorney for the Town for review and approval, indicating that no further subdivision of the 8.47 acre parcel shall be permitted, along with a notation to that effect on the revised plat,. prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. SKETCH PLAN Consideration of a Revised Sketch Plan for the proposed redevelopment of the Judd Falls Plaza properties located at 322 -250 Pine Tree Road and 930 and 946 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62.- 1 -3.2, 62.- 1 -2.2, and 62. -1 -1, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal includes removing the existing plaza to construct approximately 45,464 square feet of retail, office and other related commercial uses in several new buildings, including a +/ 14,564 square foot Rite Aid Pharmacy store in the first phase of development. The project will also include new stormwater facilities, parking, landscaping,. and lighting. Susan Hamilton, Owners Ellicott Development Company for 1093 Group, LLC, Applicant. Chairperson.Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Bill Paledino, Ellicott Development Company At our last meeting we proposed the redevelopment of Judd Falls Plaza here in Ithaca. The current plaza as it is situate with the bowling alley and some other retail at this time. The property owner is having a very difficult time with the Plaza and it was an opportune time that we came along and we have looked to redevelop the entire Plaza and move all the existing tenancies. In our initial application, well we said from the beginning that our initial thrust here is to redevelop a Rite Aid Pharmacy on the site. That is what we would like to do in the first phase of the project with some type of future development coming in the future when that should be determined. From our initial plan to this plan, what we have done at your request is sort of create a new plan that showed you exactly what we would do under the first phase of this development. Under our initial plan it was a little confusing trying to show what potentially may come in the future without really having a plan for it and mixing it in with the proposed Rite Aid development. Under the first phase here in this plan we are showing you tonight, we are just showing the redevelopment of the Rite Aid Pharmacy on the site. The removal of all the other structures on the site except for the house in the rear, which may or may not come down in the first phase. The land in the rear we are looking to leave as is for the time being with everything east of the rear 45 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED entry road off of Mitchell being redeveloped under the initial phase. The new Rite Aid will be the only structure that will be developed in the initial phase of the project. The remainder of the site will be pretty much cleared, cleaned up, redeveloped as green space and just to give it a better look. So hopefully we can market the property better and find additional uses and tenancies for the remaining space on the site. This area here, we did show you a retail plan for the phase two development. We are not set in stone that that would eventually be the plan. We have had other medical uses that have discussed possibly being here. Residential uses, hotel uses... not being from the area, we haven't had time to market it properly to see what possibly the rear yard could be used for. I know the Hamiltons over the years have had a number of different plans and sketches and ideas as to what to do with the property. They have had different residential plans, retail plans, none of which have come to fruition for many different reasons. As far as retail is concerned, we feel it is going to be very difficult to get more retail up here on the hill considering what is done on Route 13. Ithaca, being the size it is, most of the retailers are already out there and most of the retailers would probably look to relocate up on this end of town would be local type mom and pop businesses. In order to make a project work with those types of businesses, we would need to find some other large retailers to help with the project costs to complete the project. At our last meeting, there were a number of concerns addressed by the board that we have tried to take into consideration and address ourselves in our new plan. will go through those. One being the access points. Under our initial plan we were showing another access point here along Pine Tree Road. We currently are talking with Mr. Murray at the Courtside to share access over here. We do have agreements for access already coming across our property. So there are agreements in place and they would just have to be expanded'upon to complete that transaction with him and share the access. We feel in doing that it gives better flow to the site and also addresses the in and out traffic being right in front of where the pharmacy drive - through would be located. The access point in front of the HSBC would remain and would be shared with the HSBC. We currently have had discussions with the HSBC themselves and the current lessee of the property. The property is ground leased from the Hamiltons and the HSBC is looking to redevelop their whole parcel and they would like to see where our final plans end up so that we can work together to pretty much make it beautiful frontage along here and redevelop the entire frontage just to give it a more uniform and better look than what presently exists. I know another major concern was the sidewalk along Mitchell. Currently we are showing a new sidewalk to be constructed along Mitchell. When it gets on the east side of the HSBC current drive, it would cut off and cut in between the HSBC and Cornell. I have mentioned this to HSBC and they said that they would definitely consider it and once again they would like to see our final plans before we move forward with them. I think that is a viable option, if the board thought it was a viable option. We discussed it last time and it seemed like something that would be realistic. Under the first phase of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED this project, though, we would leave, if possible, when we completed clearing the site and regrading and !;completing the pavement in the rear, we would see if we could leave the existing walkway in place until such time the rest of the property is developed, at which time that access way would be eliminated and this would be the main access point around the site to the supermarket. With regard !Ito the look of the building, I know that there were many comments as to the design and the look and you would like to see alternatives. Rite Aid has asked, this is a new brand imagine they are trying to get across to people. There is one store built like this. It is out in . Louisville. We had the pleasure of going there, all the developers, and looking at the store. It was a very nice store. They put a lot of time and effort into researching and developing the new site. They would like you to take that into consideration and help them...I guess they would like to have the store the way it looks, but in talking with them further, if you would help them maybe redesign somewhat the current look of the building to satisfy your needs or desires as to what you think it would Iook like, they would be willing to look at doing that. I think that addresses most of the concerns originally from the board. We just can't stress enough that the project is under time constraints. We have a number of different parties involved in this proposed development. We would like to move the project forward in the first phase in some fashion to keep it a viable project. I guess the longer this goes, the more problems that could arise potentially affecting the building for us to even complete the first phase, being the Rite Aid portion of this development. Chairperson Wilcox — Who wants to start? Board Member Conneman — I'll start. You indicate or someone indicates that you have approval from Rite Aid to discuss less signage on the exterior of the building. Mr. Paledino — Yeah. The have talked about less signage and they will consider downsizing their signage. They have asked me if it was the amount of signage or is it the size of the sign "age that is of concern. Obviously with the store when they see it, it is designed ... you know what is inside when you see it. It is designed to entice people... the signage. I know I can see myself that there is a lot of signage on the building. They would go back to ;the board...I mean what parameters would you want to see them reduce the signage? Board Member Conneman — I just want to make sure that you are prepared to negotiate. Mr. Paledino — They are prepared to negotiate. Chairperson Wilcox — I want to argue that the sign has to be useful. You and I were talking before the meeting.... Board Member Conneman — Yes, we were. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — We were talking about if one of these signs faces Courtside and not out on the street, you don't need it. Mr. Paledino — I agree. Chairperson Wilcox — That was apparently one when we were looking at this. Mr. Paledino — When... hopefully we can move out of the preliminary stage at this point and file for a public hearing, at which point everything will be submitted exactly the way that they would want to proceed with it and signs such as that, which really serves no purpose would not be included. Board Member Conneman — Most people that go to a Rite Aid know what you have. They know that you have photos; they know you have food. You don't need to say that. Mr. Paledino — We know that, but in their minds they have it for a reason and feel that it needs to be said. Board Member Conneman — Most people in the world know what Rite Aid is and Eckerd's is and the other stores. Mr. Paledino — I won't dispute that. Mr. Kanter — I think our sign law has some very specific requirements that would cover some of that so you will need to look at those. Board Member Conneman — Well, Jon, I was drawing parallel with Burger King, which went to their national people and said we don't need to have a red light around the top. We don't have to have a huge sign because people know where Burger King is and what you are trying to do is attract local people, not people from downtown. Mr. Paledino — Understandable and that is what this store is mainly designed for. It would be a neighborhood type store. Board Member Mitrano — So one suggestion might be is that rather than the two large Rite Aid signs on each side of the building, keeping it. within the signage appropriate to our regulations, if not, the guidance that we have from the Burger King case to put the Rite Aid where the pharmacy is and call it a day. Chairperson Wilcox— Also, if I remember right, the way that this building is oriented, this entrance is in the corner, right? Mr. Paledino — It is on the corner. Correct. i PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Can you point on there where that entrance is? Its right there so... Board Member Mitrano — And can somewhat refresh my recollection about regulations with respect to drive - through? That rings a bell. Mr. Kanter — We allow up to three drive - through lanes by Special Permit in the community commercial zone and this has two drive - through lanes. Board Member Mitrano — And usually they are used by banks, is that...? Mr. Kanter Banks and pharmacies are covered by that provision. There are separate drive - through provisions for restaurants where there is actually a distance separation limitation between two drive - through restaurants. They can't be closer than 1500 feet together, but that doesn't apply to bank and pharmacies. Board Member Mitrano — And could you give me an example of another pharmacy in the Town of Ithaca that would a similar drive - through as the one proposed here? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure we have a pharmacy. Mr. Kanter — Not in the Town. In the City there are several. Board Member Mitrano — So this would be our first. Mr.. Kanter — All the new ones tend to have these drive - throughs. I can't see why because to me it doesn't make sense to get your vitamins and things through a drive - through. Board Member Mitrano — I can understand, especially for a person disabled and needing some kind of a prescription or an elderly person in the winter that it would be a convenience. Mr. Walker — Well doctors are all going on -line or faxing the prescriptions so by the time you get there they have got it ready. Board Member Mitrano — I'm not trying to... Attorney Barney — It is the young mothers, quite frankly. They are the biggest market. With two small kids in the car... Board Member Mitrano — That's true. Board Member Thayer —Yeah, Board Member Mitrano — Yes. I have fond memories. MAO PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED' Attorney Barney — They use the pharmacies probably as much as us old people. Board Member Mitrano — Yes. You are right. Chairperson Wilcox — But that means you don't have to bring the kids into the store so they don't go, "mommy, mommy, daddy, daddy, can I have this "...yeah. Mr. Kanter — On the other hand they are missing a huge educational opportunity by going through the store. Chairperson Wilcox — It was the same thing with pay at the pump at gas stations or convenience stores. The worry was you weren't going into the store to buy the soda or the beer or whatever. Board Member Mitrano — Also, I couldn't remember when we approved these other buildings. Could you guys...? [laughter] Mr. Walker — Well, that's the new look for cemeteries. Board Member Mitrano — Well, those would be my first salvoes that we consolidate to one Rite Aid sign within the appropriate dimension in our regulations and.that.we put it in the center and ask that the corporation forsake the two side signs and the big pharmacy sign. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not so much concerned whether it is on the center or on one side. I was just concerned that we don't need it on both sides. Board Member Conneman — And it could be small. Chairperson Wilcox — And it certainly could be smaller. Board Member Conneman — This is a neighborhood. This not Route 13. Chairperson Wilcox — In this case the way that the building would be oriented, I don't have a problem with appropriate sized signage facing out onto Pine Tree Road, but do we need a sign on the other side that points at the bank? I'm not sure that that is necessary. Again, our sign ordinance will play into this. Are we reasonably happy with the accommodation made for the existing walkway made up Mitchell Street? Board Member Thayer — Yeah. I like that we PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — Can we talk a little bit more about the sign? I have one more comment and that is the white part that says pharmacy. It is not clear whether that is a lit area. Mr. Paledino — It is lit. Board Member Hoffmann — It is lit? That is something I would like to see us avoid because there is enough lit up through these big glass windows and to have a lit up sign as big as that is more than is necessary there, too, I feel. That is what I wanted to add about the signs. Mr. Kanter Is that usually a like floodlight lighting up to the lettering or is it some kind of back lighting? Mr. Paledino — I think that it is some type of backlighting they use there off the metal panels. Board Member Conneman — I guess I would like you to come and we'll see that. Chairperson Wilcox — That is potentially an issue. Board Member Conneman — The other concern that I have is if you build this ... what the rest of the site is going to look like when it gets done, in case it never gets developed. Mr. Paledino Well, what we tried to show here is what it would look like when complete. Many of you are probably aware of the site right now, especially on Mitchell Street. When you drive Mitchell, you can really see what is on the property. There is really a lot of brush and debris. All of that will be cleared.. Any trees that are viable trees would be left. We would clear out all the brush and things that can be removed. The house we would like to remove, if it doesn't fall down before we are done with this. Then when you are driving Mitchell, grade the property down so that you have a nice view of the store, you'll have a nice view of the site. Back here, we are looking to just cut out more of some of that pavement and make it a nice square area and add green space and then where the current parking is, which is pretty much ancillary parking for Courtside or for Rite Aid. Then just in the front, define the lines. Nothing is really defined on site. There is just. a lot of gravel and different areas and there really is nothing striped. We just want to add some definition to the site I guess and we want it to be attractive because we do want to redevelop the rest of the site. We do want to put it to a use that is going to be there for the long haul, somebody that is going to last and somebody that is going contribute to the community. So we just don't want to rush into a new development in the back. We would really like to redevelop the site, make it look nice, market it and then see who comes along. Board Member Mitrano — Is this the just the nature of the depiction that this is a different color than this as the sun is shining on it? 51 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Mr. Paledino — No. You mean the brick color? No, there are two.., on that building there; there are two colors of brick. There is a lighter color and a darker color. Board Member Mitrano — So between these to segments of the building or...? Mr. Paledino — Correct. Board Member Mitrano - I see, but these segments that appear to be the same dimensionally are intended to be the same color? Mr. Paledino — Correct. Board Member Mitrano — Okay. Mr. Paledino — For some reason it didn't come out. Board Member Mitrano — And is this, I don't know how to describe it. I'm not good at those kinds of things, but this sort of three - tiered concept that is your trademark design. Mr. Paledino — Correct. It is meant to break up the building a little more. A lot of communities that they go into they like not to see just the straight lines and boxy looking store. So in redesigning this, it wasn't just something they has some architects go work on. They actually had, I don't know who it would be, marketing groups or focus group, who actually put people in a room and they showed them colors and they showed them shapes and this and that and it really was about a two -year process to redevelop this prototype. It is, like you mentioned before, about the drive - through and the younger lady and the kids and that, it is geared towards women, these stores. That is who they feel is their captive audience. That is whom they want to come and browse and spend time in the stores. Board Member Hoffmann — Who is it geared to? Mr. Paledino — Its geared towards women, the interiors of these stores. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, the interiors. Mr. Paledino — Oh, I'm sorry, not the exterior. Board Member Hoffmann — I thought that you were still talking about the exterior because it was not geared to Board Member Mitrano — Same here, Eva. Mr. Paledino — The shopping experience. Mr. Kanter — The men are in the car looking at the exterior; women go in. 52 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — The design is something, which maybe can be worked on a little bit more later. I have some questions about the walkway, too. You started talking about that and also about the plantings. Chairperson Wilcox — We have had this issue before in terms of these big, non - descript cinderblock faces, which we don't like, something to break it up. Mr. Paledino —*Oh, yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — Something to break it up and something is appropriate and this is certainly a possibility. Board Member Thayer — That is why the heights help. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't agree with that. I don't think that it has to be different heights. It can be done I other ways. Chairperson Wilcox — It can be done in various ways, just something to break up that brick mass. Board Member Thayer — This isn't objectionable to me. Board Member Hoffmann — It is to me. Mr. Kanter — Looking at the right side of the building in the picture where the block of building where there is very little windows, what do you think about that? Because something like either more window or some .other texture or material in there would kind of break that wall up a little bit. Mr. Paledino — Where would you be looking on this design, Jon? Attorney Barney — The lower section. Mr. Kanter — That and the other one where the block window is just a very, very small area. Mr. Paledino — There is a mezzanine inside this store where the offices and other storage is. You'll see some of the elevation change in the back of the store. Mr. Kanter — Even if it is not windows, just some other material with different color or texture might help to break that up. Plus some foundation plantings would probably help. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. We haven't gotten to landscaping. 53 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — And that is what I was going to suggest; actually, but that might be one of the better ways. And if one in fact coordinate a little bit the look of this building with the building across Pine Tree Road at East Hill Plaza, where there is a rather simple brick wall facing Pine Tree Road, but there are lots of plantings outside it. But, you know, if somehow the brick texture and color and so on could be coordinated so that they don't clash with each other, but they work with each other, I think that would be very a desirable thing and plantings would definitely be a good thing. And if we are talking about plantings, I wanted to ask you to clarify what the plantings are that are indicated on the SP -1 plan that you gave us. That is the one that you were looking at, too, I guess.. There is some plantings. Mr. Kanter - Yeah, there isn't much detail there. Mr. Paledino — Yeah, there is not a lot of detail. Board Member Hoffmann — What did you have in mind there? I got the idea that maybe you were thinking of planting shrubs only and no trees at all. Mr. Paledino — We are looking to berm it, to build it up a little bit so from the street you wouldn't see the parking... not as visible I guess. We were looking at a 3 -foot berm along here with the plantings on top. So we are putting a very large landscaped area out in front. We could space some smaller trees out there. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I certainly hope. You were talking about the HSBC doing some redevelopment and I certainly hope that they are not going to remove those lovely small trees that they have along Pine Tree Road because they just fit there perfectly and l was hoping that you would be able to plant something similar actually along the strip of greenery that you have outside this building. Mr. Paledino — That shouldn't be a problem here. Board Member Hoffmann — Together with the shrubs. Mr. Paledino — Some of the places where people ask to plant trees, there's just not enough room once they grow, but here. I think there is. Board Member Hoffmann — They have had those trees there for quite a while and they seem to be doing fine and they seem to have avoided any underground utilities that I understand are along that street. So check on that perhaps and see if you couldn't add some. Mr. Paledino — I will. Board Member Hoffmann — That will also help in looking towards that fagade. It would help to have those trees break up the appearance of it as well as maybe some plantings closer to the building itself along the foundation. It doesn't even have to .be things that 54 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED spread out a lot. It could be vines that grow on the wall. Now about the walkway, don't you want to provide a way for people to walk along here to get closer to the Rite Aid building to be able to use it? Mr. Paledino — Once we get done with clearing everything and regrading, we are going to see where that existing walkway shapes out. It may not remain where it its, but something will most likely remain going through Rite Aid in the initial project, but we would like something permanent that is outside that is there now and people will hopefully get used to utilizing. Chairperson Wilcox — I actually think that it is reasonable to bring the sidewalk... actually this is a walkway, right? I have to call it walkway, to bring it around the outside of the property. That way it serves the neighborhood; its serves the Rite Aid; it serves the Burger King; it serves everything. Yes, the existing one runs up Mitchell Street and directly onto the property, but this is I think, a far better... Board Member Hoffmann — But it also runs to where the crossing is and. I am assuming that you are leaving the crossing in the same place where it is now. The crossing is just north of the intersection where the traffic goes. Mr. Paledino — What we are going to do is ... (not audible) ... we plan on connecting all that. Board Member Hoffmann — You don't show it here, but there is actually a sidewalk on the East Hill Plaza side that goes along that building from that crossing. Mr. Paledino — The sidewalk that we design here will combine in with that sidewalk. Board Member Hoffmann — I just think that it is not really ... to expect people to go along Mitchell Street and cross further down and then walk up Pine Tree Road again to that crossing. They are going to take the shortcut through so you might as well provide a walkway there. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure I agree. I'm not sure I want them to go through the middle of the parking lot. We want a public walkway... Board Member Hoffmann — They do now. Chairperson Wilcox — They do, but people... it is where they should go versus where they do go. Do I want to follow them across the parking lot like the existing walkway does right now? I hate the existing walkway that is there now. You walk up Mitchell Street, you walk up the back of the Ides Lanes property, you walk across the side of their property and under the overhang on the side of their building, and then you are dumped into a parking lot with no place to go. 55 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — That is true, and you have funnel people through there more safely than it is now, but I still think if you don't build it there that they are going to walk there anyway and by the way, the walkway that goes from the Ellis Hollow housing by the bank, CFCU, it does not go along the street. It goes a little further in; it goes right by the bank so people can use it to get to the bank and then it continues out to the driveway there into East Hill Plaza. The only place where it fails is that Cornell refused, as you remember, to create a walkway that goes up from there to the building where they could then walk safely along the building, but that's I think the most direct way is the one to try to aim for, for people to get to their destinations that they are going to. Board Member Mitrano — So Eva, are you thinking of something cutting down this way or what? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, its up to them to figure out depending on where they want to put their parking, but since the crossing on Pine Tree Road is just about here, it makes sense to have them cut across here somewhere rather than going... Board Member Mitrano — How would you distinguish it from the parking lot at the point most adjacent at either the HSBC or this proposed... Board Member Hoffmann — No, it could cut across for instance, they'd have to negotiate with the bank, it could cut across this green space and then they could use this walkway right outside the bank and then they would have to somehow cross over here. It is not ideal, but having them walk freely in the parking lot without any walkways is not ideal either and I think that is what might happen. Mr. Kanter — I think that you have to look at it in two parts. One is this is an excellent opportunity to get that perimeter walkway in that just would be there always and people could use it or not use it and then when the second phase of this interior development occurs to figure out a way for pedestrians to get in and around the parking lot from different parts of the site from one end to the other safely through the parking lot and if it turns out that that is able to also be used secondarily as another cut - through for people from Mitchell Street that would be good, too. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes and actually then maybe you could how they walk and you could use that as a pattern.. That is a possibility. Chairperson Wilcox — Run.connector sidewalks from this major one into the subsequent development, which may or may not occur. Mr. Kanter — I think the opportunity here is to get the phase I development while this is able to be done to get this perimeter upright. Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing that I wanted to add about plantings is that you mentioned that when you clear up the area where the old school house is that there would be a nice view in from Mitchell Street to the Rite Aid building and I just get a little 56 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED worried when I hear that because I think there are right now quite a lot of trees there, which I would like to see remain. Mr. Paledino — We will try to keep as many trees as possible. We just don't want people to look at the trees and think there is nothing or no possibilities behind it. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, that's not going to happen. I mean people who move into that area are going to see the store. There is no question about that. They may not see if from that direction, but as long as they go over to East Hill Plaza, which a lot of people do, they will see it. It will probably be visible from near the existing driveway into this parcel from Mitchell Street a little further to the west. 1. Chairperson Wilcox — Right now there is a dense thicket and a vacant house Board Member Thayer — You can hardly see the house. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, no, but I mean further west from that. It is open so that you see into the current Ides building so you should be able to see this building, too. Chairperson Wilcox — You have changed your mind with regard to the other residential structure. You have decided that you might retain it for a while? Mr. Paledino —We just ... we probably won't... Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. When you were here the first time, it's going. You're here this time, it might stay. Mr. Paledino — We'probably will, but there are people in it though and we don't have a use so we're throwing it around. We are not looking to do anything with the property back there at this time and there are people. in it. Chairperson Wilcox— It's a viable residential structure at this point. Mr. Paledino — I don't know if you would call it totally viable, but there are inhabitants in it. We, most likely, just for liability reasons would look to remove it in the first phase. Mr. Kanter— I don't know if this would be a question or a statement, but I assume that the driveway from Mitchell Street would be fixed up. Mr. Paledino — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Those are nasty potholes. We also have in Jon's memo, we have apparently some discussion that occurred between you and or your representatives and Jon and or members of the staff about considering the entire site with regard to our review, with regard to drainage. You didn't want to proceed that way, Jon either All PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED convinced you or twisted your arm and let me just back that up that from an environmental review point, I would want to deal with the entire 3 parcels and I agree with Jon and I am glad that you came along. Mr. Paledino — From that standpoint, we are meeting with a site plan that is something therefore we can design around that a storm utility issues in that, too, within that pla drainagewise that satisfies the requirements future use. currently, that you drainage nt. We of Rite p Chairperson Wilcox — Given what we need to proposal and us going through environmental segmentation and I don't want to go there. Mr. Paledino —Yeah. we would like to come out of this look to move forward with and plan. We are going to look some would like to do some storm ,id and allows us to deal with the avoid is you coming back for each review for that one then we get into Chairperson Wilcox — So it is appropriate to look at the entire 3 parcels. Mr. Kanter — I wouldn't call it a compromise, but it seemed like a reasonable approach, the two big ticket items of traffic... and... (not audible) Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, we need to look at the entire site, which doesn't preclude or in any way limit you very much in what you want to do in the future. In fact, it benefits you. Mr. Paledino With having this an improved site plan now that this... so our engineers are waiting on both instances for that and they can go ahead with pretty much a two prong traffic study and a two prong stormwater detention plan. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm done. Board Member Mitrano — I'm done. Board Member Thayer — It sounds good. I look forward to getting that lot cleaned up. Board Member Mitrano — I agree with that. Board Member Thayer — That will look a lot better. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, you all set for now? Board Member Hoffmann — For now. Chairperson Wilcox All right. We have two representatives from Cornell and we have two members of the media and we have this lady. Are you a member of the media as PLANNING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 2, 2005 APPROVED well? Would you like to speak? Okay. Any other comments over here ?. Okay. We're all set. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 9:40 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -080: Approval of Minutes: July 19, 2005 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the July 19, 2005 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: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The vote on the motion was carried. OTHER BUSINESS` Mr. Kanter gave.a quick overview for the August 16, 2005 Planning Board Meeting, Mr. Kanter, Attorney Barney and Board Member Mitrano will not be present for the meeting. Ms. Balestra is soliciting articles for the fall newsletter. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the August 2, 2005 Planning Board meeting at 9:45 p.m. Res tfully submitted, �ULt Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk 59 TOWN OF IT14ACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street. Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, August 2, 2005 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7 :05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding adoption of the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan, pursuant to the NYS Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, 7:06 P.M. SEQR Determination: Spitsberg 4 -Lot Subdivision, Wildflower Drive. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located on Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s. 60-1-25.2 and. 60 -1 -21, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 3.05 +/- acre parcel into three residential building lots with a single common driveway and one 0.069 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with the adjacent Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -21. PJTM Corporation Owner; Theodor Spitsberg, Applicant. 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cleveland 2 -Lot Subdivision, 1032.5 Danby Road. 7 :25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -9, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 0.733 -acre parcel from the +/- 2.6 -acre parcel for the construction of a new residence. Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Owners /Applicants. 7:30 P.M. . SEQR Determination: Hilker 4 -Lot Subdivision, 255 & 277 Burns Road. 7 :35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at 255 and 277 Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 48 -1- 14.312 and 48 -1- 14.311, Conservation and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing +/- 8.05 acres from Tax Parcel 48 -1- 14.312 and +/- 0.42 acres from the northeastern edge of Tax Parcel No. 48 -1- 14.311, which will be consolidated to create a new +/- 8.47 -acre lot. Willis S. & Shirley S. Hilker and James & Elizabeth Hilker, Owners; James Hilker, Applicant. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of a Revised Sketch Plan for the proposed redevelopment of the Judd Falls Plaza properties located at 322 -350 Pine Tree Road and 930 and 946 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62- 1 -3.2, 62- 1 -2.2, and 62- 1- 1,'Community Commercial Zone. The proposal includes removing the existing plaza to construct approximately 45,464 square feet of retail, office and other related commercial uses in several new buildings, including a +/- 14,564 square foot Rite Aid Pharmacy store in the first phase of development. The project will also include new stormwater facilities, parking, landscaping, and lighting. Susan Hamilton, Owner; Ellicott Development, Company for 1093 Group, LLC, Applicant, 10. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 11. Approval of Minutes: July 19, 2005, 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 273 -17470 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, August 2, 2005 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, August 2, 2005, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding adoption of the Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan, pursuant to the NYS Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located on Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60 -1 -25.2 and 60 -1 -21, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 3.05 +/- acre parcel into three residential building lots with a single common driveway and one 0.069 +/- acre parcel to be consolidated with the adjacent Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -21. PJTM Corporation Owner; Theodor Spitsberg, Applicant. 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -9, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a +/- 0.733 -acre parcel from the +/- 2.6 -acre parcel for the construction of a new residence. Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Owners /Applicants. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision located at 255 and 277 Burns Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 48- 1- 14.312 and 48 -1- 14.311, Conservation and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal involves subdividing +/- 8.05 acres from Tax Parcel 48- 1- 14.312 and +/- 0.42 acres from the northeastern edge of Tax Parcel No. 48 -1- 14.311, which will be consolidated to create a new +/- 8.47 -acre lot. Willis S. & Shirley S. Hilker and James & Elizabeth Hilker, Owners; James Hilker, Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, July 25, 2005 Publish: Wednesday, July 27, 2005 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION I # VA TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: August 2, 2005 1L Ae L Al\,(D Lf �Y1 h 'V vl (oc ( L `A t l0 l.JJQ_lv� �v �i dpi CS tai ' 1 " loo 7Z/ lei ✓�-5 c-t- �l Y � I � K-c� i Z. �► '+� r... e. SS c� c � J � - ,f 2 (3 I Yin r c TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of. Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly, published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, August 2, 2005 commencing at 7:00 P.M', as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk. Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication July 25, 2005 July 27, 2005 a- ( ?Vlt� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27`" day of July 2005. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26,20 0(0 f t Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca August 2, 2005 Town of Ithaca Town Supervisor 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Attention: Cathy Valentino Reference: Cayuga Medical Center Southwest Addition and Building Renovations Dear Cathy, OBOE yr .t� We have recently begun construction of the subject project under a building permit. I am writing to discuss what we see as a unique situation creating a degree of hardship for the Cayuga Medical Center, and to start a discussion to see if we can find an equitable solution for both the town of Ithaca and the Center. This is a major, multi - phased construction project, with a minimum duration of three years. A large portion of the project will take place in the existing Center and the phasing will be required to keep all departments in full operation throughout construction. We will need to occupy the renovated spaces as soon as they are complete; therefore a large number of temporary certificates of occupancy are required before the conclusion of the construction and the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. The Town's Building Department currently issues temporary certificates of occupancy for a maximum of six months. This project will require, at a minimum, six temporary certificates of occupancy at a cost of $5,250 each. The original building permit was based on a $21 million project and cost $10,500, for a projected total of $42,000 in building permit fees. I would propose that, in addition to the original building permit, Cayuga Medical Center apply for a single temporary certificate of occupancy for the duration of the construction project. We have done, and will continue doing, all of the things in our power to minimize the impact of our construction projects on the building department. We believe that this is an equitable solution in a unique situation. 101 Dates Drive Ithaca, New York 14850 -1383 607.274.4011 607.274.4527 fax www.cayugamed.orq Affiliated with Weill Medical College of Cornell Universitv P 7 Thank you for your attention to this matter can discuss this further. e _ Ftizger lade Vice President, Cc: Lou LoVecchio Paul Levesque Andy Frost Kristie Rice ss Development Please call me at your convenience so we i