Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2015-04-07TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. April 7. 2015 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Greenways project located off Strawberry Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60-1-34.2 and 60.1-1-46.22, Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones. The proposal involves the development of 46 residential units west of Eastwood Commons, fronting on new private roads. The project will also include new parking areas, open space, walking trails, play areas, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and stormwater facilities. Cornell University, Owner; Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service, Applicant; Peter Trowbridge, RLA, FASLA, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent. 2. Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2015. 3. Persons to be heard 4. Approval of Minutes: March 17, 2015 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747 or SPOLCE@ J-0\VN.miACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (i>ttD;//www.town.ithaca.nv.us/meetina-agendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, April 7, 2015 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli,John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Dan Tasman, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting and publication of the public hearing notice. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Greenways project located off Strawberry Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60-1- 34.2 and 60.1-1-46.22, Medium Density Residential and Multiple Residence Zones. The proposal involves the development of 46 residential units west of Eastwood Commons, fronting on new private roads. The project will also include new parking areas, open space, walking trails, play areas, landscaping, outdoor lighting, and stormwater facilities. Cornell University, Owner; Ithaca Neigh- borhood Housing Service,Applicant; Peter Trowbridge, RLA, FASLA, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP,Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. Mr. Trowbridge stated that there aren't significant changes in the plan since the last time they were before the board. He said the project will proceed in three phases. The roadway is a private drive and there will be some parking associated with it. Ms. Collins commented that the phasing over six to eight years seems like a long time. She asked whether construction will be going on the whole time. Mr. Trowbridge responded that construction often takes 12 to 16 months for each phase, so it might be five or six years to fully build out.There's also a marketing component. INHS fully believes there's a market for this type of housing. Mr. Beach asked what the level of confidence is that Phase III will be built out at some point. Scott Reynolds, INHS, said that it's hard to know. They will build a phase and make sure it's sold before financing the next phase. Each phase is slightly less likely than the subsequent phase to be built. Phase I is fully funded and ready to go. Phase II will depend on how fast Phase I sells, etc. Ms. Fogarty asked about parking along the street. Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 2 of 14 Mr. Trowbridge responded that there are two parking areas - one at each end of the private drive - and nominal parking throughout the site to provide spaces that may be required for someone with a disability and primarily to serve the most-interior units. There's not a lot of parking along the street, and both perpendicular and parallel spots are available. Ms. Fogarty said she went to Holly Creek to get a sense of this type of development. She commented that it had a very nice feel and wondered how the sales went. Mr. Reynold responded that all units are sold. The reason there are still signs up is that they were frozen to the ground. Mr. Bosak asked how much of the north-south road will be completed in Phase I. Mr. Trowbridge said that it stops right before Building F. There is a gravel drive that will follow the utility road, so it's possible to navigate continuously, but the road itself(the asphalt and concrete improvements)will not extend beyond the edge. Mr. Reynolds added that the gravel drive is there for utility improvements and for emergency vehicle access; it's not meant for people to drive through. They will leave small berms of gravel or signage to discourage that. Mr. Bosak is concerned that if the project ends at Phase I, we're stuck with a dead-end street. Mr. Trowbridge said there is a turnaround at the end for service and fire trucks, so even though it's not a through street, there's a functional end to it. Mr. Bates said that he did not see any drawings in the packet for a turnaround. Mr. Trowbridge said that the drawings are developed, and they will bring them when they come in for building permits, as part of the Phase I construction documents. Ms. Erb said she remembered voicing concern about access to the East Hill Rec Way for the people living here. She asked whether they had reached an agreement or understanding with the residents association of Eastwood Commons. Mr. Reynolds responded that the town clarified that the parcel in question was allowed for that use. Until Phase II is developed, people in Phase I will have to go out to the south in winter to reach the Rec Way. Once Phase II is developed, there will be a full sidewalk system from the lower part of Strawberry Hill Circle all the way to the top. Mr. Trowbridge said that this also connects to Eastwood Avenue in the city, so there will be two means of pedestrian-bike access. Mr. Wilcox pointed out that this will also allow people from Eastwood Commons easier access to Eastwood Avenue, Giles Street, etc. Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 3 of 14 Ms. Erb noted that the bus stop is out on Honness Lane. She wondered that there was no set of bollards connecting Phase I and Phase III. There's a whole section that's not lit. Mr. Trowbridge responded that the walkways are along the driveways. There are not walkways between the phases across the landscape; there are large stormwater practices between those two phases that would somewhat limit adding lighting. They were attempting to get people from their parking to their homes, not to get people connected between phases. There is quite a bit of ambient light from the units. The intention was not to provide conventional street lighting, but rather safe passage from parking to home Mr. Haefeli agreed with Ms. Erb, saying he'd like to think that the Phase I and Phase II people will mingle. Mr. Wilcox offered an alternative point of view. There are built-up sections and areas that are less built up or more natural. The connection between the two is through a natural, undeveloped area. Do we want to introduce bollards into the natural area? Mr. Erb said that she considers bollards a safety feature and pointed out that there is a grade differen- tial. If people purchase homes here who are post docs and graduate students, they will be coming home late at night. Mr. Haefeli added that the bollards are pretty low impact, not like streetlights on poles. It would make that piece of the street more inviting and comfortable. Mr. Beach and Ms. Fogarty agreed. Mr. Trowbridge suggested that it be a condition of Phase I1I. Mr. Bates said that the street names are not consistent throughout the drawings. They need to match up exactly with what he and Mr. Parsons agreed on for the 911 addressing. The little short extension to Phase III will be Greenways Lane. Mr. Tasman said there's a cluster of street name issues for this area: Sunnyhill Lane, Strawberry Hill Road, etc. The only legal name for that loop street on the official town map is Strawberry Hill Circle. Mr. Bates said it's up to the codes department to do the 911 addressing. He has worked with the applicant, 911, and the fire department. Strawberry Hill Circle continues down through the main portion of Phase I and Phase II, and Greenways Lane will have its own addressing. Mr. Trowbridge said all but the cover sheet are correctly labeled, but the cover is a prior illustration and not easily changed. Mr. Wilcox said he wished the connection to Eastwood Avenue was more open and could accommo- date emergency vehicles. It would be good to have that second point for access and egress. The people on Eastwood Avenue in the city are probably happy that it won't be a through road. Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 4 of 14 Mr. Hebdon said the utilities went through the public works committee. The biggest change is to Phase III: the applicant agreed to extend it so it's a looped system. Ms. Fogarty asked if Phases II and III would come under the 2010 stormwater regulations or the 2015. Mr. Hebdon responded that they will come under the 2010 regulations, because as long as all phases have been through preliminary site plan approval, they will fall under the 2010 regulations. This project was too far along to recalculate for the 2015 regulations. Mr. Bosak asked about the pump station approval. Mr. Hebdon said that they are given the details on the standard pump station. Our details don't include any backup system. Ms. Brock said that that's what the condition (j) requires. Mr. Hebdon said that the applicant will provide to the public works department the flows and capacities so we can make sure the pump station won't overwhelm the system. They will then have to come up with a reasonable plan for emergency conditions,which we will have to approve. Mr. Bosak asked what criteria Mr. Hebdon will use to decide whether it's reasonable. Mr. Hebdon responded that the health department has performance specifications the system has to meet. The final details are based on the design. He can't say they will need a generator within 24 hours, but he can say they'll have to have a generator within a certain amount of time after the high level to keep the system from overflowing. The criteria are based on the design of the system.They won't need to have an emergency generator sitting there 24 hours a day; they may need to have it once every 12 hours or 24 hours during a power outage, depending on the capacity of the sewer pump station. Or they can house an emergency generator that will automatically kick in. They'll have to provide that information to us and to the health department. Easements are set up such that if they aren't going to be able to get to it for whatever reason,we have a right to go down with our genera- tors, pump it out, and start back-charging.We're an emergency fallback. Ms. Fogarty noted that at the last meeting, some residents nearby were concerned about water running across their land. She asked whether that was addressed and how water will drain off the property, which is pretty wet. Mr. Herrick responded that their plan is to address all the impacts to land that would drain anywhere across the neighbors.All the practices are located so they pick up the runoff from the disturbed areas. Phases I and II are routed through permanent practices; the flow of water is maintained in the original watershed boundaries. Phase III has swales and detention practices that pick up all the roof runoff and all the sidewalk runoff, and route it to a permanent facility that mitigates that change in flow before it is connected by a storm pipe to the stream to the north.All runoff from the disturbed lands will be intercepted and routed through these practices.Around the time of last year's meeting, the state had issued a draft notice for 2015. Mr. Herrick thought the change was going to be to 7.5 inches of rainfall in a 24 hour period for the 100-year storm; the final SPDES permit came out and it Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 5 of 14 went to 5.95 inches, which is an increase of only several tenths of an inch. This system was designed for 5.5 inches,which is the original 2010 standard. Mr. Hebdon said that the stormwater design meets all the 2010 requirements. Mr. Wilcox asked about road stubs. Mr. Reynolds said there are two: one to the south and one to the north. The one to the north is a long tail going back to the original development. It was not a piece of town property; it belonged to a now-defunct corporation of which all members are dead. Through NYS law, they were able to do a quit claim to that piece of land, and are now the owners of that 50' x 120' piece of semi-improved road. Ms. Brock explained what will happen with the other stub.After final subdivision approval, Cornell will submit a petition to the highway superintendent requesting abandonment of the terminus of the road. There's a New York State highway law provision that allows that to happen if all the surround- ing landowners sign a petition, and Cornell's land completely surrounds this. If the highway superin- tendent determines that the terminus is not needed for highway purposes, he can issue an order abandoning the road, and then it can be transferred to INNS. The highway superintendent wasn't comfortable considering the petition and issuing an order abandoning the terminus of the road before this board had issued final approval, because if no final approval is ever issued, the town will have abandoned this road terminus in contemplation of it no longer being needed,when, in fact, it might be, if this project doesn't end up being finalized. That's why nothing has happened yet.We'll have to get through that process prior to signing the final plat. Mr. Bosak asked about the difference between a homeowners association and a condominium association. Mr. Reynolds responded that the functional difference is basically nothing. For an HOA, under INHS's housing trust, they would continue to own the land and lease the land to the homeowners association. In a condominium association, that's not allowed - the condo association has to own the land. But functionally, all the rights and responsibilities are the same, as are the things that go with their housing trust, such as shared equity. It's just a different legal set of documents. The reason is strictly money: condominiums are assessed at a lower rate than homeowners associations. Either way, the tax map lines would be identical. Mr. Bosak noted that in a condo association, the homeowner owns everything up to the paint inside the walls. He asked whether the siding for the trash sheds could be metal or fiber cement, something that stands up better that T1-11. Claudia Brenner, project architect, commented on material choices. She said they will go through pricing on the units and make some hard decisions about various materials. In Phase 1, there are five buildings; each building has either three or four units. Every building will be unified by some sort of trim detail, they will all have triple pane windows with dividers between windows, and there will be white trim throughout the project. There will be variations in the color of the bodies of the houses as well as in the color of the roofs. Every building has two colors plus the trim color. They will use some sort of lapped siding, either a cement board or vinyl product. If they use vinyl, it will be a high-quality Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 6 of 14 material. Each of the houses has a little shed. They will be standalone and not connected to the units as they are in Holly Creek. They've provided privacy fencing between units.The material used on the sheds will be dictated by cost. Sheds will be painted and raised above grade, so if a T1 material is used, it would hold up very well for a shed use. There will be good hardware on the sheds and good door openings so people can store their bikes and gardening tools. They could consider using vinyl on the sheds to match the structures themselves. They're planning to match the colors. She thinks the sheds will also provide a little privacy. Mr. Reynolds said the intended selling range is $120,000 to $140,000. Two-bedroom units will be 1100 square feet and three bedrooms will be 1280 to 1350 square feet. Ms. Erb asked the applicant to address Tom Reimers' letter regarding the patch of milk weed and the willow tree, and whether it's even possible to preserve it. Mr. Trowbridge showed where the willow tree is, directly behind Building G. It is not possible to put a fence around the milkweed during construction. Milkweed is a fairly ubiquitous plant; it is not on any protected list. It's somewhat ephemeral because it's herbaceous, not woody, and at certain times of year, you wouldn't see it at all. It's a plant that self-seeds. It's hard to know if it would be persistent from year to year. Mr. Reynolds addressed the bat issue. They received their wetlands permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. It has a condition on it that, because of the long-eared bat, which was listed as threatened, no trees over a three-inch diameter may be cut during the roosting season, which is over half the year. For Phase 1, there are no trees being cut because it's all meadow, so there will be no impact. In future phases, they'll have to do tree clearing, but now that they know what to expect for Phase II, it won't be much of a hardship. Mr. Wilcox mentioned the letter from NYS DOT regarding the intersection of Honness Lane and Route 79. The state response was that they trimmed bushes and trees to improve the sight distance and recommend no changes. Mr. Haefeli said that the trimming does make a difference and that people need to point it out when it gets bad. Jonathan Butcher, 1342 Slaterville Road, stated that his property could be most affected by storm- water in Phase III. He was concerned to hear about the change from an HOA to a condo association because then there is no tie for INHS to the property at all. He had a bad experience living next to a condo association in Massachusetts. The association progressively whittled down their fees to reduce their rates.As a result, collectively, they ended up reducing their property values and it ended up being a blight on the town. He thought it would be helpful to have some connection to make sure that whatever association is created has some obligation to do what's best, not only for their own community, but for the neighbors. Regarding the woonert, he did some research and found that the model was popular in the Netherlands in the 1980s, but it fell out of favor because there was very little policy to adjudicate problems that arose between bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists.What happens when someone decides to offend the 10-mile-per-hour speed limit? He thinks it's a great idea in theory, but didn't know who manages it to make sure there's a balance of the rights of all the people who share it. It could work well or it could be terrible. Another issue is that there's a signifi- Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 7 of 14 cant amount of land that is undisturbed. He's a fan of undisturbed land, but it's unclear to him who is responsible for maintaining safety. For example, if someone gets hurt on his property, he's respon- sible, but he doesn't know who will be on that property. There are defined walkways owned by the condo association. He'd like to see something more specific about that. There doesn't appear to be any lighting on the rear-facing sides of the houses in Phase 1I1, which creates a dark situation. He doesn't necessarily want more light there, but wants to know what will happen in the undisturbed area. He noticed that the proposed lighting has an 85-degree angle recessed limit. But this is a graded property, so even if the light shines straight down, it might shine out because the land slopes down. He asked what happens if they decide to change Phase III in the future, so it ends up being some other plan. It would be nice to have assurances. He had concerns about stormwater not meeting the new standards. He's concerned that a pipe comes down and then crosses at a right angle and wondered if that might be more easily clogged at the intersection. It's his property that will be dealing with all that water that supposedly happens only every hundred years. He'd like to see that be over- engineered because once it's put in, it will be a lot harder to fix with nobody claiming responsibility. If it's part of the master plan to create a walkable town that is well connected, it has to be addressed that there is no sidewalk frontage from the intersection of Honness Lane, down Route 79 to the city line.There are dozens of people who walk down that road every day with the super-fast big trucks. Now there will be 46 more units. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:31 p.m. Mr. Wilcox noted that sidewalks on Slaterville Road, while a good idea, are outside the planning board's purview. There are no properties in this project that front Route79.We're restricted to parcels that are under consideration. Ms. Ritter added that the town's transportation plan identifies Route 79 as a location that requires sidewalks.We have sidewalk gaps all over town.We're working on a study for Route 96B; Route 79 will be on our radar. It will take time. Mr. Wilcox asked whether the stormwater detention system should conform to requirements that are not yet in place. Mr. Hebdon responded that as far as the DEC is concerned, they're doing all they need to be doing. Mr. Wilcox aked if we have any reason to believe that a stormwater management system consistent with the current DEC regulations would not be sufficient in any way or not do the job that's required,which is to prevent additional water from flowing from this property onto neighboring properties. Mr. Bosak said he sympathizes with the speaker. Every projection he has seen for the last ten years on where we're headed in terms of climate in this area says that we are in for more rainfall and more extreme rainfall events. He doesn't think the 7.5 inches was enough. He thinks it will take a major disaster for the number to be raised. But his understanding is that we have no legal foundation to require that at this time. Ms. Fogarty asked whether it would be that much more costly to bring the stormwater management system to 20 15 standards since it hasn't been built yet. Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 8 of 14 Mr. Herrick responded that doing so would expand the footprint of the practice and we would end up with a larger footprint that's going to continue to creep down the hill towards the neighbors. There's a few tenths of a difference for this particular event. The volume inherent in this detention practice will buffer those flashy events that occur, so we may end up with 3.5 inches in half an hour, but this practice will absorb that. There are intensities and durations of rainfall that create problems. What we experience more and more are the high-intensity, short-duration events - we've had two in the last two years.Those kinds of events raise havoc with systems that don't have any detention. This system has a detention practice that's meant to be there for 5.95 inches.A foot of freeboard will be built in, so for a couple extra tenths of an inch,we go from a foot freeboard to nine inches of freeboard to six inches. So there is some conservancy in these practices. Mr. Bosak said that the difference between the 2015 figures and the 2010 figures, in his mind, do not turn out to be big enough to argue about. Mr. Herrick pointed out that,with respect to the impacts on the neighborhood, right now, there is nothing between the upper watershed and the backs of those yards that's providing any diversion or collection. There will be a bioretention filter, a swale, and a dry detention basin that will intercept what currently flows off the land down toward Slaterville Road. Mr. Bosak asked whether - even taking the impervious surfaces into account - this will be an improvement over the current situation. Mr. Herrick responded that all of the flow from the land area that is draining toward Slaterville Road will be intercepted by these practices and will not continue to flow west into the neighbors. Ms. Brock said that Chapter 228 of the town code requires all stormwater pollution prevention plans to "contain appropriate stormwater management practices that are designed and constructed in accordance with the standards set forth in the Design Manual" -which is the DEC manual. So to the extent that the design manual allows projects that have been processed prior to a certain date to comply with a prior edition, she does not think that our law would entitle us to say, regardless of that, we can require an applicant to comply with the current edition. Mr. Herrick addressed the pipe that comes down at a right angle.The flows captured from the developed portion of the site will be brought into the detention basin, and the pipe will convey it down to the larger stream. The pipe is sized to accommodate the flows. There's a concrete box there that will meter out the flow. The outlet control structures will be equipped with trash racks to collect debris. They do require maintenance. Mr. Hebdon added that if whoever owns the ponds does not take care of them, and it looks like there's a problem that needs to be addressed, the town has easements to go in and clean everything up and back-charge the property owner. The condo association is responsible.As part of the O &M agreement, once per year, they have to submit to the town an independent report showing what maintenance they have done. Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 9 of 14 Mr. Wilcox stated that, regarding potential changes to Phase I1I, the applicant can build what is approved. If they want to deviate from the site plan or subdivision plan, they have to come back before the board for approval of a revised plan. Mr. Tasman stated that the lighting conforms to the town lighting law,which is a very strict dark-skies ordinance. It is written to control the amount of light that's contained within the site and to make sure that it's all concentrated towards the ground and that there's minimal spillover. Regarding Mr. Butcher's concern, no law can account for every situation that might be caused by angles and whatnot. The photometric plan shows that, even with the slope on the site, it way more than deals adequately with concerns about slope spillover. It's also porch lighting and bollards - not huge light poles. The impact from this project on neighboring property owners will be less than, say, the security light on a property next door. Mr. Reynolds said that there is a light over the patio doors at the rear of the Phase III units. It's canned downlighting with the bulb completely enclosed. For people to make changes to the outsides of their units, they would have to go through the association. Mr. Bates said that the plan they submitted meets the town lighting law.As far as the building code goes, you need a light outside each door. If the occupant were to change the lighting, they would be in violation of our lighting law.A complaint would have to be filed with the town, and we would have to go out and investigate and take appropriate action. Mr. Bosak added that the board can't legally approve something that's contrary to our lighting law. Mr. Reynolds said that like with any property, the liability will rest with the owner. The condo association will have insurance.With regard to INHS's continued involvement, this is part of the INHS housing trust. They haven't worked out the legal framework for the model, but in order for it to be in the trust, INHS has to have some measure of control, because the purpose of the trust is to maintain permanent affordability, and INHS either needs to be in the chain of title or have some way of protecting that affordability. Their attorneys are researching that right now to figure out how to do that in New York State. Everything that was done for the Holly Creek project was done through a ground lease.All those same rights and responsibilities that INHS has will be dealt with in the condominium documents. The condo association will own the entire structure. That's the primary difference between an HOA and a condo association. In an HOA, the people are buying the entire structure; they own the entire structure outside and inside. There's a maintenance arrangement through the HOA to deal with the shared elements.A condominium association is different in that the association will own the outside that you can touch. They will have the maintenance responsibility the same as the HOA. The condominium association is made up of all the people who live there; typically one vote per unit. The board of directors is elected by residents.You hire a property manager. Only the legal documents people sign to own their homes are different. Ms. Fogarty asked what residents can do with their garden if it's owned by the condo association. Mr. Reynolds responded that there are two parts to that: there are common elements, which are shared by everyone, and then there are limited common elements, which are typically reserved for the unit owners. The dotted lines on the subdivision plat designate the areas that "belong" to the homeowners; it may not legally belong to them, but it's theirs to use as they see fit. If they want to Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 10 of 14 garden on their piece, they're free to do that unless it violates the laws of the association. If they want to do something on the common piece, they'd have to work out the details with the association. That's true for any homeowners association. Ms. Collins asked who someone should contact if they have a problem with someone in this neigh- borhood. Mr. Reynolds responded that, typically, you would go knock on someone's door. It's the same as Eastwood Commons next door. Ms. Bates said that someone generally steps forward and lets us know who to contact. Ms. Collins asked whether there will be a requirement for a professional property manager, either part-or full-time. Mr. Reynolds responded that it's not a requirement - it's going to be up to the association. They could self-manage, although that's not a good idea and is very unlikely.At Holly Creek, they've already raised their dues, as they should, to keep up with inflation.Just because people aren't rich doesn't mean they don't know how to take care of themselves. Ms. Collins said that she was asking some of these questions to assure the neighbors that just because this is happening, it's not like they're suddenly helpless if, for example, a light is shining in their window - that there's a way to reach out. Mr. Wilcox noted that he grew up at 1346 Slaterville Road, right next to Mr. Butcher's property. This proposed subdivision and the one that's already there displaced a pond where effluent from the pig barn flowed and was stored by Cornell. On those nights when you had a strange wind blowing from east to west, this odor would flow right into the house from the cesspool in the back of the property. Mr. Haefeli asked what a resident would do if they wanted to add solar PV. Mr. Reynolds responded that typically it is dealt with by the association and sometimes by a separate architectural committee. These buildings will be Energy Star 3.0 or better; they will probably be net- zero compliant. Solar-ready means that the electrical panels are slightly enlarged. They've met with a solar installer who told them not to waste their time doing too much because whatever they do will probably be the wrong thing - because you can't guess where technology will be even in two or three years. So he said to leave the electricians a little extra room in the electrical panels, but other than that, it doesn't make sense to do too much. PB Resolution No. 2015-009:Final Subdivision and Final Site Plan Approval, INHS-Greenways, Tax parcels 60-1-34.2, 60.1-1 46.22-Strawberry Hill Circle Moved by John Beach; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 11 of 14 1. This action is consideration of final subdivision and final site plan approval for the proposed Greenways project, located off Strawberry Hill Circle, Town of Ithaca tax parcels 604-34.2 (±4.88 acres, MDR zone) and 60.1-1-46.22 (±5.55 acres, MR zone) (±10.4 acres total). The proposal is for a cluster development of 46 residential units, fronting on new private roads. The project will also include sidewalks and trails, open space, play areas, landscaping, outdoor lighting, stormwater facilities, and parking areas. Cornell University, owner; Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Service (INHS), applicant; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, agent; and 2. This is a Type I action, for which the Planning Board, at its meeting on July 15, 2014, acting as lead agency in a coordinated environmental review for the proposed project, reviewed and accept- ed as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, and made a negative determination of envi- ronmental significance; and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on August 5, 2014, granted preliminary subdivision and site plan approval for this project, with conditions; and 4. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, at its meeting on September 8, 2014, accepted the concept and locations of public utilities proposed for dedication to the Town of Ithaca in conjunction with this project; and 5. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, at a public hearing on August 11, 2014, adopted Local Law 2014-14 (Local Law Amending the Zoning Requirements for the Greenways Development), amending the original (1973) conditional rezoning requirements for tax parcel 60.1-1-46.22, and accommodating construction of this project as proposed in the approved preliminary subdivision and site plan; and 6. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on April 7, 2015, reviewed and accepted as adequate drawings included in a packet titled "Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Greenways, Site Plan Review Documents, TWMLA Project No. 2012006," dated March 13, 2015, prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects, Claudia Brenner, architect and T.G. Miller, P.C.; and other application materials; IT IS RESOLVED: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board grants final subdivision approval for the Greenways project, Town of Ithaca tax parcels 60-1-34.2 and 60.1-1-46.22, as described in the drawings and materials noted above, subject to the following conditions. a. Discontinuance or legal abandonment by the Town of the southern stub of Strawberry Hill Circle, and transfer of the stub to the Greenways property owner, before the final subdivision plat is signed by the Chairperson of the Planning Board; and b. Evidence of necessary approvals of the Tompkins County Health Department on the final subdivision plat regarding the realty subdivision, before it is signed by the Chairperson of the Planning Board; and c. Submission of one original copy and three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, before filing in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Depart- ment; and Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 12 of 14 d. Submission of final sanitary sewer and water main easements, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, and filing of those approved easements with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, before application for any building permits; and e. Submission of and entry into a stormwater Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agree- ment between INHS and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, before any building permits are issued; and f. Submission of a drainage easement or other mechanisms to assure the Town of Ithaca access to all stormwater facilities, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, before any building permits are issued; and g. Approval of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), that conforms to the 2015 NYSDEC Stormwater Management Design Manual (SMDM) or the 2010 SMDM under DEC transition policy, by the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, before application for any building permits; and h. Visible demarcation and protection of Wetland 2 in the Phase 2 area (±0.09 acres, shown on boundary map/topographic map, August 12012), before and during any work in the Phase 1 utility corridor and temporary emergency access route area(shown on phasing plan, sheet P1.0, March 24 2015); and L Submission of a copy of the Army Corps of Engineers permit to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, before disturbance of Wetland 2, and before application for any building per- mits or site preparation work improvements in the Phase 2 area (outside of the Phase 1 utility corridor and temporary emergency access route area); and j. Submission of details showing projected flows to and capacity of the sewage pump station, and describing procedures and mechanisms to handle emergency conditions during power or pump failure, subject to approval of the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, before application for any building permits in the Phase 3 area; and k. (i) Submission of any draft cooperative proprietary leases, condominium or homeowners asso- ciation documents, or other agreements among property owners, including but not limited to suitable provisions to assure maintenance of all common utilities and facilities, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town, before application for any permit required by the Town, and (ii) submission of the above documents as approved by New York State, satisfactory to the Attor- ney for the Town, before any certificates of occupancy are issued; and 1. Submission of language for cross easements or other agreements necessary to guarantee cur- rent and future owners, leaseholders, and residents of all units in the subdivision access to all utilities, drainage and stormwater facilities, recreational amenities, trails, common open space, and other common or shared facilities, before application for any permit required by the Town; and m. Acceptance of any infrastructure and facilities for dedication to the Town by the Town Board, before any certificates of occupancy are issued; and n. Approval of a highway right-of-way work permit from the Town of Ithaca Public Works De- partment, before construction of facilities that affect Town roads; and Planning Board Meeting 04.07-2015 Page 13 of 14 o. Submission of the quit claim deed from Eastwood Commons Building Corp. to Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services, Inc. (INHS) transferring ownership of the northern stub of Strawberry Hill Circle to INHS, before the final subdivision plat is signed by the Chairperson of the Planning Board, and submission of proof of filing of the deed in the Tompkins County Clerk's office, before application for any permit required by the Town; and p. Submission of a fully executed Encroachment and Boundary Line Agreement between INHS and Eastwood Commons Residents Association, Inc., satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town, that consents to the encroachment of an existing parking lot onto the eastern portion of the Greenways site, before application for any building permits in the Phase 1 area; and q. Submission of a revised Sheet LL Light Layout to show the addition of 2 to 3 light bollards on Greenways Lane, and the addition of back door lights complying with the Town's Outdoor Lighting Law for all units, before application for any building permits; IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board grants final site plan approval for the Greenways project, Town of Ithaca tax parcels 604-34.2 and 60.1-1-46.22, as described in the drawings and materials noted above, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of one full size set of final site plan drawings, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material, to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, before application for any building permits. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2015. PB Resolution No. 2015.010-Nomination and Election, Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2015 Moved by Jon Bosak; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect Hollis Erb as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2015. FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. Vote Ayes.Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak Abstentions: Erb AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. Planning Board Meeting 04-07-2015 Page 14 of 14 / AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2015-011: Minutes of March 17, 2015 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Joseph Haefeli RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of March 17, 2015, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Bosak, Erb Abstentions: Fogarty, Meier Swain AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, )ra DcAugis^e, DeputyTowrKClerk