HomeMy WebLinkAboutMN-PDB-1992-06-09-special Approved 8/25/92
Planning and Development Board
Special Meeting
MINUTES
June 9, 1992
PRESENT: S . Adams, S. Blumenthal, G. Hagood, D. Kay,
J. Schroeder. Staff: Director H. M. Van Cort,
J. Meigs, P. Norton. Also, City Attorney C. Guttman,
Assistant City Attorney P. Kennedy, and members of the
public.
Meeting was called to order at 7 :35 p.m.
1 . West Inlet Housing Proposal/Floral Avenue/Weisburd
Jerold Weisburd, the applicant, presented a review of the
status of his project. He discussed the provisions that
were being made for 14 houses to be priced at levels
affordable to low and moderate-income families with partial
funding from HUD (Community Development Block Grant
application) , through a Memorandum of Understanding with the
City of Ithaca, Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services (INNS)
and the West Inlet Development Corporation. The MOU states
that if Community Development Block Grant monies are not
awarded to the city, the developer agrees that every effort
will continue to be made to offer affordable purchase prices
at West Inlet . Weisburd also mentioned that certain types
of funding assistance would be made available through INNS
and that recent arrangements had been ,made with Norstar Bank
(which will require a down payment of only $500) and the
Tompkins County Trust Company which proposes to set aside
$750, 000 for qualified buyers, with eligibility extended to
applicants earning slightly above median income. Weisburd
stated that he is now a NYSE Star-certified builder; this is
an energy efficiency rating and is applicable because his
usual style of building is to emphasize energy efficiency.
In describing the project and referring to the drawings that
he displayed, Weisburd discussed the project infrastructure
and changes and revisions that had been made to bring the
street design into accordance with department of public
works standards and the needs of the Ithaca Fire Department,
including redesign of the western cul-de-sac to accommodate
potential fire department equipment . Weisburd discussed the
design for the street for pedestrian separation which will
be accomplished by means of a six-foot wide shoulder which
will also serve as a stormwater collection swale. This is
slightly dished toward the center of the six feet and at
intervals has drop inlets to - receive storm water. He
explained that the water mains for the project are
adequately sized (up to 8" in places) for the fire
department's supply needs . He explained that the revised
storm drainage system actually improves the drainage for the
entire hillside because it collects the drainage coming down
Planning and Development Board -2-
Minutes of June 9, 1992
from above the project and channels it through storm sewers
into the existing box culvert under Floral Ave. This will
be an improvement from the current condition in which during
high rains the existing stormwater system on Floral Ave.
cannot adequately catch runoff from most of the properties
uphill of the road so that it tends to flow over the ground
and into the street across the downhill properties .
Weisburd then explained in detail the open space set asides
being provided under the cluster plan. A total of 58, 000
square feet will be protected by either direct set aside
that is being proposed to be transferred to the city or
under tree protection zones which will be on the private
lots in the subdivision. Deed restrictions will be
incorporated into the property records for all of the
properties to control activity in the protected areas . He
said that this 58, 000 s . f . compares closely with the 62, 000
s. f . which the preliminary proposal indicated would be set
aside, or protected.
Weisburd also made comparisons with other "normal
development" subdivisions in the city regarding landscaping
and tree protection. He pointed out how much more set aside
and tree protection there was in the West Inlet subdivision
than in other approved projects in the city in which
relatively small areas were to be kept as green space, or
buffer area.
Weisburd then spoke about the modifications in the grading
plan. He made specific reference to the limits of the
grading areas in response to concerns raised by the earlier
grading plan which appeared to show that the grading would
extend into the southernmost edge of the drainageways on the
site and could endanger a few of the hackberry trees that
are in that drainage channel .
Following this presentation the Chair re-opened the public
hearing which had been continued from the May 26 meeting of
the Planning Board.
Tom Marshall, a resident of Glenside in the Town of Ithaca,
asked about the water supply for the project and expressed
concern that the water available to him from the Floral Ave.
water main from the city supply would be negatively affected
by the demands of the West Inlet project . He wondered how
much water pressure he could expect, and he indicated that
he did not believe that his property is to be serviced by
the new line recently installed by the Town of Ithaca.
Planning and Development Board -3-
Minutes of June 9, 1992
Adolph Turco, also a Glenside resident, then spoke and
stated that he is on the new fine, and his water pressure is
20psi . There was considerable discussion of the pressure
and assistant city attorney Kennedy responded to the two
speakers on this issue by referring to her experience in
dealing with the Town on the agreements for extension of
their new main from the city's West Village tank.
Heinz Riederer, a resident of the Glenside area in the Town,
expressed his concern that the public has not had adequate
time to review the revisions to the latest documents . These
revisions were the result of city staff concerns and are
being presented to the Board at this meeting for their
consideration. Some of these revisions had been made to the
submissions that Weisburd had provided ten days prior to the
meeting which was the deadline for such materials. Mr.
Riederer stated that if the modifications proposed by staff
are of a major nature, the public has a right to be afforded
the opportunity to review them before the meeting and thus
be able to respond to them. City attorney Guttman responded
to Mr. Riederer's concerns by stating that the modifications
are alternatives that the Board is free to accept, reject or
modify and, therefore, it is not a matter of anything that
might be considered improper in making the materials
available to the public . Van Cort noted that no one had
come to the Planning Department to review the materials
since they were submitted by Weisburd. Mr. Riederer replied
that some of the neighbors attended the codes and
administration committee meeting regarding this project .
Larry Weaver, a resident of Floral Ave. in the city,
expressed his concerns that the project as proposed is too
dense for the site and for conditions on Floral Ave.
relating to traffic and the general character of the
neighborhood. He also felt that there was not sufficient
recreation area for children.
Paul Bennett, attorney for some of the neighbors of the
project, made three points . First, that he contested the
adequacy of the public notice and review on the basis that
revisions to submitted documents were being presented at
this meeting. Second, he said that the "affordable housing"
label for the project is in some sense a questionable sort
of tactic for a project that is too dense for the site which
acts to override concerns about density and environmental
effects . Finally, he stated that the project will involve
hidden long-range costs to the city and the neighborhood
that will probably mean public improvements.
Planning and Development Board -4-
Minutes of June 9, 1992
Bill Lower, a Floral Ave. resident, spoke briefly to express
his opposition to the development and stated that he was
sure that problems would develop if the project was built .
Betsy Darlington, Chair of the Conservation Advisory
Council, stated that in her opinion the CAC feels that the
project has changed substantially since the preliminary
approval by the Board, and that this might be a reason for
taking a further long look at the proposal . She said that
the CAC believed that the engineering changes made either by
Weisburd or by city staff, have all been to the detriment of
the site and not to improvement of the project to make it
better fit the constraints of the site. She asked about the
possibility of planting new trees and closed by saying that
the soil protection provisions presented by the developer
seemed to be fairly good.
Dan Hall, of Glenside Rd. in the Town, expressed ,his
feelings that the proposed development is too dense for the
site and that the site's natural integrity has been
compromised. He asked the Board to avoid the temptation to
hurry ahead to final action.
David Nutter, a Five-Mile Dr. resident, asked about the
additional traffic that would be generated by the project
and about provisions for keeping construction mud off of
Floral Ave.
Dan Aneshansley, Chair of the Glenside Neighborhood
Association, asked about the Memorandum of Understanding and
was informed that it was to assure that the affordability of
the 14 low-income units would be maintained with or without
CDBG funding.
The public hearing was then closed on motion by Schroeder,
seconded by Adams . Unanimous vote 5-0 .
Discussion then centered on the erosion control plan
presented by Weisburd, which follows DEC guidelines and was
approved by the city engineering department . Kay asked
what evidence there will be to demonstrate whether the
control measures are working or not . Van Cort said that he
would check with the building and engineering departments .
B. Darlington stated that Paul Salon, a CAC member with
soils expertise had asked about the construction diversion
Swale which is a temporary drainage mechanism to be
installed to divert water from the road construction area.
The question was whether this would be a large ditch that
would disturb a large area of the site adjoining the road
Planning and Development Board -5-
Minutes of June 9, 1992
right-of-way. She wondered whether it would be replanted
and stated that it was very important that the swale be
seeded and mulched immediately after it was installed,
commenting also that the seed mix proposed was not an
appropriate mixture of materials for this area.
Weisburd responded that the swale would be temporary, would
only be a few feet wide at most, dug by a small backhoe, and
that he will avoid cutting any trees, if possible, for the
installation of the swale. He didn't think that any trees
would have to be removed for it, but he stated that he was
not willing to replace any tree that might have to be
removed in order to put it in the location proposed.
Darlington then asked about the need for erosion control in
the upper gully on the site and questioned whether the
grading for the lower, or southerly, gully or drainageway
was actually being changed since it still shows the apparent
grading into the drainageway. Weisburd responded to this
that the grading plan is essentially schematic. Actual
conditions of the site show a very pronounced ridge at the
edge of the drainageway, which will be as far as the grading
will go. This ridge is on the north side of the drainageway
and, therefore, there will be no work in the drainageway or
danger to the hackberry trees that are there. He did say
that a small section of that drainageway which had
previously been indicated as part of the open space
reservation was going to be slightly affected because of the
detailed design of the road in response to engineering and
fire department requirements . He stated that silt fencing
would be installed at the bottom of any disturbed slope
during the course of development, and that construction
fencing would be installed along gullies to ensure the long-
term viability of the tree stand.
Discussion of the deed restrictions then ensued. Adams
asked about the differences between what was now being
presented and the earlier versions . City attorney Guttman
responded that the Board should review them for content, not
for exact wording, because the restrictions are required to
be presented to the city attorney for review and approval
prior to final acceptance and filing. Adams then asked
whether the gullies or drainageways would be exempt from the
provisions that are included in the restrictions that would
allow Weisburd to go onto the proposed city lands. Weisburd
responded that the language of the restrictions as presented
states the intent but not the specific details . There was
discussion about how far into the various set aside areas
the construction equipment and use of the area for storage
of construction materials would be allowed. Weisburd agreed
Planning and Development Board -6-
Minutes of June 9, 1992
that it would be acceptable to limit the activity on parcel
27B to the ridge north of the drainageway, and to limit the
activity on parcels 1B and 9B to 25 feet from the edge of
the right-of-way or 10 feet from the edge of the grading (as
shown on the grading plan) . He also indicated willingness
to accept all of those restrictions with regard to parcel
5B. Adams stated that she wanted to restrict the tree
protection areas (shaded areas on the subdivision plat) from
storage and vehicles in a similar fashion to what ' s proposed
for the set-aside areas .
B. Darlington then recommended that the wording of the
restriction concerning removal of trees be changed so that
in the case of a dead, diseased, or dangerous limb on a tree
(where the tree was otherwise healthy) , only removal of the
limb would be permitted. The addition of a requirement to
notify the owners of all properties within 200 feet of any
proposed changes with regard to the city-owned set asides-
was also requested. Guttman stated that the city has the
ultimate say as to whether the set aside parcels in their
definitive state will be satisfactory. If they are not, the
city will not accept ownership of the parcels .
In response to questions and concerns about the amount of
trimming and "beautifying" that might occur as provided for
in the restrictions, Weisburd responded that provision had
been included primarily to allow the removal of large poison
ivy vines on the site and for some other visual improvement
to enhance the general character of the development . He
pointed out that the report on the red mulberry tree located
on the site (which is locally rare, and for which there was
a general consensus of desirability to protect) contains a
recommendation from Nina Bassuk, chair of the city's shade
tree advisory committee, that some grapevines and a couple
of cherry trees near the red mulberry should be removed so
that they do not compete with the red mulberry and adversely
affect its health.
Regarding the restrictions for the private lots, Kay
requested the insertion of language to prohibit the killing
of trees, and Schroeder requested language to insure that
the stone barrier to protect the hackberry trees--be
sufficiently substantial so that stones are not easily
removable. The Board agreed that these be inserted.
B. Darlington then asked about marking the buffer zone
around the southerly and westerly perimeter of the project
for its protection. Schroeder responded that he remembered
in the course of the preliminary approval discussion it was
specifically recognized that this stone barrier was intended
Planning and Development Board -7-
Minutes of June 9, 1992
to be placed at the drip line of the hackberries and not to
protect the entire buffer area. Weisburd pointed out that
in the instances of some of the smaller lots, such a
restriction of the entire 20 feet would effectively remove
any possibility of use and enjoyment of back yards . Kay
stated that what was wanted here was the same restrictions
on the buffer area as on the tree protection zones, and
after some discussion it seemed to be generally understood
that the stone wall was to protect the hackberries only, and
it would not be a straight line of stone but would only be
placed around a hackberry tree in order to preserve the
hackberry itself.
City attorney Guttman stated that the developer would be
responsible for appropriate education and provisions
regarding the hackberries . Blumenthal asked how this
information would be transmitted from owner to owner, and it
was agreed by Weisburd and Guttman that this would be
incorporated into the deed materials for each property, and
that each successive property owner would be made aware of
it . Weisburd also agreed to place stakes on the individual
lot property lines at the points where the tree protection
zones begin.
There was some discussion of replacement of any trees in the
pine grove on lot 1B that might be damaged during
construction including the installation of the temporary
diversion swale. 'At this point Weisburd suggested that the
developer should be given credit for any other trees that
were not shown specifically on the landscaping or other
drawings that were actually saved during construction. The
proposed requirement for replacement of any damaged trees
was defeated on a motion by Kay. Weisburd agreed that there
would be at least two trees in the islands of each cul-de-
sac.
Guttman stated that the final approval action should refer
to the Memorandum of Understanding on affordability.
Schroeder, seconded by Hagood, moved for final subdivision
approval, based on the information received and itemized on
a cover page entitled "Documents constituting final
submission for approval of, West Inlet cluster subdivision. "
Carried unanimously.
epj-9June92 .min-8/17/92
Attachments