Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2009-09-15FILE DATE it -9 -vg TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Tuesday, September 15, 2009 Regular Meeting Present: Rod Howe, Chair; Members George Conneman, Jon Bosak, Susan Riha, Kevin Talty and Hollis Erb; Alternate Ellen Baer Absent: Fred Wilcox Staff: Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement, Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town, Jonothan Kanter, Director of Planning; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner; Kristin Taylor, Civil Engineer, Paulette Terwilliger, Deputy Town Clerk Chairman Howe accepted the affidavit of Posting & Publication from the secretary and indicated that Alternate Board Member Baer would be a voting member in Board Member Wilcox's absence. He opened the meeting at 7:02 p.m. Persons to be Heard: There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Cleveland Estates 15 -Lot Subdivision located at 1044 Danby Road (NYS Route 96A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 39 -1 -9.3 and 39 -1 -11.1, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 5.4 acre parcels into 14 new building lots and one lot containing the existing residence at 1044 Danby Road along with the construction of a new road. Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Owners/Applicants. Ms. Brock noted that she employs Kathy Cleveland both in her residence and home - based office. She did not think that relationship would affect her ability to represent the Town in this case. Travis Cleveland gave an overview of the project. His father lives in the adjoining property and he and his wife would like to build next to him in the future as well as some other family members, possibly. To facilitate this, they decided to make buildable lots and sell some of them to finance their future homes. Mr. Travis felt that it was laid out well for development because there is a shared driveway already in place and NSYEG poles as well. Chairman Howe started the Board discussion by stating that his immediate reaction was to encourage cluster development as opposed to what is being proposed. Mr. Cleveland responded that he had heard of clustering but the lots are small and close as it is. He went on to state that he did not personally like the idea and he plans on living there, hence his design. Chairman Howe then asked about the timeframe that was indicated because it stated 3 years and then 10 years and did not really specify what that meant. Mr. Cleveland responded that the 3 years was the estimate for putting the infrastructure in place and the 10 years was the optimistic timeframe for being able to sell the lots and have houses constructed on them. Final PB 9 -15 -2009 Page 2 of 9 Chairman Howe pointed out that the Environmental Planning Committee noted that the access road is not across from the current entrance to College Crossings, which would be preferable and safer. Discussion followed with Mr. Cleveland stating that he preferred where he had it because the property across from College Crossings dips 6 -8 feet and there is a creek there. He is trying to leave everything as it is except for the area for the proposed road and the buildings themselves. His plan has no changes to drainage or topography on the property. He did not see the necessity of changing more land than was necessary. Chairman Howe reminded the applicant that this was preliminary site plan review and if and when he came back, there would be a lot more information required and an environmental impact statement would need to be done before any subdivision approval was granted. Board Member Howe also did not see any land set aside for recreation or parkland and he would like to see that. He turned to the other Board Members Board Member Conneman was also concerned about the entrance not being across from College Crossings. Mr. Cleveland added that he has to build the road to get the required road frontage. He would prefer to have a very large shared driveway, but he has to do it this way to have the frontage to build on. He reiterated that he likes the entry where he has it to minimize any extra earth movement. Board Member Bosak agreed with Chairman Howe about cluster development and the timeline would not work because they would have to be built together, but, that would facilitate common owned open space which he would like to see. He noted that the utility bills would be lower on cluster housing because one unit heats the other. Board member Baer was also concerned about the driveway. Board Member Riha stated that if he was envisioning people living there that would be connected to the College in someway, it would be nice to have a pathway. Discussion followed about existing paths or walkways there or around now. She went on to add that drainage would be changed because of the increase in impervious surfaces. Mr. Cleveland stated that the College Crossings entryway is very busy and having the entry to his development where he had it is better because there is no guess work about who has the right of way or the right to go when. Board Member Erb responded that traffic engineers say that it is always better to have two cars facing each other. She noted that the estimate of trips submitted in the plan seemed extraordinarily high and he said that was an engineering thing and he thought so also. Board Member Riha was concerned about the increase in impervious surfaces and how flat the land was now did not lend itself to drainage. The SWPPP will be very important with this. Final PB 9 -15 -2009 Page 3 of 9 Mr. Cleveland was confused on how he could supply details of houses he was not going to be building. His intent is to sell the lots, not build the houses. Discussion followed and Creig Hebdon spoke up and stated that he had a list of concerns and requirements the Public Works Department would be looking at. Chairman Howe stated that he would like to get through Board comments and then turn to Staff concerns. Board member Talty asked if basements were planned and Mr. Cleveland said he himself would, but he couldn't speak for others. Mr. Hebdon interjected that one of the items on his list was that he would have to submit a SWPP that shows a fully developed build -out and controls that would be used. Mr. Cleveland can not just build a road and say there, done. He has to envision and count for the potential homes that would be there and any changes would have to come to the Planning Board. Another requirement is that any retention ponds or drainage storage have to be onsite. Board Member Talty asked if the road was going to be a town road and Mr. Hebdon replied that that was not determined yet. Board Member Talty added that even though he is known as "the sidewalk guy ", in this case he would not recommend them but would recommend that the road was wide. He also would like continuity such as all gravel driveways or all culverts etc., not gravel here and pavement there. Mr. Cleveland agreed. Mr. Hebdon spoke about the process of accepting a road. The only reason the Town would accept a road is for maintenance, but Public Works does not like cul -de -sacs due to maintenance problems. Mr. Cleveland said he is considering the other option of having a homeowner's association which would be responsible for maintaining the road. Ms. Brock was confused by what mechanism he was planning on accomplishing that and suggested he speak to his attorney and make sure that it is binding on future owners. If it remains private, it must have a mechanism for maintenance in perpetuity. Mr. Bosak stated that the first few builders would have the bulk of the cost of road maintenance in that scenario and Mr. Cleveland replied that it would depend on how much of the road he built as a time. He wanted to piece it in. He then asked Mr. Hebdon for clarification on the requirement that all stormwater has to stay onsite because it drains offsite now. Mr. Hebdon quoted the NYS law and suggested that in his experience, he would lose a couple of lots to a detention pond or something similar. Board Member Erb continued with her questions and did not think that all the lots sketched in would be possible. She asked about the history of the property because of the absence of trees and Mr. Cleveland did not know. She went on to say that she believed that the proposal was big enough that the Town did have the right to impose the 10% equivalent in parkland or trail land and there was nothing indicated. She also was concerned about the protection of the stream and thought that he would have to plan for that protection in his SWPPP. She noted that a nearby development has had serious drainage problem and the Board is very sensitive to drainage issues. Final PB 9 -15 -2009 Page 4 of 9 Board Member Erb would like to see street trees and sidewalks to make it more pleasant. She also mentioned affordable housing, medium income. She thought maybe a mix of duplexes would bring costs into the median range. She thought his business plan would need changing. Mr. Cleveland said that duplexes were legal on the lot and Mr. Kanter stated that they were not unless the development was done as a cluster development. A short discussion followed and Mr. Cleveland was not aware of the Code regarding duplexes or two- families. Mr. Cleveland felt that the houses would be lower- middle- income because of the small size of the lots. He stated that he did sit down with Mr. Kanter and Mr. Smith and got rid of two lots for the hammerhead. He didn't think losing more lots would be economically feasible. Board Member Erb understood and thought maybe a mix of the two would work better. Board Member Talty mentioned student housing and Mr. Cleveland stated that he had received offers for a 300 -unit student housing development and he had turned them down because his father lives there and he wants to live there and he does not want to have student housing there. He wants to keep it residential. Mr. Kanter spoke about the walkway along the road removed from the driving lanes in some way. Walk ways, pathways, etc. Not just widening the street. Keeping the street narrower and adding a parallel walkway. Mr. Hebdon went over his list from Public Works. The road as depicted has a right -of- way down the middle of it which is not allowed. It is where the road comes in from Danby Rd. One lane is on his property and one is on his father's property and that can not happen. If the entranceway is moved, the problem goes away and DOT may have something to say about the placement. He stated that the sewer is above the hypothetical houses so they would all have to have pump outs and the water line would have to be looped, not dead - ended. He reiterated that the Town does not like dead - ends, they are a maintenance nightmare. Right now, all roads and stormwater, water and sanitary utilities must be put in their entirety before any building. There is no phasing. Board Member Talty asked him to repeat that for the record, which Mr. Hebdon did. It was put into place 18 -24 months ago in response to issues that have happened. Ms. Brock clarified that it is any infrastructure that has to serve the whole development needs to be built first. Mr. Bates talked about the road requirements and access for emergency vehicles and snow plows. Mr. Kanter noted that Mr. Bates had indicated the length of the road as over 1,000 feet which would exceed the maximum of a subdivision which would again lend itself to clustering only. Chairman Howe summed up the discussion saying that they had given the applicant a number of points to think about and they would see him again. Preliminary presentation and discussion regarding the determination of adequacy for public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Finai PB 9 -15 -2009 Page 5 of 9 No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -37, 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4-39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 +/- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. Chairman Howe outlined the way he would like to proceed with the agenda item. He stated that he would like to hear comments from Ms. Balestra and then an overview from the applicant. He invited the public to come behind the Board to enable them to see the poster boards. He stated for the public that they would be going over the DEIS to see if the issues outlined in the final Scoping document were addressed. He noted that no public hearing is scheduled for the evening and he doubted they would get to public comment that night. But, there would be plenty of time for public comment. Ms. Balestra noted that the Board had copies of emails from residents and comments from the Office of Parks and Recreation in front of them. David Parks, Attorney and Fred Wells from TG Miller and Associates were available. Mr. Wells lead the discussion on the DEIS. He began with an overview and the Board was invited to stop him at any time and bring specific issues up as they came up. Mr. Wells started with an overview of the location of the housing development and the numbers involved. Board Member Erb had made notes during her review and copies of those were distributed to the applicants and the Board members. After Mr. Wells introduction, Chairman Howe suggested that the Board use the Scoping Document as a checklist and go through each item and determine if it had been met in the DEIS. There were changes from the cover page on. Many changes were typographical in nature and making numbers and titles consistent throughout the document. The Board also requested different sections to be put in more laymen terms or more detail added so that the public who may not have been at all the meetings would still understand what they were reading. Some diagrams and photos were addressed and additional references were requested. Under Soils, the SWPPP needs to be described in detail. The description and the outcomes for the failure of the protections in place; who is responsible and what guarantee the Town has that the maintenance will continue in perpetuity. There was a lot of discussion on this. Homeowners associations were discussed. The applicant asked for a copy of a standard Operating and Maintenance Agreement. Board Member Final PB 9 -15 -2009 Page 6 of 9 Riha stated that drainage would be a large issue and this section needed to be very complete and clear. Board Member Erb mentioned mosquitos and Board Member Riha noted differences in the number of bodies of water and the diagrams and charts that are very hard to read. Sewer service is not addressed. Impervious surfaces not addressed in the water section. Either reference the other location or say it there. Board Member Erb brought up the habitat loss. They did not address where the inhabitants of the wetland were going to go once the bulldozing started. Surface water information should show up earlier than under wildlife. In Aesthetic Resources, Figure /Picture 3.4 -6 and 19 did not match. The view -line indicating the span of area where the site would be visible implies that a full third would not be in view. Board Member Erb did not believe that could be possible. The Board asked them to check that and Board Member Riha noted that the same view -line showed up in other diagrams. Board Member Erb would like the consistency of the landscaping to be looked at. Trees listed on Page 8 of the scoping document do not match lists elsewhere. Under Critical Receptors, she did not see any discussion of whether other houses would be able to see the development. The applicant noted that the major neighbors where the hospital and the massage school. Board Member Erb said that if nothing is visible from the private houses then state that. Board Member Talty thought the color of the houses was too light and would show up too much. Board Member Conneman asked for samples when they got to that point. Traffic Growth numbers were discussed. Board Member Talty wanted to know if normal growth was accounted for in the projections. The traffic generation number was large and not clear over what period it was derived from. The applicant stated that it was a 4- year period. DOT says 2.5% is normal growth and the 7.6 is the growth just for the project, not the growth from other projects. The applicants stated that their no -build traffic number includes projects that are in the works with the Town. Board Member Talty then asked what the new percentage of traffic increase was with today's traffic, the anticipated growth from other projects, and the completion of their project. The applicants didn't know the number. Board Member Talty would like that number to be determined and stated. Board Member Erb talked about the Route 96 corridor study and thought that this project's traffic growth was confusing. Board Member Riha was confused because it was not clear what the number would be if none of the other projects went ahead and why count them if they are not confirmed. Mr. Kanter and the applicants stated that this is a "worst- case" scenario. Board Member Riha asked the increase in traffic is that is attributable to this project only? She thought that would be helpful. What is it now, and what is it going to be with just Holochuck? Board Member Final PB 9 -15 -2009 Page 7 of 9 Talty thought the 7% figure was confusing. Mr. Kanter suggested that someone write the summary in layman terms. Board Member Bosak was concerned about the change in levels of service. It appears that the impact is not based on today but based on the no -build which assumes that the other projects are going ahead. That makes the impact of this project seem not as large. It was suggested that all the changes in levels of service be put in a table with present traffic numbers, with Holochuck built -out numbers, with the Carrowmoor and Linderman Creek numbers and with a no additional projects being built number. The whole section on traffic was confusing and the Board asked that they really clarify the growth or increase in the traffic or number of cars since this was a huge concern for the residents in that area and the Board. Mr. Kanter thought the dangerous nature and slope of the road also needed to be addressed. He did not agree that the applicants stating that TCAT stops for flag -downs should be considered a mitigation. The applicants said they were not putting that as a mitigation, but as an existing fact. Board Member Bosak also noted that because the bus stop is over a quarter of a mile away, it is not a traffic mitigation. Board Member Erb asked about the existing driveway delays that were addressed. The timing did not seem accurate. She stated that it seemed that the intersections were timed, not the driveways which would take longer to get out of and that the wait was averaged with times not measured at peak. The applicants stated that they measured gaps in the traffic. Mr. Kanter asked them to define better how they came up with that number and then defend it because the stated numbers do not come close to what residents have stated to the Board at previous meetings. The applicants stated that speaking to residents would be very anecdotal and Mr. Kanter said he meant actually sitting in the driveways and timing the wait, not just talking to neighbors. Mr. Kanter noted that DOT has control over the speed limits and the applicants should not speak to what the DOT will do as a mitigation. He felt that the way it was written was very rose - colored with implications of mitigations happening and working that the applicants had no control over. Board Member Talty asked how the applicants planned on making people use the northern most entrance and exit instead of the southern. The applicants stated that that was something that the DOT would do, which led back to speaking for the DOT. Board Member Riha noted that the Transportation Plan is not mentioned or referenced as required in the Scoping Document. TCAT service was also mentioned and new routes and changes are that are coming in November. The applicants stated that TCAT has told them they will not enter the project. Board Member Bosak asked them who they had talked to and stated that he Final PB 9 -15 -2009 Page 8 of 9 could not believe that and that he served on a Committee of TCAT and would look, into that statement. Future Conditions section was discussed and Ms. Brock noted that many statements needed to be updated to match current status of projects in the area. Noise section was discussed and Board Member Talty was concerned with construction noise and making sure they abide by the Noise Ordinance, notably, in the winter with diesels being started early or left running. Community Service and Character section was discussed. Board Member Erb was disappointed in the letters to the service providers because they underestimate the population, therefore the response from the service providers are going to be that they can provide services. The applicant suggested that they could send out new letters and the Board agreed that that would be acceptable. Recreational Areas were discussed. Board Member Erb thought that was not addressed adequately, especially the onsite areas. The applicant noted that a large portion of land is going to be set aside for trails recreation. He went on to state that they were leaving all the details of what was going to be where to the future Homeowner's Association because they did not feel they should be telling the future owners what they want and where to put it. Board Member Riha noted that their comment on increased tax revenue is not controlled by the Town such as the Sheriff's Department and State Trooper coverage as well as Fire Department coverage. Ms. Brock also noted that the Town has Water and Sewer Improvement Area and that the applicants needed to use the correct names for services provided to and for the Town. Mr. Hebdon requested new SWPPP discs because they could not be opened. Also, Figures 6 -1 through 6 -4 were missing so the Board requested that these be provided. The Board decided to stop there and continue at the next meeting. The changes requested will be made in a different color and insert pages submitted. The Board will start from Adverse Environmental Impacts and finish the draft EIS then, time permitting, will go over the changes submitted from this evening. Chairman Howe reminded the public still present that there would be time for public comment and this evening was strictly the beginning of the review of the draft EIS for completeness, not any sort of acceptance of it. Other Business Committee updates given. Next Agenda Final PB 9 -15 -2009 Page 9 of 9 Continue the DEIS review and Montessori School Site plan Modification for a basketball court. Meeting adjourned at 10pm Respectf y ubmitted, (/A aulette erwilliger Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, September 15, 2009 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Cleveland Estates 15 -Lot Subdivision located at 1044 Danby Road (NYS Route 96A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 39 -1- 9.3 and 39 -1 -11.1, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 5.4 acre parcels into 14 new building lots and one lot containing the existing residence at 1044 Danby Road along with the construction of a new road. Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Owners /Applicants. 7:30 P.M. Preliminary presentation and discussion regarding the determination of adequacy for public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Holochuck Homes Subdivision, located between NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road) and NYS Route 89 (Taughannock Boulevard), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24- 3 -3.2, 25- 1 -5.1, 25 -2 -41.2, 26 -4 -37, 26 -4 -38, and 26 -4 -39, Low Density Residential Zone, Medium Density Residential Zone, and Conservation Zone. The proposal involves the construction of 106 +/- town home type units in a clustered neighborhood development with two entrances proposed from NYS Route 96 (Trumansburg Road). The development will be concentrated on the west side of the property closest to NYS Route 96, zoned Low and Medium Residential, with more than half of the eastern portion of the property, mainly zoned Conservation, remaining undeveloped. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation proposes to acquire most of the eastern portion of the property in conjunction with development of the future Black Diamond Trail. Holochuck Homes LLC, Owner /Applicant; David M. Parks, Esq., Agent. 4. Approval of Minutes: September 1, 2009. Other Business: 6. 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 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: September 15, 2009 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION -- k (,WkS C k1 e., L A a I o ��l �..� V3 , a N I ( Tvv? I? X601 A/ eld 1.4 .1vN,(r✓ S-1'41 .0 rz-v P V=Aa " 1 &�A i ,ZU l , I Ui v G) c 444a AX/ /-, - I - �g / G c u h, r , S'C SSk _"r�AOh CPrneli L4- verSi .h /U e-- Ar Pitt Si� :)Vl.