Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2002-11-05"FILE ,t DATE %_1� NOVEMBER 5, 2 022 APPROVED -DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2002 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning ABSENT: Kevin Talty, Eva Hoffmann ALSO PRESENT: John Fennessey, Conifer Realty; Ralph Jones, 607 Warren Place; Hayden Letchworth, 110 Oakwood Lane; Fran Benedict, 131 Oakwood Place; Lisa Thompson, 130 Oakwood Lane; Becky Robinson, 102 Oakwood Lane; Carl Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Road; Paulette Manos, 5 Westwood Knoll; Renata Ballard, 615 Warren Place; Rod Kearl, 172 Benson Road; Joseph Nolan, 126 Rachel Carson Way; Martha Gold, Ithaca Journal; Brian Hunt, 1220 Mecklenburg Road Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:07 p.m., and accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the 10 Ithaca Journal on October 28, 2002 and October 30, 2002, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on October 30, 2002. Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEOR, Determination, Estey Three -Lot Subdivision, 344, 346, and 352 West King Road, Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Again, I look out into the audience and I do not see Allan Warshawsky and Mr. and Mrs. Estey are not here. So the Applicant and the Agent are not here this evening. Normally, that is an issue, but we've seen this before. Mr. Warshawsky came before us with a sketch plan, which we looked at and this is very similar to the plan that we looked at. *Environmental concerns? The houses are already there, it's simply taking the three houses that are on two existing lots and putting three houses on three lots. 1 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED That's it. That's all we're trying to do here. Trying to make it more salable. Mr. Kanter — Actually, it cleans up a non - conforming situation. Chairperson Wilcox — There's a requirement for a number of variances, but it does clean up. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -113 - SEQR Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval, Estey 3 -Lot Subdivision 344,346, and 352 West King Road Tax Parcel No's. 35 -2 -6.2 and 35 -2 -6.4 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located at 344, 346, and 352 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 35 -2 -6.2 and 35- 2 -6.4, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide two existing lots into three new lots, each containing an existing house and road frontage. Charles & Mary Lou Estey, Owners; Allen Warshawsky, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on November 5, 2002, has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, a map entitled, "Subdivision Map No. 344, 346, 352 West King Road'; prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, LLS, dated October 2, 2002, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. The motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 2 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located at 344, 346, and 352 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 35 -2 -6.2 and 35- 2 -6.4, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide two existing lots into three new lots, each containing an existing house and road frontage. Charles & Mary Lou Estey, Owners; Allen Warshawsky, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentlemen this is your opportunity, as members of the public to speak. If there is someone who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening with regard to this particular agenda item, once again we ask you to step to the microphone, have a seat and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:10 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the 7:11 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - Do you wish to say anything? Mr. Warshawsky — Are you looking at me? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. You don't have to say anything. Mr. Warshawsky — There isn't anything that we haven't already talked about. Chairperson Wilcox — Essentially, the plan is consistent with what we talked about before? Mr. Warshawsky — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Any comments from staff. Or the Town Attorney? Mr. Kanter — Quick, before he gets here. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -114 - Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Estey Three -Lot Subdivision 344, 346, and 352 West King Road Tax Parcel No's. 35 -2 -6.2 and 35 -2 -6.4 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located at 344, 346, and 352 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 35 -2 -6.2 and 35- 2 -6.4, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide two existing lots into three new lots, each containing an existing house and road frontage. Charles & Mary Lou Estey, Owners; Allen Warshawsky, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on November 5, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and 91 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, has held a public hearing on November 5, 2002, and has reviewed a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map No. 344, 346, 352 West King Road'; prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, LLS, dated October 2, 2002, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 35 -2 -6.2 and 35 -2 -6.4 into three lots, located at 344, 346, and 352 West King Road, as shown on a map entitled, "Subdivision Map No. 344, 346, 352 West King Road'; prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, LLS, dated October 2, 2002, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b. the granting of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the plat being signed by the Chair of the Planning Board. The motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed Linderman Creek Subdivision located north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments off of Conifer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.16 and 27 -1- 13.12, Residence District R -15. The four - phase proposal includes a total of 78 single - family detached houses, 24 semi - detached townhouses, and 64 rental apartments for the elderly. Conifer Realty LLC, Owner /Applicant, John H. Fennessey, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Members of the public, if it would be easier for you to see, you are welcome to come up on the side of us or behind us, whatever works for you. You can be able to see the presentation that much better. That even includes members of Common Council. M PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED John Fennessey, Conifer Realty - To present a sketch plan, hopefully for your approval, for the development of about 58 acres of land behind our current development of Linderman Creek Phase I and Linderman Creek Phase 11. Since there are so many people here who may be interested, I'm going to flip this board over with the site survey so that we can make sure that everybody understands where this site is relative to what their interest might be. Just by way of background for those that might not be familiar, Conifer acquired 100 acres of land here through the Anthony Cerrachi Estate. In the process of acquiring it, both the Cerrachi Family and Conifer dedicated this 9 '/2 acre piece of land up here for a future park space. We subsequently went ahead and developed Phase I of 56 apartments here two years ago. We are now currently in the process of developing this area right here with additional apartments, which are basically identical to what we did in the first phase. This would be Hector Street right here and this would be Oakwood Lane, right here. This is where the City of Ithaca water tower is located. You're probably aware that the Town of Ithaca brought a water line down here, across and connected it up here earlier this year, I believe it was. Anyhow, so this is Oakwood Lane here, that's the tower and that's that un -open street. When I flip it over to this side, those lots that are shown on Oakwood and Hector are not shown, but that's the spot right here, where it says "proposed access here ", that's were that connection is. Basically, what we have done here is that we have decided to develop the balance of our property with single family homes, but we do want to put in 64 units of elderly housing here some time within the future. So we've set that area here aside for those. Oakwood Lane is right here. Oakwood Lane runs down here and Hector runs here and they meet about here. So our proposal is to bring, as it has always been, to bring Conifer Drive into here and it will eventually come through like this. This is the park here, which is outlined in green. It will eventually tie into this road here that will run over into the Bundy Road, it's something like 2500 feet from there over. But again, when I flip this over, recall that here's the park and that's that point where the road runs to the water tower. So our concept is again to come through here for an eventual connection and then develop this in three phases or four phases. This is what we are proposing to do in the immediate future right here. This area that is outlined in the hatch marked zip tone pattern. This development here, these units right here that are not hatch marked, they would be a subsequent development. Again, these are all single family homes. These are attached single family homes here, these small buildings lots here and the rest are single family detached homes. Then this is another phase here and that would be, again, single family detached homes developed some time in the future. Everything that we are talking about is obviously driven by the market, if there's no market there's no building. In this phase, right here would be, again, 64 units of elderly housing. Our landscape consultant for this has laid out these schemes and we've gone through several situations with him to try and come to a conclusion about what we want to do and what we've got presented here tonight is the overall sketch plan with a number of units that we are proposing to develop here eventually, over time. The first phase, as I say would be this initial phase which is a combination of single family detached homes and attached town 61 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED houses. All these units would be for sale. He has proposed a detention area here which is the low part of the site, which would then capture most of the water that would be coming from this development. This is about a two acre parcel up here right now that would hold water and detain it before discharging it into Linderman Creek. This is a sketch phase so the actual dimensions of this pond and all the sub - basins associated with it would stem from the preliminary plan review, but that's the physical plan location of where it would be. This, by the way, is the Linderman Creek right here. We have a retention basin that we are developing right now, which is a little bit larger than we need and we also have a retention basin down here. The price ranges that we are looking at for here, at this first phase, we want to keep them under $200,000 for these houses. As we move up into here, we'll have larger lots and those prices may be a little bit higher again, based on the economy of the market. But all in all, as I say, it's all single family homes, all for sale with 64 units of elderly housing to be developed, again when we have a need and feel that there is sufficient market for that. Over here, we are developing , I think it's 72 units right here. I think this is going to be hard for people to see. But we have 24 units, it's a separate legal entity that owns this parcel right here and we hope to have, since this is a separate legal parcel, we will be able to get access from here, from Route 79 into this parcel. We had originally intended to do that as a secondary means of ingress and egress for emergency vehicles only, but then the State decided against that. Then we, subsequently subdivided the land so now we have a legal parcel here, where we can bring a road into this parcel here and that can, in turn, serve as a secondary means of ingress and egress. I'm sure you're all aware and that's probably why you're here, is that we did represent this plan with a concept of having a breakaway fence here for fire emergency access to the site in the event that there was a fire emergency and that was not received well by the City of Ithaca. So, we are not pursuing that, although we will have a road when we build this, right now this is paved here, this is a gravel drive in through here, we will be bringing our drive up around in here. There is that physical proximity to that road that's in the Town of Ithaca. That's basically it. I think, in terms of traffic analysis, you may recall when we did this and we had our consultant do the study back in August of 2001, we demonstrated this area would support 218 single family homes and we're proposing to develop 166 units, which includes of that the elderly, which is a different traffic pattern that with these single family homes. So we think, from a traffic pattern point of view that we are more than adequate in having the highway system serve the needs of this development. Basically, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board, that's my presentation. Again, we are looking for a sketch plan approval for the overall concept and anything specific that the Board may think that we should be considering and when we're considering doing this first phase, which would again be Conifer Drive coming in here, looping around like this and back out onto Conifer Drive. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll give the Board a chance to ask questions at this point, eventually I will give members of the public a chance to go to the microphone and voice your comments and concerns. Board Member Howe — As you were exploring different ways of developing the site, was there some consideration given to integrating the components more fully instead of single family housing, town houses, senior citizen housing or mechanisms that would allow for more open space and more clustered development. 101 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Mr. Fennessey — We did evaluate this. As you recall, we did have this large park dedicated to the community and we felt that that was the nicest part of the site in our view. The nicest because it has such lovely trees on it. That would really serve as the open space need. We also wanted the neighborhood concept, where you've got people. We didn't want to have cul -de -sacs for instance - where people can move around within the community and we felt that this was a solution that would allow for a more friendly type of neighborhood environment, than would be something if we had a series of cul -de -sacs coming out. Board Member Howe — So are you considering sidewalks or anything for ease of pedestrians? Mr. Fennessey — Yes. As you may recall, we've done extensive sidewalk work. Board Member Mitrano — But otherwise, sir, the way that it's organized is by this sort of group concept? Mr. Fennessey — I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. Board Member Mitrano — Is it otherwise organized according to a grouped concept, like a category of the elderly and a category of this — they're in segments? Mr. Fennessey — Well, these are larger lots here, I'm not sure I'm addressing exactly your question, but let me answer as best as I can think. We didn't, for instance, want to have mixed elderly and buildings throughout the site. We didn't think that would have been a particularly good idea. That would also require a zone change for that type of development. We felt that this area here, this is R- 15 and we are proposing that it stay R -15, this would require a zone change. But we did feel that we should have- these are a little bit smaller lots than these lots up here- that we should have an interaction of both a town house type of concept and single family detached concept integrated into a neighborhood. This is the geographic spot here, is where we would propose development of the outset. Board Member Howe — But it doesn't feel very integrated. Why not put a townhouse next to a small lot, when it has a bigger lot, the way you have it right now all the large lots are in one place. Is there a way of mixing them more than that? Mr. Fennessey — I'm not sure that that is .... We did kick around other ideas and I'm not sure that that would be a prudent thing to do. We had talked about, for instance, we had at one time stringing the town houses along this road, but we felt that that wasn't a good solution either. We thought we could get a better setback and get the same type of architectural styles together. We did explore that with one of our earlier concepts that we did look at, but we rejected it. We felt that this is a better solution. We also had this theoretically higher density here, next to a much larger open space than they would have otherwise because this is, right within this area is Linderman Creek and this eventually will be all forever green and there obviously could be a walkway. It just is a more inviting area if you have these, which are theoretically at a higher density, located adjacent to this type of area than something- well, actually up here would have be good too, against the park. We wanted to start out and see the success of marketing both attached town houses and single family detached houses in the same geographic location. 7 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Board Member Thayer — Do you have just the one entrance at Conifer? Mr. Fennessey — We have all the entrance and exit through here, we will have an emergency means of access at this point here. Board Member Thayer — But nothing on the other side? Mr. Fennessey — Well, eventually, when we get maybe to this final phase of development, this road then would have to be considered, how that could be connected. It's 2500 feet away, which is not a small distance. I think for the issue of fire safety, we will now have two means of ingress and egress from this site. In terms of the design of the road, the traffic study clearly shows that this is satisfactory for the level of development that we have proposed there. Board Member Thayer — You mentioned that you had problems with the City on the emergency exit? Mr. Fennessey —Yes. They rejected it and I'm not really sure why. I'm not really sure a lot of things about it. We did not want to have any through traffic. We didn't want to have any traffic from Oakwood Lane into our property or any of our people here driving out to Oakwood Lane. They never wanted that. I don't know if that was misinterpreted or what, but we felt with good planning that since there was a road here to put a fence up here and in the event that there was a catastrophic event in the site and the fire department had to get there, they deemed it necessary, then they could just drive their truck right through the fence and onto the property. That would have been a nice solution. Maybe some day there will be a change of attitude and that will be a possibility. In the meantime, for where we are here in the year 2002, we have this and we will have this and we're only talking about this level of development at this juncture and again, Conifer Drive as demonstrated by our traffic consultants, shows clearly that this road and this level of subdivision can readily be accommodated out onto the Mecklenburg Road and into this development. Board Member Mitrano — Just roughly, what population would we be talking about that exists already and then with this next addition. Mr. Fennessey — You're probably talking about 3 '/2 people per household. Board Member Mitrano — So when you do the math, it gets to what volume? Mr. Kanter — Are you talking about just Phase I first? Chairperson Wilcox — 581 for the whole project. Mr. Fennessey — But again, the elderly component will not consist of that level of density. You will have, maybe 1 1/2 occupants per household. Board Member Mitrano — But 3.5 is you're overall average right? You might have some places that have three or five occupants, right? E:3 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Mr. Fennessey — That's correct. Chairperson Wilcox — That's the whole build out as shown here. Mr. Kanter — Phase I is 24 town house units and 23 detached single family. Board Member Howe — And how many folks, roughly are in Linderman Creek, this part here? Mr. Fennessey — How many reside there now? We've got eight three bedroom units, so you can figure there's probably four per household there. I forget the mix on the ones and twos, but you can't have over a certain number of people living in an apartment. Whatever that mix is, it's very simple math, I just don't know off hand seriously what it is. That can be calculated here as well as here. Board Member Mitrano — Does that number sound right to you guys? Mr. Kanter — Well, I'd estimate about 150 people for Phase I, just starting with that. Actually, we could probably use more like a 3.2 household average, that's more likely, especially with town houses, you're going to have a slightly smaller number. Board Member Mitrano — So, we're talking roughly 500 people. Does that sound appropriate to have just one artery? So, it's more than 500. Mr. Kanter — I think this Board will have to seriously consider access and circulation for the overall development. I think Phase I is one thing, the overall four additional phases is another thing, in terms of that road system, without some through connection somewhere. Board Member Mitrano — So that's striking you as an issue too. Mr. Kanter — Oh, absolutely. Yes. Mr. Barney — Mr. Fennessey, can you just show me where the emergency access, where that access is, how to get to Phase I. Mr. Fennessey — The proposed Phase I. Right here, there's 24 units that are located right here. This road will exist when this phase, what's under construction today, when it's completed. When we begin this phase here, this is a separate legal parcel of land here, we will come in right here and commence. You can go out this way. We've also been exploring, since this waterline runs right down through here, the possibility of coming up through here at some future time. Mr. Barney — But, at present, you're talking now just connecting on to the loop on the existing Phase II? Mr. Fennessey — What we're talking about now is just coming up here, it ends right here now, and carrying it up through here and making this loop right here. we PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Mr. Barney — Then everything north of the intersection of the, if I can call it, of the exit drive out of the existing Phase II and Conifer Drive is going to be accesses just from one point then, which would be that intersection. Mr. Fennessey — That's correct. And again, this was studied by our planning consultant and they had it predicated on, I think, 218 single family detached homes back here. Mr. Barney — In terms of our measurement , our 1,000 foot limit, I'm not so sure we see the 1,000 feet at that. Mr. Kanter — This is something that the Board is going to have to talk about because the point from Mecklenburg Road to the point on Conifer Drive, where the first leg of the Phase I road goes out to the east, is less than 1,000 feet. Technically speaking, you meet the subdivision road standard to that point, if you interpret it to as then the loop coming back to the same point and we have done that in the past. That's an interpretational decision for the Board to make, in terms of how the road system lays out. Board Member Thayer — That's to the end of the shaded area on our map? Mr. Kanter — Well, the point from Mecklenburg Road, up to the first part of the Phase I road is just under 1,000 feet. Then you have a loop, pretend it's like a huge cul -de -sac. That's really what the definition of a dead end cul -de -sac would be in this case. There will be some fire department issues there. Mr. Barney — You're measuring that from Mecklenburg Road, not from the intersection of the emergency it's really well under 1,000 if you do it that way. Board Member Mitrano — Well, when you say Jonathan, that's something that we need to be thinking about, is that something that this gentleman needs to be thinking about too? Mr. Kanter — Yes, I think it's a joint thought process and — Board Member Mitrano — What do you think he needs to be thinking about, about it? Mr. Kanter — Certainly we will need to plug in the fire department pretty early in this whole process to get some feed back from them. Board Member Mitrano — What do you think he needs to be thinking about it? Are we talking variances? Mr. Kanter — No, we're talking about considering the overall number of dwelling units that will be approved because I don't think that's a given. Possibly talking about other alternate emergency access means in other locations. Talking about phasing and how long of a period we're thinking about in terms of Phase I versus the additional phases and what the realistic possibility of that through road from Mecklenburg to Bundy Road actually is. illl] PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Board Member Thayer — What is involved in that Jonathan? That road from there to Bundy Road. Would that be a private developer road or would that be a town road? Mr. Walker — It would become a Town road. Under the sketch plan that was submitted in the preliminary work that was done for the Perry property. The Perry Lane, which is in place now, is the upper road that was the road. There is a road parallel to that road that was going to be the second phase. That's the road. Board Member Thayer — That was my question. That has to be developed by a developer first and then sold to the Town or given to the Town. Mr. Walker — Generally, that's what we expect to have happen, yes. Board Member Thayer — So, the chances are of having a northern exit for this are pretty remote in the near future, I guess. Mr. Walker — Today, they are. Who knows what's going to happen next year. It's platted. The preliminary subdivision that's been approved for the portion of that road from Bundy Road to, actually, the edge of William's Glen Gorge. That has received preliminary approval by this Board. There's a Town Park that has been dedicated, yes. There's a Town Park at the end of that road. Mr. Kanter — There's one on the other side too. Mr. Walker — There's two parks that have been dedicated to us by the Perry's. One of them, we have an access along that road right of way. From Bundy Road. Mr. Kanter — From Perry Lane over. Mr. Walker — That was also a walking path route. So the town can access the top lot park by going across the alfalfa fields. That basically is a local park, that little top lot was intended for just the residents of the subdivision, whereas the other, bigger park, which is adjacent to the park on this property, the Linderman Creek property is intended to be a large town park. Board Member Thayer — That's a pretty good size gorge there. That would be quite a bridge to put across there for a northern access. Mr. Walker — Well, we wouldn't need to bridge that, that's one reason we've located the access at that point, so we can build a road grade with- Board Member Thayer — That's further east. Mr. Walker — Well, a small bridge over the culvert. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Fennessey my quick comments and maybe a question or two. I don't know if it's been mentioned and I'll mention it for sure, I'm not convinced by this particular plan, which is all we've seen at this point, that with a conventional subdivision and the existing zoning, you could fit 166 11 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED dwelling units on the parcel and I think one of the things that you're going to have do is, especially where you clustered the town houses, is layout a conventional subdivision and prove to us, given the property, that that's the number of lots that in a conventional subdivision you could get. I am concerned about that number of homes with one road. John, you talked about the traffic consultant and the reports that were done before about Mecklenburg Road being able to handle the traffic and that may be true, but I'm not sure about Conifer Drive and the extension of Conifer Drive and I don't like that emergency route coming in and going through the existing apartments to the west and I don't know if the fire department will as well. There's a lot of chance for obstruction, cars in the way, whatever trying to get through that circle to the other apartments. You know the drainage is a concern, you've been working with the property for a couple of years now. We've got two detention basins as you've said, a third one is shown, you know that your engineers will be crucial to this, in terms of their study and we want to do whatever we can to prevent any increase in runoff of water on the properties to the east. I like the idea of clustering, I assume that most members of the Board do too, at least part of it. Let me check my notes here and see if I made any other comments. I wrote down housing type. I think that's for later on, in terms of this is not an architectural review board, we don't have one in the Town, but certainly various styles and things like that is important. Access to the Town Park for the residents will be important. The Town Parks because we've got both the one on your property and the one to the north on the Perry property. That's all I have at this point. Anybody else? Mr. Barney — Just a couple of questions, if I might. The area that you show clustered. I think you're showing lots, am I correct, smaller lots the more southerly. The land that's outside the lots, what's the ownership plan for that. Mr. Fennessey — Are you talking about this whole area here? Mr. Barney - Well. Mr. Fennessey — These are clearly single family detached lots. Mr. Barney — I'm talking about the land that is outside of the lots. It looks like there is some common area or what I would call common space, are you contemplating a homeowner's association sort of thing? Mr. Fennessey — That was part of the thought behind it.. That's why we put it down over here because we had so much space and that's how we were able to get the 16000 square foot for dwelling, I think is what the number is for that whole area, which is above the 15000 that is required by the zoning ordinance. Mr. Barney — Legally, then you would look for some sort of homeowner's association to own it or would the developer own it? Mr. Fennessey — I don't think the developer would own it. It would be some separate association we'd have to establish. 12 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Mr. Barney — What about the roads. It's been contemplated that those roads be built to town specs and deeded to the Town or is that going to be retained? Conifer Drive right now, I believe is still private. Mr. Fennessey — I think that at this stage, depending on where we go, if this is passively approved, we would try to keep this as a private road at the outset. If we were allowed to go on with further development, that would be the time to consider dedication to the Town. Mr. Barney — I think that the number of people on a private road begins to get to a concern. We've had, unfortunately some history in the Town where what started out as private roads, as the properties turned over and the original people involved in it discovered the cost of maintaining those roads and that sort of thing, there's been a cry to the Town to take them over. Mr. Fennessey — I agree. Mr. Barney — So I think there would be a concern here if these were going to be private roads for 218 residents. Mr. Walker — The portion of Conifer Drive between Mecklenburg Road and the "T" intersection has been inspected by the Highway Department, the sub -base, and the only thing that would need to be done prior to dedication to the Town is to put a final coat on that to bring it to full Town standards. Mr. Barney — I guess I'm concerned, through the Planning Board, I know it's their decision to make, but I would be concerned if they're going to be servicing this many people with one road. Mr. Kanter — We can talk about this some more, but I think there is a zoning and a legal question in terms of the actual lots being approved on a private road without legal road frontage public road frontage. So, I was under the impression all along that we would be talking about public dedication of the road system even for phase one here. That's something that I think staff could certainly recommend pursuing, even for Phase I. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other comments at this point? Then John, are you all set for now. Mr. Fennessey — Sure. Chairperson Wilcox — Why don't you have a seat. I'll ask the audience to head back around. If you would like to be first, I would grant you that, if you have to get out of here. I've allowed this gentleman to go first because he has another commitment and then I will just call you as you raise your hand.. ask you to sit down so that we can pick you up on the microphone because we are recording. I ask you to keep your comments concise to the best that you can. Ralph Jones, 607 Warren Place — I live in the City. I've been very active in the West Hill Civic association, which did not come forth with a decision with the original Linderman Creek Project, but I think we will be very interested on how this progresses. My questions are very brief and you were all kind of coming to this question just at the end of you comments and that is the one of ownership. It is my understanding that these will be owned by Conifer Realty, these will be and part of these will be, 13 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED but I'm not sure, you know, where does Conifer plan to stop owning, developing, maintaining and where does it turn over legal title to individual home owners. That question, I think you want to get clarified and where they retain their ownership, this was a big question in the original Linderman Creek and that is the maintenance over a long period of time. It's very nice now, we all think . It's worked out quite attractively and, as far as I've heard, I haven't heard any complaints. But, what will it be 10, 15, 25, 40, 50 years from now? Who will maintain it and it's quality? Then, John Barney was getting at the design features. Will the person who buys one of these lot be able to pick his own style or will there be a kind of a uniformity. I don't know whether the Town of Ithaca has the legal control over this kind of development where there's to be some type of a similarity of design and I think you may have gotten into that in the King Road operation out there. Then, the ultimate question that you were all talking about was the density of traffic and is there any consideration because of high density of traffic, to having some kind of traffic signal at this point? As you know, this is a very dangerous curve right here, extremely dangerous. Some day I wish the Town — it could have taken advantage of the opportunity to cut that corner so that there's visibility, most of the time coming up is where it is almost impossible to see more than 100 or 200 feet. I go out there and cut the weeds down, so that it makes it visible beyond up the hill there. That's a real serious issue. Would there be a traffic signal at Warren Place and Mecklenburg or up at Conifer Drive and Mecklenburg would seem to me have to be considered. Those are my issues. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Does anyone else need to get out of here? Does some else have another meeting to go to? Renata Ballard, 615 Warren Place, City of Ithaca — I'd like to reiterate everything that my neighbor, Ralph, has already said, but I'd also like to bring one thing to your attention again. When you were considering the first part of Linderman Creek, there was some discussion about the bus from TCAT going up and going into Conifer Drive and being available for the folks that live up there. The bus currently stops down here on Warren Place and the folks walk down from Conifer, along Mecklenburg Road. Some of them come from here, but it's really a very dangerous situation. I think, last year, the Conifer developers promised to put a bus turn around when they were doing the second part of the development, which is what they are doing now. I've driven up in there and I haven't seen any evidence of the bus turn around being done. Mr. Walker — That will be built. They're just starting the road. They're a little bit behind schedule finishing the road up there. Right now there's a temporary sedimentation base in, that's part of the road in the area of the turn around and they can't actually build the turn around until they get most of the site restored. Ms. Ballard — Okay. So they are going to do that like they promised. Chairperson Wilcox — The site plan, I believe, also shows a bus shelter. They must build those. Ms. Ballard — As Ralph indicated, there's a great deal of concern about the safety on this portion of Mecklenburg Road as it comes into the City, with that corner. It is a very difficult corner and having these people walking down that road is not very safe at all. I guess I have concerns about the emergency issue there with the fire department as well as the traffic. I'll just end with that. 14 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Next person raise your hand. Francis Benedict, 131 Oakwood Lane, City of Ithaca — My house is directly across the street from this emergency access road that you want to put up and the water tank is right across the street from my house. Last summer and spring, summer, fall, with both the City and the Town did a reasonably nice job of putting the water system in and interrupting us as little as possible, the maintenance of the area and the things that happened, a few things caused problems to my lot, a backup of water and the water is now draining into my yard and gets to be my problem. That is something that is a City problem, I guess at this time. Also the maintenance of this area is something that we're still dealing with the City. Right now, myself, I've done it a couple of times, I know my neighbor has just recently mowed the lawn, so it really looks nice up there. You should take a ride up and see the cooperation that the Town, the City and the neighborhood has made of making that look half way decent. When the shrubbery that you've put in, it will probably even look better. However, using that little driveway that's in there now that has a little wire fence holding back the final driveway that goes through there, obviously it's not a road, but with the cooperation of the City and the Town, it could become a road and that's what every person on Oakwood Lane would be totally against for a number of reasons. Again, the access road in there, it's a very lightly traveled road. Getting in and out, both from Hector Street and especially from Cliff Street is very dangerous and if you have more traffic coming in that way on that road, you are going to run into some major traffic problems, as well as changing the neighborhood entirely for the City of Ithaca residents that live on that road. We're hopeful that the City of Ithaca will hold it's ground and not make that a road to go into Conifer. In all of this descriptions I guess I didn't understand why this road just couldn't be completed all the way out to Bundy Road, where a fire station is located right up here and fire departments down in the City could easily get to any area if those two roads were done immediately. That wasn't explained to my knowledge anyway, as to why this road couldn't be put through immediately in order to get this project done. Again, I'd say the same thing that Ralph did, that as far as I know, I know a number of people that live up here and it looks pretty good. Any time you have housing that is not owned by the people that live there, in the long run, there is a chance that it could be run down or something else could happen to it. Single family homes, like this, we welcome that type of situation where somebody owns their own property. They'll keep it up if they spend $150,000 or $200,000, you can be sure they'll keep it up. I have no objection to that. The other thing that I worry about it during this particular phase of construction would Oakwood Lane be used as a road for construction vehicles to go up and work in this particular area here. I'd like to know the status of that situation. We did have that, while the City and the Town constructed the water mains in there, there was quite a bit of activity. It got me up early in the morning, but that's alright, I had to take the dog out anyway. So, those are my concerns and I hope that you'll consider them. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask you a question? If, and it will be the City's decision because that paper road is in the City, that emergency access road was gated or chained with a lock so that only the police department or the fire department had access to that road, would that solve your problem and the issues of other residents of Oakwood Lane? Mr. Benedict — Well, that would be sort of like if you give an inch, the next time someone is going to want a foot and then a yard because if you do it for that, why not, "Let's go the next step and it would be beautiful to have our people be able to come out on this beautiful road right here." As it is now, 15 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED they'll have access, I'm sure, with walkways and with dog ways and bikeways and so forth. We'll have a lot of activity anyway on Oakwood Lane. The way it is now with that, it's like a little driveway and certainly any vehicle can get on it. I would say that if it wasn't determined that way that anybody could get on it. I could see that if you had a major catastrophe or even a minor catastrophe, you're going to go up that way and go through there, whether it's an emergency or not. Because it's there right now. These roads right up to this point, they've already built a road there. It's just that it's dirt. So now you've got a dirt road right to the edge of the blacktop and there's a little chain fence there right now, so it could be used right now. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not familiar with Oakwood Lane and I probably should be, but my assumption it that it's a small, quiet residential neighborhood road that is not meant to get people form one side of the City to another side of the City. Mr. Benedict — They do a little bit of that, but most of that would be on Campbell, right below us. Oakwood, we do get some traffic that way. It's easier probably on Campbell to get over, but the egress to get out on 96 is tough, you either got to go down Brookfield and that's a tough one to get on the street, there's a big turnoff there where buses or trucks or something, but still to get off on that road and get on it, it's going to be tough. If you have a road going in there, there's no question Oakwood Lane with be a thorough fare in there. I'm sure that everyone on Oakwood Lane or the City would be against it. To have emergency access to it, it's going to be there anyway, whether you call it that or not because the road is there and they're going to have a road right there. Unless they put a house up right here, it's going to go into their road and the only thing we don't want — and by the way, if you do it, then the headlight will go right into my bedroom because I live right across here. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. Becky Robinson, 102 Oakwood Lane, City of Ithaca — I live on the corner property here, which if traffic comes through will take all the traffic on the corner. Oakwood Lane is a residential street. It "T's" at the end of it, it does not get any through traffic, we do not have any sidewalks on our street. My concerns would be a road and traffic coming through. Ideally, what I would like to see is this loop back and not have any access. I think the suggestion of doing this road and completing that road if this development was to occur in the Town and it's such a large development, I think that there should be some kind of a commitment to get some access from 79 to 96 before it gets into the residential neighborhoods. As I look at the plan, I don't really see a lot of open space between the clusters of houses, there is an existing Town Park, but as far as what I can figure, it's just been dedicated land and there is no plan to develop that park, to clear it for people to really enjoy the trees that are there. I would like to see some direction and development of the park so it could be used as open space or creating some pockets of open space. I think this Linderman Creek and the forest that runs through here is beautiful, I'm very glad to see that it's left. I would like to see some of that in the plans and even something buffering between the Town and the City line, there's quite a bit of tree space in there and right in here, this is swamp area, so I'm not sure how that could be properly drained or developed. Overall, I think the lot sizes seem small to me, but honestly, I don't really know what regulation is or what is allowed. I do know that if you look at the properties that are in the City that are butt up to it, they are quite a bit larger. We have 2.16 acres on the corner and I believe most of the lots along the City are at least an acre in size. So I feel that these are especially small in here. If it fits code, than that's okay. I was not clear that these lots here along the park were actually 101 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED designated as lot, all the maps I see that those were actually dedicated park land so I'm a little surprised to see that many lots that are butt up to the back of the park when original maps show that was actually given to the Town for a park. Then my last few things for the Town to consider if development of that park and then maybe some consideration through here of some open space and trails and access for people to sort of develop a South Hill Recreation Trail on South Hill is really nice and I know East Hill has some trails that kind of connect the neighborhoods together through open space. Thank you. Lisa Thompson, 130 Oakwood Lane- My driveway is this little highlighted area here and I would like to extend an invitation for all the Board Members to come to my property and stand in my driveway. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you serving hot dogs? Ms. Thompson — There'll be cookies, there'll be cider. I bought donuts for the construction crew one day. I don't know how many of the Board Members have actually come to the property. The character of it has changed tremendously, just in the last year. I guess in terms of comparison, we, for the last five years, this access road, we could not get a delivery truck up that. That was a tiny, narrow dirt driveway with a canopy of trees and I think what you need to think about it : How would you feel is this was your property? That's why, before you make any decisions, please come to my house, we're very nice people and we're very friendly. This is very sterile looking. You need to stand in my driveway, my tiny, narrow driveway and think about that as a road because, in the future, I think you'll be facing those problems. Please come and be educated. Chairperson Wilcox — Paulette, are you going to go last? I interrupted you before so I thought you had something to say. Hayden Letchworth, 110 Oakwood — Right about in here. My concern is that if this were to ever become a road that a lot of this traffic and this traffic and traffic from up here, instead of coming down to the main road, would simply just scoot out here and jump onto Route 79, which is right over here. And that Oakwood Lane would turn into, basically, the main exit and entry to Linderman Creek and anything else that is built up there. That is why so many people, if not everyone on Oakwood Lane, is so totally opposed to any traffic getting through by that water tank and I agree with, I think it was Frank or Ralph, who said if you give an inch, someone will take a mile. My concern is that if it's used as an emergency way at this point, 10, 15, 20 years from now another group of people here will say "Hey, let's just open it as a road" and that will literally open a flood gate because this whole thing will just drain down on Oakwood and that is not, as a City street, we do not want to be the main entrance and exit to Linderman Creek. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Don't you have to be at some election party or something tonight? Paulette Manos, 5 Westwood Knoll, City of Ithaca — No. People have been asking me that all day. No, I'm on vacation today. have seen these plans before. Mr. Fennessey was kind enough to bring them to the Planning Committee of the City of Ithaca. The main issue that the City was dealing with was this emergency proposed access way. I think everyone has been pretty eloquent about why they don't care for it. We 17 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED are taking steps to remove it, even as a paper street because it wasn't actually intended to be a vehicular street in the first place. At this point, we would like it to be a bicycle path, pedestrian path to get into this area, for neighbors to meet neighbors. I'm really concerned now, having seen this this time, about the proximity of this road to the City border. I'm not sure, you could let me know some time, how close that is to the city line. I'd like to see that move back as far as it can and certainly the buffering between to be as dense as possible and attractive as possible. In addition, we've had problems from the beginning with the lighting and the Conifer folks are kind enough to do some alterations, so I'd ask you to keep lighting in mind in terms of how this area is going to be developed as well since it butts up against the backyard of some homes. Chairperson Wilcox — Paulette, can I ask you to keep your comments directed towards the Board. Ms. Manos — Oh, I'm sorry. I see he's not responding so I'm just asking. One of the main reasons that we didn't approve that is primarily neighborhood concern. Primarily because we're trying to preserve this street and this neighborhood as a residential area. Warren Place, on the other side of Mecklenburg Road, since the building of Linderman Creek has had a lot of traffic and a lot of speeding on streets that never had traffic before. Issues with the buses, which we are dealing with and there will be changes made there, thank heavens. We were advised also and, Mr. Barney, you probably know better than I, that to open this street for emergency vehicles, in other words, to open the paper street as an official street could be legally problematic. I don't know, some of our legal research showed that. Since we have tried to limit other City streets, we've tried closing them off, we've tried limiting them to emergency vehicles only and we've been advised that we can not do that. Mr. Barney — Who owns that strip of land is that City owned? Ms. Manos — Part of it. There's an easement there. We're trying to deal with the details at this point so that we can have some access in terms of bicycles and pedestrians, but so that it's not a vehicular road. It's not really appropriate there. We have our water tanks, so we need to maintain the access to that, which we intend to do. I am concerned about the way this road comes up here and comes that close to our residential area. So if there were any way to move that back or at least get the buffering really, pretty dense, that would be really helpful. I'm sure you're going to be dealing with the fire department on emergency access in general, but it seemed to me that Mr. Fennessey indicated that were that road open up this way and would DOT give permission this way, that that would be adequate for their needs as well. Mr. Barney — Would the City be willing to fund the construction of that road up to the north now? Ms. Manos — No. Would you care to deal with the drainage and traffic problems we've had to deal with since the rest of this has gone up? I don't think so. But we are neighbors and we have to figure out a way that all of this could happen, should you wish it to happen, with the least amount of adverse impact on our neighborhoods and on our City and on our border because this is our border. So, any way we can help you, any way I can help you as representing this ward, I would be happy to do so. That was it. Thank you. IFV PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. The poor gentleman who has been caring for those kids, do you have something to say? Brian Hunt, 1220 Mecklenburg Road — I'm going to be real brief, obviously. I've missed a lot of the proceedings and I apologize for that. I just want to mention a couple of things that concern me as a property owner here. One is if the majority of traffic of all of these things are going to come running down here, that's an issue that I hope you'll consider when you deliberate. We've already heard about the buses, currently a lot of people traipse across here, which is fine because it's better than walking along 79. But there should be a better solution than that, particularly if we're going to have a lot more traffic here. Finally, and I'm sure you're keeping this in mind, the whole issue of the infrastructure, water, sewage, that sort of thing. There have been some problems in the past with the increased housing here. I hope you're considering the impact that will have on the infrastructure that we all commonly use. That's it. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Joseph Nolan, 126 Rachel Carson Way, Town of Ithaca — A couple quick things I wanted to reiterate. The concern about the bus route be proactively planned into this, that those 500 odd residents have good and safe access to bus transportation. Secondly, lighting is something I think about every time I drive past Linderman Creek Apartments in the evening. There's a tremendous amount of glare coming out of that existing, I don't know how many complaints you've fielded about it, but I don't know if there is existing regulations about lighting in the Town , but the lighting is not cut off lighting at all, it is just high - pressure sodium. If you're anywhere in that region, you can see probably six to ten of these low pressure sodium type lights. It's almost like, if I live in that neighborhood, I would be very concerned about multiplication of that style of lighting here. It's going to be like having a football stadium in the neighborhood. Just the general light pollution sky glow issue to me is pretty important. It would be nice, the third point is, if there's any way to improve the trail, the pedestrian access through this region. I don't know about the adjacent properties and what can really be done, but walking along 79, which I did tonight, getting from the bus to my home is a pretty unsafe feeling. I think it would be great if there were some off road walkways for pedestrians. My last point is the open space. I see we've got about 10 percent open space preserved here, I live across the street. We have about 175 acres in Ecovillage and we're preserving 80 -90 percent of our land. Maybe we're not very good capitalists, but it doesn't seem all that heroic to me, given modern sensibilities to preserve 10 percent. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else? Mr. Benedict — One quick comment. Have you decided where you're going to put the wild turkey and the deer population? Chairperson Wilcox — John, Mr. Fennessey, is there anything that you'd like to say at this point to the Board. Wel PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Mr. Fennessey — Just this one issue on this concept of "give them an inch and they're going to take a mile ". I'm sure there's enough smart lawyers in this town to figure out a way to prevent that from ever occurring. It should be pointed out that this piece of land here that connects the road is the Town's road, not Conifer's. This piece right here, I believe has been dedicated to the Town. That's an ingress and egress for the Town. Mr. Walker — We have an easement there for a water main that goes up through there. Mr. Fennessey — That goes even further. Mr. Walker — That goes all the way up to the top of the hill. You see a small portion of the park that extends down, I believe that was brought down to intersect that paper street so that the Town Park could access certain other things. Mr. Fennessey — My only point is that it's not Conifer's property. Chairperson Wilcox — Just a couple of quick comments to those members of the City that are here. The Town Park actually is a ten percent set aside that Conifer did at the time of the first stage of development on this property, so that was done some time ago, three years ago, give or take. That indeed was the standard ten percent set aside for park land. It was chosen because it does apply to traditional park land on Perry parcel to the north, which gives the Town a rather large contiguous piece of land, which, at some point, may or may not be developed, that's up to the Town Board, not the Planning Board. I think we're all sensitive to neighborhood streets. I was just thinking about Eco- Village, the gentleman from Eco- Village, they actually do have an emergency access route down to West Haven, which is gated and chained, I believe. Which is their alternate access, should it be necessary. I took lots of note. Mr. Barney — Along that line, we have another one actually over Common Lands, I think. It has been gated and maintained as just an emergency road for now, 10 or 12 years. Mr. Walker — Actually, that's an easement that we have that crosses someone else's property, believe. Mr. Barney — No, we may have an easement, but I do know that we..... Mr. Walker — I know that we don't own the property. Mr. Barney — I don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — But, nonetheless, the is a chain that blocks access. Mr. Barney — But for the people that are worried about us going to the extreme and turning it into a road, we have successfully over the years, where there has been a need for this alternate means of access, purely for emergency purposes, successfully done it and maintained it just for that purpose for that duration of time, so far. Now, granted, I don't have a crystal ball that will go 100 years in the future, but I think that certainly this Board and I think most boards would be very sensitive to 01 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Oakwood Lanes concerns. But, as I understand it right now Mr. Fennessey's not even proposing that be a mode of access at this juncture so I'm not sure that it's going to be very necessary. Mr. Fennessey — We have never, ever proposed that this be a means of ingress or egress. We don't even want it as an ingress and egress to our site because we'll have the people from Oakwood Lane driving through here and that will have an impact with more traffic on this street here. All we ever, ever wanted was having this as a place where if the fire department decided they needed to get to the site, they could drive through it, that's all it was ever intended for. Mr. Kanter — I have a suggestion maybe as for a further discussion point with the City and that is, Paulette was already considering un- mapping the paper street and I think that's a good idea, as well as amending the West Hill Master Plan to delete the reference to a through connector road. Then if the City did that, I think, legally, it could be very easy to come up with easement language, which would be very specific and targeted to only allow, forever, emergency access gate control there. I think that would be the way to do it. I think if the Planning Board knew that that were something open to possibility, I think that certainly would help the Board in terms of it's discussions regarding the development. As you heard, I think there are some definite questions about how many lots really can be served by what in effect is a single point of access. Chairperson Wilcox — And if that paper street, if you will, is eliminated from the general plans then that in some way makes it less likely the street would ever be that. Mr. Barney — I think Jon has a good point. Then if the City were ever willing to do anything, they could dictate the terms and simply say that this is an emergency access, period, will be gated, so on and so forth. They would retain the control over that, regardless of what the Town says. Chairperson Wilcox — Nonetheless, that is Mr. Fennessey, as the developer's responsibility. If he's successful, he's successful, if he's not then we'll take it from there. John, do you need anything else from the Board at this point? Have we expressed our concerns to you? Mr. Fennessey — Well, yes. My purpose in being here tonight was to get an over all conceptual approval of what we have here and would like to proceed to move this concept here, this first phase into preliminary plans. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure that we give approvals in sketch plans, per se. Board Member Mitrano — We don't and if we did, we'd say "no ". The way it's presented at this time. Mr. Kanter — I think he probably does need to hear some additional feed back in terms of what the next steps should be to pursue. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I'll repeat the ones that I gave. Specifically, I want to see a conventional subdivision layout, based upon the buildable land on that property to show that you indeed are entitled to..... 21 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Mr. Fennessey — Can we verify that the property is this area, excluding this. Is that correct? Is that what you're saying? Chairperson Wilcox — John, here's what I'm looking at. I'm looking at the same thing that you're looking at and it says that you are building 166 units on the property. If you're going to ask for a re- zoning or going to have that property rezoned, then I think you should keep to just the R -15, layout a conventional subdivision, with the roads, obviously with what you think you're going to need for detention basins. That will set the maximum number of lots and then you could start at that point with the clustering of the town houses. Right now, I don't know that if you expanded those town houses out to at least 15,000 square feet, which is the zoning in that area, that you could fit that many lots in there. You're only entitled to the number of lots you can fit with conventional lot lines. Mr. Barney — Let's go back a little. John, I think in answer to your question, it's the Phase I area, if you want to cluster that, you need to show that in that Phase I area, if you did it conventionally, you could meet the zoning requirements with the lot sizes and reach the same number of lots that you were proposing with the clustered subdivision. Chairperson Wilcox — One access point of circulation, one access point off of Route 79 is a concern with regard to Phase I, but at full build out, it's certainly a concern. We don't have any control to the north on the Perry parcel, whether that road is ever going to get built and whether the connection will ever be made to the proposed through road on this parcel. Mr. Kanter — Storm water. Chairperson Wilcox — Storm water management, certainly was mentioned early on. Mr. Kanter — I think we've already had some discussions with John about that and with that particular subject. It seems you really need to do a full build out analysis in order to see really whether that one retention area is going to be sufficient to serve the whole thing or not. At least for purposes of the single family Phases I, II and III & I would expect to some degree, that you would need to address Phase IV apartments as well because that, as an isolated site really doesn't have much opportunity for storm water retention so you really need to look at the whole remainder of the parcel for storm water management purposes. Again, I wouldn't expect that that can be done, necessarily on a full engineering basis for a concept plan, but it certainly needs a full area wide drainage analysis. Any thought on that? Chairperson Wilcox — Members of the public, a couple, mentioned ownership of the lots, when you come back I think that would be important to me. Mr. Barney — If I could broaden that, also the ownership of the open land and the ownership of the roads. Chairperson Wilcox — Yep. We talked about emergency access. You think the State will now give you that, at least as you're proposing now, not that I agree with it, but you believe that the DOT will have to give you curb cut because now you have a separate legal parcel. Which may or may not satisfy 22 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED this Board in terms of emergency access. I don't know, I'm not speaking for the Board, these are only things that I have some questions about, at least at this early point. You did mention that you are putting sidewalks in, or you plan to. That's all I have on my list. Anything else. Board Member Mitrano — More open space wouldn't hurt to think about. Chairperson Wilcox — I know. We always want open space and we always want trees and bushes and we can ask for all that we want , but we must remember that the ten percent has been donated. Ask for more if you want, be my guest. Mr. Kanter — Well, let me just suggest that the ten percent park dedication has been met, but for clustering purposes, that's another story. In order to approve a cluster, I think it would be quite appropriate to think about setting aside some open space. Which would not necessarily be dedicated to the Town. Board Member Howe — I think it's more than just open space, I think it's creativity. Layout in general, if you're talking about trying to develop the neighborhood, it might be lanes between houses to get to the parks or lanes to encourage people to visit senior citizens. More creativity. Mr. Fennessey — We had one scheme that was single family detached houses, no town houses at all, we could easily go back to a scheme like that if that's going to make this easiest. Chairperson Wilcox — No, I'm not hearing anything that is against this. I think the issues clearly is how many. The regulations require that you lay out a conventional subdivision that sets your maximum number of lots, then from there, you can cluster them as appropriate. You don't get extra lots. Mr. Kanter — And it may not end up being this number of lots. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. You don't get extra lots by clustering. To those members of the public that are still here, this is what we call a sketch plan review. At some point, I expect Mr. Fennessey, representing Conifer will be back. We'll have an Environmental Review to go through and at some point, as this proceeds there will be a public hearing and you will have the opportunity to speak when we should get to a preliminary approval of a preliminary plan and eventually maybe a final plan. I suspect, John I'm not sure, but I suspect your time line is you'd like to have something approved by the spring. Mr. Fennessey — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — So there will be many more opportunities for the public to come and speak, formal opportunities where we actually have a public hearing. John's got some work to do and he knows that. He's been before us many times. All set? I'd like to thank the public as well. AGENDA ITEM: Referral from Codes & Ordinance Committee requesting informal recommendation regarding proposed Local Law modifying the governance provisions related to the Conservation Board and amending the restating Local Law No. 4 of the Year 1993 which redesignated the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council as the Town of Ithaca 23 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Conservation Board. The proposed modification included a new "Associate" clarification regarding appointment of a representative to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, and other updates and clarifications regarding bylaws, committee membership and voting, and other organizational and administrative matter. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — This is not a formal recommendation to the Town Board, which you have in front of you. A proposed change, which governs the Conservation Board, it allows the appointment of associate members, the Codes and Ordinance Committee, of which both Eva and I are members, unanimously endorse this. Codes and Ordinance thought it would be appropriate that this Board would provide an informal recommendation or lack of recommendation to the Town Board. We're not changing land use policy per se. Comments, concerns? Board Member Conneman — It makes sense. Chairperson Wilcox — It makes sense. I told you it would take me longer to read it. I'm going to move on at this point. There are no more persons to be heard? Mr. Kanter — Should we have a written statement to the Board saying "it makes sense "? Mr. Barney — Could we make that a motion recommending it's approval. Chairperson Wilcox — That the Planning Board has recommended it's approval. Mr. Barney — Of the proposed local law. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -115 - Recommendation Regarding Associate Members to Codes & Ordinances Committee MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that this board recommends approval of the proposed local law, "A LOCAL LAW MODIFYING THE GOVERNANCE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THE CONSERVATION BOARD AND AMENDING AND RESTATING LOCAL LAW NUMBER FOUR OF THE YEAR 1993 WHICH REDESIGNATED THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL AS THE TOWN OF ITHACA CONSERVATION BOARD ". The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes — October 15, 2002. 24 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Any changes? We'll accept Eva's changes, should she submit any. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -116 - Approval of Minutes — October 15, 2002 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the October 15, 2002 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Other Business Chairperson Wilcox — Real quickly, other business. We have a meeting in two weeks. The agenda right now only has one item on it, which is the proposed Cornell athletic fields and the designation of positive environmental significance. There may be a second item. Jon and I are talking about trying to add a few things. Maybe some training classes that he or I or staff have been to, what the County is up to with regard to the comprehensive plan. There's also the Town and other municipalities are thinking about a municipal officers planning committee. Board Member Mitrano — Don't let that man leave. I have other business for you. Ms. Ritter — You can't go Dan. Chairperson Wilcox — We may spend some time and bring the Board up to speed on that, otherwise we'd have a ten minute meeting. Where are we with the zoning? Who wants to address that. Mr. Barney — We've had some discussions at the codes and ordinance committee meeting. We have had a few revisions and then we got hung up a little on the discovery that you can't have domestic animal in the residential zone unless you keep it in an accessory building outside in our current ordinance, so we're in the process of re- writing that new ordinance. In that, we ran into the question of what is a domestic animal. We've turned this to studying a series of ordinances, but I think we've some up with some definitions that will work. Chairperson Wilcox — That's where we started, is a horse a farm animal or a pet. Mr. Kanter — But that's not the big delay. Chairperson Wilcox — That's your fault. 25 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Mr.. Kanter — As much as John would like you to think that. Board Member Mitrano — I have a question that I wanted to ask. Mr. Barney — The plan is that it will be back before the Codes and Ordinance Committee next meeting, which is two weeks for now. Board Member Mitrano — What is going on with Stone Quarry Road? Mr. Walker — What do you mean what's going on? It's open. Chairperson Wilcox — It's open. Board Member Mitrano — When did it open? Mr. Walker — Three weeks ago. Board Member Mitrano — No one told me. I just want to formally say thank you. Mr. Walker — But don't drive on it unless you belong on it. Board Member Mitrano — I belong on it. Chairperson Wilcox — Everybody get your holiday choices in, now that we've selected a resturaunt. Which is Angela Centini's. Anybody know whose term expires at the end of the year? Mine. I have already submitted a letter to Honorable Supervisor Cathy Valentino, putting my self up for another seven year term on the Planning Board. Mr. Kanter — But, you haven't said whether you want to be chair again. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes it does. It says that if the Town Board should appoint me for another seven year term on the Board, I would be honored if they would consider me as chair. Yes, it does address that as well. Board Member Howe — You should check mine. I thought I was filling somebody's and there were three years left, so my three years would end at the end of this year. Mr. Kanter — We'll check, but I think you're at least another year or two. Only one expires annually. Chairperson Wilcox — That's all my business, anything from you? Mr. Kanter — If anyone has suggestions for a discussion item that you've been really burning to have the whole Board discuss, the next meeting would be a great opportunity. Acctually Fred and I may have an invitation to let's say a meeting at the municipal official's association to talk about this planning group that they are forming and that, I think the business meeting part of it, starts at 8:00 1401 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED p.m. so I'd say if we could have a meeting that would definitely end before eight, would be good. So short discussion items. Board Member Conneman — The Cornell presentations will be that short? Chairperson Wilcox — There's no presentations. Mr. Kanter — All we will be doing is issuing a positive declaration, basically mirroring Cornell's offer to do an Environmental Impact Statement and then setting at date for a public scooping session. Which would be set for December 3rd Mr. Barney — Is there any reason why you couldn't do that tonight? Mr. Kanter — Yes. There's a thirty day lead agency notification that hasn't expired yet. Board Member Thayer — When are they going to present to us the (inaudible)? Chairperson Wilcox — That would be the Environmental Impact Statement. Board Member Thayer —This next time? Chairperson Wilcox — No. All we're going to do this next time is say they need to do an Environmental Impact Statement. Right now we're waiting 30 days for other agencies to let us know if they think we should or should not be lead agency for the Environmental Review. That's why we wanted to get that out of the way. They get 30 days. Board Member Howe — Some time is there any update on that discussion of Cornell and a new entry way. Is there anything happening there? Mr. Kanter — That's usually George's question. Chairperson Wilcox — Has that committee sort of stopped meeting? Board Member Conneman — I have no idea. I only know that I always ask the question. The only person that I've ever talked to about it is the Mayor of the Village of Cayuga Heights and he said "not on my watch ", that was what he told me. Board Member Howe — So you never had a meeting? Board Member Conneman — I wouldn't know. Board Member Howe — I thought you were in that. Board Member Conneman — I just raise the question because Cornell has been talking about it for 30 years. 27 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED - DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED Mr. .Kanter — Maybe we can get any update. I can talk to Fernando over at NPO and see if he has any update on what ever happened with that for the next meeting. How does that sound? Board Member Conneman — I predicted that nothing will happen because Cornell will ignore it until they want something else and then they will bring it up again. Board Member Mitrano — And you were right. Board Member Conneman — I was right. Mr. Kanter — I don't think it's true that Cayuga Heights has said that they won't let anything happen. I think what the situation was and it may be that Fernando dropped the ball in pursuing it, was that there was supposed to be a final report with recommendations of this north campus gateway committee and I never saw that. Board Member Conneman — That was just the mayor of made a comment. Mr. Kanter — And he's not mayor anymore as I understand. Board Member Conneman — No, the new mayor. Mr. Kanter — Well, anyway, why don't we just defer that whole discussion to the next meeting because otherwise we'll be here longer than we want to. I'll see what I can find out. Chairperson Wilcox — Briefly, I would guess that our next meeting may be the appropriate time for us to start making our disclosures with regard to potential conflict of interest with regard to the Cornel project. Board Member Mitrano — Let's definitely do that. Chairperson Wilcox — And I'll talk to John Barney about do we do it once and reference or do we have to do it every time. Board Member Mitrano — No, let's do it once and reference it. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I just want to be very careful. This is controversial and I just want to make sure that we get all this out of the way. It's up to each one of us to disclose what our association with Cornell may be or may not be and whether we believe there are going to be issues and if we can give that project a fair hearing. Chairperson Wilcox — You know that the Town Board was sued over the Cornell Lake Source Cooling in regard to members of Town Board who had affiliation with Cornell and the Town won. But the point is that you have to state that you can come to a fair and reasonable decision. Board Member Mitrano — I wouldn't sit here if I didn't. REQ PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 5, 2002 APPROVED -DECEMBER 17, 2002 -APPROVED SIChairperson Wilcox —Is there any other business? AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the November 5, 2002 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:43 p.m. • 0 Respectfully submitted: Lori Waring Deputy Town Clerk 29 • 0 0 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, November 5, 2002 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:04 P.M. SEQR Determination, Estey 3 -Lot Subdivision, 344, 346, and 352 West King Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located at 344, 346, and 352 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 35 -2 -6.2 and 35- 2 -6.4, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide two existing lots into three new lots, each containing an existing house and road frontage. Charles & Mary Lou Estey, Owners; Allen Warshawsky, Agent. 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed Linderman Creek Subdivision located north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments off of Conifer Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.16 and 27 -1- 13.12, Residence District R -15. The four - phase proposal includes a total of 78 single - family detached houses, 24 semi - detached townhouses, and 64 rental apartments for the elderly. Conifer Realty LLC, Owner /Applicant, John H. Fennessey, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Referral from Codes & Ordinances Committee requesting informal recommendation regarding proposed Local Law modifying the governance provisions related to the Conservation Board and amending and restating Local Law No. 4 of the Year 1993 which redesignated the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council as the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board. The proposed modifications include a new "Associate" category to provide assistance to the Conservation Board and participate on committees, clarification regarding appointment of a representative to the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, and other updates and clarifications regarding bylaws, committee membership and voting, and other organizational and administrative matters. 6. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 7. Approval of Minutes: October 15, 2002, 8, Other Business. 9. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, November 5, 2002 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located at 344, 346, and 352 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 35 -2 -6.2 and 35- 2 -6.4, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to subdivide two existing lots into three new lots, each containing an existing house and road frontage. Charles & Mary Lou Estey, Owners; Allen Warshawsky, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, October 28, 2002 • Publish: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 • 0 n • The Ithaca Journal Wednesday, October 30, 2002 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2002 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY' GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by. the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y. at the following times and on the following matters: .7:05 P.M. Consideration of 'Preliminary and Final Sub- division Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivi- sion located at 344, 346, and 352 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 35 -2 -6.2 and 35. 2-6.4, Residence District R -30. The proposal is to sub - divide two existing lots into three new lots, each contain- ing an existing house and road frontage. Charles & Mary Lou Esteyy, Owners; Al- len Worshawsky, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person: 'Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desir- ing assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter;, AICP , Director of Planning 273.1747 October 30, 2002 . TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SI&WIN SHEET DATE: November 5, 2002 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION (4 - � S 07 CSI agfyz 't I' � -/�c•� ; � �7� e�q , '�� H,Jen Le L� r 10 04&( u Ln T- (-k<«t�. 3/ OAKwoo � PLf L.[`5� �1-i o w. So n 3 v CJci k zQ Lct � -1:74,aca �,jL� 2ob� n S U G ✓� fc 30 T- 3ve c 12 it) o o c� lam. 1-7 2 B S Q,,, kl ev i ll e 0e e QJoltiV, 1a 6 e ti cL eI CA/To� W! tAA • u • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York, on Tuesday, November 5, 2002 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting Date of Publication: October 28, 2002 October 30, 2002 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 30th day of October 2002. Notary Public K . CONNIE F. CLARK - Notary Public, State of New York No.01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26. 20 -,-