Loading...
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