Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-11-04r� • *--- • ME A TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2003 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 4, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Ritter; I Planner; Christine Balestra; Planner. ABSENT: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner ALSO PRESENT: David Schlossfer, Schopfer Architects; Rich Devito, 108 West Jefferson Street, Syracuse; Rocco Lucente, 120 Briarwood Drive; Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road; Peter Kane, 199 Ferris Place; Andrea Dutcher, 21 Besemer Road; Andrew Davis, 33 Alfred Road, Arlington MA; Doria Higgin, 2 Hillcrest Drive; Casey Williams, 217 Mary Donlon; Jonathan Rupp, 120 Valentine Place; Thomas Hull, 5219 Class of 1926 Hall, Cornell University; Elizabeth Graham; 199 Ferris Place; Zack Bassman, Townhouse DZA, Cornell University; Andre VanRyanbach, address not legible; Jonathan Wasielewski, 2414 Class of 1928 Hall, Cornell University; Allison Robin, 119 Ferris Place; Jackie Holliday, Balch 3413, Cornell University; Betsy Stearns, 119 Ferris Place; Ann Byrne, 137 Hopkins Road; June Walden, 121 Hopkins Road; Gorton Walden, 121 Hopkins Road; Tony Lucatelli, 1456 Trumansburg Road; Paul Mazzarella, INNS, 115 West Clinton Street; Peter Trowbridge, 1345 Mecklenburg Road; Candace Cornell, 1456 Hanshaw Road; Anna Smith, 242 DuBois Road; Andrew Houtenville, 116 Pinewood Place; Faith O. Chase, 106 Comfort Road; Karlis Musk, 108 Birchwood Drive; Todd Olson, 115 Pinewood Place; Arno Selco, 311 Salem Drive; Steve Amato, 401 Salem Drive; Jerrold Davis, 309 Salem Drive; Naneem Inayatullah, 310 Salem Drive; Gerald Hall, 1307 Trumansburg Road; Patricia Hall, 1307 Trumansburg Road; Ron Shewchuck, 112 Winston Drive; Helen Shewchuck, 112 Winston Drive; Virginia Margues, 208 DuBois Road; Sharon Marx, 156 Bundy Road; C. Livermore, 3 Ferris Place; Arthur Woll, 509 Utica Street; Fred Carrere, 135 Linn Street; David Ronn, 1006 East Shore Drive; Steve Flash, illegible address; Unberto Pejavento, 316 Highland Road; Earl Goder, 2484 Danby Road; Steven Daughhetee 245 Hayts Road; Leah Solla, 245 Hayts Road; Greg Ezra, 100 Birchwood Drive; Neil Fogarty, 6 Cornell Walk; Kerri Seberg, 440 Forest Home; Andrei Garcia, 111 Dryden Road, Apartment 2G; Kat Bell, 231A Mews, Cornell University; Charles Richter, 9251 Low Rise 9, Cornell University; David Gersh, 1052 East Shore Drive; Nancy Gersh, 1052 East Shore Drive; Ben Shansky, Townhouse E01 B; Matthew Ginsburg, High Rise 5, Cornell PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 University; Denise McEnerney, 131 Hopkins Place; Joe McEnerney, 131 Hopkins Place; Michelle Burlitch, 673 Ringwood Road; Jeff Inman, 21 Pacific Road, Brooktondale; Pat Conly, Cornell Physical Education Department; Alexander Fee, 3160 Risley, Cornell University; Anya Priester, 272C Mews Hall, Cornell University; Heather Calsen, 330 Risley, Cornell University; Gary Rosenberger, Low Rise 7, Cornell University; David Grunes, 307 Salem Drive; Sandra Gittleman, 109 Tudor Road; Bernard Gittleman, 109 Tudor Road; Art Pearu, 334 Bostwick Road; Katy Pearu, 334 Bostwick Road; Kenneth Birman, 501 Salem Drive; Marcie Finlay; 154 Bundy Road; Kirk Sigel, 223 Highgate Road; Whitney Patross, 414 Eddy Street, Apartment 1; Tom Hord, 217 North Aurora Street; Grace Chiang, 217 North Aurora Street; Yvonne Fogarty, 238 Bendy Road; Carmen Blankinship, 222 Bundy Road; Chris Papamichael, Aris Development; Don Crittenden, 173 Bundy Road; Joel Harlin, Newfield. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:07 p.m. 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. Chairperson Wilcox- Our first order of business this evening is a Board matter that we have to take care of first. Mr. Barney, do you want to take the lead? Mr. Barney — It's really up to George how you want to proceed. Chairperson Wilcox — How do you want to proceed, George? Board Member Conneman — Whatever you want to do. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Kanter — Now that that is all cleared up. Mr. Barney — I think that George, it is really your call. If you feel that you can objectively listen to all the material. Board Member Conneman — I think I can. Mr. Barney — And up to Cornell, if they have a problem. Tom, I think that you have a copy of George's letter to President Lehman. Do you have a problem if George stays. Inaudible voice from the audience. Mr. Barney —If you feel that way and you're speaking on behalf of Cornell, then think that, George you probably want to recluse yourself from the discussion. 2 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Kanter — Could we clarify what this is about a little bit more for the record? George, you have- Board Member Conneman — I actually wrote a statement that I was prepared to read and put in the minutes. Mr. Kanter — Be my guest. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that it is appropriate. On October 22, 2003 1 wrote to President Jeffrey Lehman, the President of Cornell concerning the use of the proposed site of the Remington Inn and Restaurant. I wrote this letter on my personal letterhead as a private citizen and not as a member of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. I signed the letter "George Conneman, Emeritus Professor ". I had shared the letter with members of the Town Planning Board and the Town Planning Staff. I made reference to the Town Planning Board only to explain to President Lehman that I had information on Remington and to indicated my interest in the community by serving on the Board. Since becoming Cornell President, on July 1, 2003, Dr. Lehman has indicated by words and actions that he is committed to the greater Ithaca Community. I voiced support to him for the attached proposal made by the Friends of Sailing, which was presented at our last sketch plan meeting, which proposed a facility to enhance the programs at Cornell University. I also suggested that in addition, I would like to see a large Town Community Park at this site. Such a park would make the southern end of the lake more available to the community. I was hoping that he might buy into the greater vision for community which he expressed many times. I no way meant to imply that I was biased against the Remington proposal. If it is necessary to avoid appearance of conflict, I would excuse myself from both the discussion and voting on the proposal. I certainly would not vote on the proposal because I think that would be a conflict of interest, from what I understand Mr. Barney agrees with that. Mr. Barney — I'm not sure I'm seeing a conflict of interest so much as more of an inability to act impartially. Board Member Conneman — I think I can, but that is up to all of you. Mr. Barney — I think in fairness to the applicant, we've got to let the applicant make that call. If you have a sense that that is not possible or you are uncomfortable with anything Mr. Conneman will recluse himself. I gather that is kind of how Cornell feels. Inaudible voice from the audience. Chairperson Wilcox — George during the discussion, and the Remington is the first thing on the agenda, I will unfortunately have to ask you to sit with the 3 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 audience. That's done so that your body language, facial expressions don't influence us. When we finish this agenda item and move on to the sketch plan review for Sanctuary Drive, we will ask you to come back and join us. Well, ladies and gentlemen, slow night, I guess tonight. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:13 p.m Chairperson Wilcox — If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, an item or a topic which is not on this evening's agenda, we ask you to please step to the microphone, take a seat, give us your name and address and we would be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. Yes Doria? Doria Higgin, 2 Hillcrest Drive — I want to say something about the last agenda item, but I don't want to wait until the end. Chairperson Wilcox — Here is the problem I have, usually this Board allows the public to speak at sketch plan reviews. Let's all understand that these are sketch plan reviews this evening, these are not public hearings. It is the public's duty and responsibility to listen to the Board and listen to the applicant. It is not your duty or responsibility to speak this evening. Usually we give the public a chance to speak at these. This Planning Board also ends its business at 10 o'clock. We've learned, through experience, that we don't make good decisions after 10 o'clock at night. It is important that we get through all three agenda items this evening and given that and given the number of people in this room, I am concerned that we simply will not have time to give members of the public a chance to speak this evening, even though we want to. So, given that, Doria, I will ask you to keep you remarks until the public hearing, just like everyone else and when we have public hearings, if we have public hearings on these agenda items, if they go beyond sketch plan review, and the applicant formally comes back here for an approval, then we will hold a public hearing and everybody will have a chance to speak and address the Board. I wish I could give the public a chance to speak this evening, but I am concerned that we are not going to give everybody a chance to speak who wants to and if I let one, I really need to let everybody. Inaudible voice from the audience. Chairperson Wilcox — These are not public hearings tonight, that is correct, these are sketch plan reviews. We ask you to sit there and listen. 4 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 If you would like to speak, Joel, on an issue of item which is not on the agenda, you have a short period of time to do so. Joel Harlin, Newfield — I can't say much, but I m going to say this to the Common Council too. There has been a real change in this City and County with the DA and the Drug Court going on and the County Representative and of course the new mayor coming in, I don't know who that might be, but it looks like there is going to be a left and right wing no matter which way you put it because Cornell is the right wing and Hoffman is the left wing. I tell you what, this is the way that I see it, and I'm going to say it tomorrow night too, the president, always the President of Cornell is the mayor of the County because Cornell has property in almost every township in this County. He is the Mayor of the City. I don't know about whoever gets on tomorrow. Like I told Mayor Cohen, you suck a pill. All you politicians are Cornell affiliated, you are like puppets on a string. Any time Cornell jerks that string, you get up and do what Cornell wants you to do and look at what they are doing up there. They've put a blackmail, if you don't do what they want, all of a sudden they are going to jerk that money away from you. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you done Joel? Mr. Harlin — They are going to take that parking ramp too up there, I guarantee you. They've got the power. You guys are just second string to Cornell. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Joel. Anybody else? Yes sir? It's tough following Joel. Andrew Houtenville, 116 Pinewood Place — I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit about, if there is time, about the survey that you passed out. The Planning Board has done a survey. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not aware that the Planning Board has done a survey. Has the Town? Mr. Kanter — Are you talking about the transportation survey? Mr. Houtenville — The transportation survey? Mr. Kanter — Well, this has nothing to do with Planning Board business, so please contact us in the Planning Department and we can tell you about it. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a follow -up Sketch Plan review for The Remington located at 1000 East Shore Drive between East Shore Drive and Cayuga Lake, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 19 -2 -29 and 19- 1 -5.2, Business "E" District. The proposal includes demolishing the two existing PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 buildings to construct a two -story lodge including a 258 -seat restaurant, 25 guest rooms, and a new boathouse. The proposal also includes 163 parking spaces (107 spaces on site and 56 spaces located to the east of East Shore Drive) and the continued use of the existing marina (boat launch and docking facilities). Cornell University, Owner; Paramount Realty Group, Applicant; David A. Schlosser, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:19 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome back David. Rich Devito, 108 West Jefferson Street, Syracuse — I just want to begin by saying that it has been quite a few months now since we were here the first time around and we spent that time trying to address the issues that were brought up by the Planning Board in general and also to be able to mitigate some of the other issues that were expressed by the general public here, especially those people who were speaking on behalf of a faction of Cornell Sailing, which I am still not quite sure who is whom because when we talked to Cornell University and the Athletic Department, it doesn't seem like there's necessarily a direct link between those people who are showing up to the Planning Board meetings and speaking in public and those people who are actually in authority for Cornell University. So, there has always been a little bit of confusion about that. Anyhow, having said that, what we have tried to do with the project is several fold. Number one, to address the ingress and egress issues that have been addressed by the Planning Board, of which we have gone over in more detail with the architect. To address the safety issues concerning the railroad crossing and the stacking issues that we have for the project, incoming and exiting the property and we are working with our consultants, obviously, very closely to try to address all these issues so that when we come before the Board for our preliminary site plan review, that we have these issues addressed comprehensively. We want to be sure that we can provide some access point for those of the general public, who want to launch sail craft of whatever sort, as long as they are not motorized and we would propose to work with the Town of Ithaca on the north side of the site, which is just above the existing Town park, to be able to provide that launch point. So those people who would like to be able to launch their craft and not do it with any auspicious of the Inn and the other recreational facility is being controlled by Cornell's Athletic Department so that they would be able to do so. We've also taken the restaurant portion of this project and move it to the south end of the site to be able to mitigate whatever noise might happen to those people who are on the residential side of the parcel to the north. Also, be able to provide the on- gulling operation of the marina to the south end to be able to provide the restaurant entrance close proximately so we can work one with the other. We've also been working with Cornell's education department closely and with good faith to be able to provide the sailing club with approximately 2,900 square feet of building that will be attached to the structure in order to be able to maximize the square footage that they can have and, in addition to that to be 6 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 able to provide another 500 square feet for storage, so that their entire operation will comprise of approximately 3,400 square feet. So, we've tried to address all of the different interests that were voiced in the previous meeting, to do so in good faith and with the hope that our project will be able to benefit the community at large, not just a small group of it, not one small entity, but the general community. I think this is a need that has been expressed, not only by the Chamber of Commerce, in terms of providing this type of facility on the lake, but also the general public. We've had a great amount of response, positive response to building this facility to be able to provide access to the lake in a commercial setting that doesn't exist. There are approximately four parks on the lake right now and that public park element is certainly well represented as it stands right now, but this particular element is not. That's the hope of this project, to be able to offer that element, which does not exist currently. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. David before you start, to those people behind him, if you wish, you may come around behind us so that you can better see the graphics that he is using. My I ask everybody to please be quiet. David? David Schlossler, Schopfer Architects — What I would like to do is begin with the existing site and what we have found out in the last several months because the abstracts and deeds on this site have been complicated and rather complex. We just got delivered surveys today, which I'll leave you copies before we go. The actual site that is under control by Mr. DeVito and owned by Cornell, is a straight line south to north, a little over 2400 linear feet along Route 34. There is a sliver of land that extends from the marina south, approximately a little over 900 feet and another sliver of land that extends north from the park approximately 300 and some feet which, again, I bring up because these are very critical not only to the view shed, but also to the potential mitigation of the view shed to the project. Currently, in summertime, as this photo is showing, the view from Route 34, this particular area is relatively obstructed due to foliage that has been let go and over grown. They are under control with this project and as part of the project, will be trimmed and controlled and maintained. The survey that we just got today actually shows that the deeds are from the centerline of Route 34 and this site is actually 6.74 acres, which actually includes the 50 percent of the right -of -way of Route 34, the railroad right -of -way, this area in here which is the leases parcel from the Town, shaded, and then of course it includes the marina and the segments of land north and south. The actual linear footage of shoreline is a little over 3100 feet, which actually, again, these two areas benefit the project from the standpoint of this remoteness of private properties south and north of the parcel. What is proposed and is modified in, first a small scale. As suggested by the Board, we basically took digital photos from Route 34, north and south, Route 13, from the middle of the lake and also across the lake. What we've given you is, at the moment, just a preliminary representation, as we walk our way through site plan approval, we will give you a more detailed view shed interpretation, but 7 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 basically, this is a representation of the project from approximately the middle of the lake, which shows you basically the first cottage to the north. It shows, basically, Cornell's plan over here and then the existing warehouse at this particular location and then this is representation of the roof lines and the size of the structure that we are proposing. We have the marina to the south. The site, again, as shown a couple of key elements I think at that the building, as proposed is over 1400 linear feet at the southern end of the property and over 600 feet from the north end of the property, given essentially very substantial visual, sound and noise buffers to this particular project. One of the other elements, which was, I think, brought up at the initial meeting, was the proximity of the restaurant and the potential for noise with respect to the park. Actually, what we have done, is by creating this snake -like shape, the facility has actually been able to be compacted. We moved the restaurant to a central location, with closer proximity to the marina and the boathouse just sits at the end of the site. Mr. DeVito has also, basically, secured a lease right to piece of property between the two facilities on east side of the Route 34 as supplemental parking, that actually is a fill site from the Water Source Plant and what's proposed here is actually a gravel road and a gravel parking lot for valet purposes only. No private customers and /or no boat storage of any sort on site. The representation of the image of the project what has been shown and what represents, basically, some of the significant changes as with the park to left hand side of this graphic. What is shown here represents the two -story inn, what's in light green is the restaurant and what's in brighter green is the boathouse. The boathouse being approximately 2973 square feet and then the restaurant seating 258. One of the other changes is originally what we had shown was basically a two -story facility throughout, with the exception of the boathouse itself. Now, what's actually been done by trading the shape, compacting the rooms, we are actually able to do a two -story just in the gray, the darker gray, and everything that's in light, which is the restaurant and the boathouse is actually one story which, again, brings down the profile of the building. What's shown here is basically an angle perspective from the northeast looking at the main entry of the facility. It's a single common entity. The restaurant and the lodge. There is no other public entry points, other then with respect to the boathouse, which is strictly to the south. At the moment, what we have given you is basically a black and white representation and color will ultimately follow, but basically, the materials are natural cedar shake, siding and stone veneer with a rather intricate array roof lines and profiles, everything under 36 feet. What we've actually done, is taken these components and actually structured three clusters of buildings, linked by shorter roves, again, to bring down the profile of the whole facility so that, again, if takes on a much more residential character. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask you to repeat the roof heights? You mentioned a roof height. Mr. Schlosser — I can give you all the roof heights, but what I basically said was everything in under the 36 feet to the peak. There is probably nothing anywhere PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 within four or five feet of that . Obviously, the one -story roofs are substantially less than that. I can provide you, at the next meeting the elevation of every one of them. A blowup of the site, one of the key issues not only for the Planning Board, but also to the owner for the operations facility was ingress and egress from the site. Obviously, there is a single point of entry at this location. We retained transportation consultants and they have basically created a schematic level of sketch. It has been discussed with the New York State DOT, not necessarily finalized with them, but basically, the concept is determined to be reasonable and plausible and they indicated that with more detailed information, they could get us the proper signoffs of the concept. What is proposed is basically expanding Route 34 north and south so that we will basically have a single lane right hand turn only from north to south and single lane left hand turn from south to north. That gives us essentially a three width highway through that particular area. None of the expansion requires going off of existing New York State right -of -ways. The other complication, obviously, was the railroad. We have been given new information on Norfolk Southern, basically, there is two trains a day that travel through here with anywhere from a five to seven minute shutdown of this particular intersection. What has actually been shown and proposed is a full signaling, both on ingress on egress with respect to that entrance. We noted that in your staff's comments, they asked about stacking on the egress and also site lines and we will advise the transportation people to study that and get back to the next stage with more detailed responses as to resolution of that. Circulation on site, 107 cars with parking on site with a cul -de -sac turn around at the main entry, as well as full vehicle turn around at the launch ramp. This whole element and everything facing the park and the public area is all residential. Again, the component of the restaurant and the restaurant entry is right here, fully concealed from the park and, again, quite isolated from the park now. Which, again, previously, if you look at the other sketches and restaurant up here, it opened right on to the park itself. The nearly 3,000 square foot boathouse has been moved to the marina side. We have worked with Cornell and also the sailing club, the concepts here are still under refinement, but the general location, which gives them a view of the lake and the marina, seemed to be quite acceptable, the circulation and the adjustment to the launch ramp has been made to basically accommodate that particular situation. I think a question was asked at the last meeting by the Planning Board with respect to the usage to the boathouse. The boathouse basically is a restroom and locker facilities, office, meeting room and also storage for boats. Now, the storage for boats is all non - motorized, there is no storage of any hazardous materials or flammable materials. We have added a pathway running between the proposed development and the waterfront. Everything is 30 feet back. The buildings are 30 feet back from the surveyed edge of the waterfront. We've added a gazebo down at the point. Again, there is the expanded parking across the street. I guess with that, I will open up for questions. 9 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Board Member Thayer — You mentioned the Cornell Sailing group? What is their feeling on this now? You've had a meeting with them, are they satisfied with this new proposal? Mr. Devito — Well, I'll speak to that because David hasn't been involved in any of the discussions. We've been in discussions with Cornell University's Athletic Department and the Real Estate Departments and trying to coordinate what the need is on behalf of the Sailing Club. The Sailing Club, as I understand it, is coordinated by the Athletic Department and they are the ones that speak on behalf of the Sailing Club, as far as we know. We've never been contacted by anyone else, nobody had spoken to us, nobody has ever called us, nobody has written us. I have never been contacted by anybody outside of Cornell University regarding the Sailing Club and, to the best of my knowledge, the Sailing Club is coordinated by the University and nobody, outside of the University, has contacted us, made any comments, sent us any letters or done anything else to show interest in the project. What we have done is work with the University, hand in hand, to try to provide a facility for the Sailing Club and a recreational club that goes outside just the Sailing Club because there is going to be more that the University using that property for than just sailing. Tom Levigne, 33 Grandview Drive — Three years ago we conducted a charet that we invited various stake holders from the University to . The Sailing Club was there, Bob Chase, who is the faculty advisor for the Sailing Club, Al Ganter, the Phys Ed Director, I believe Any Noel participated, Susan Murphy's staff, who is one of the Vice Presidents of Cornell participated, Hal Craft participated, ROTC was there, Cornell Recreation was there, all of the aquatics people that are associated with the University were there. In this cheret, after the charet was over, with all of the comments that came in, the facility was sized at 2,600 square feet with all programmatic, a list of programmatic needs that were required. Since then we have had additional conversations with the Physical Education Department, through the Real Estate Department and the building has been sized a little bit differently. We've added the 500 or so square foot storage building and we've enlarged the program facility itself. We feel that this is an adequate facility. There has been a study done in the Ivy League and all of the facilities in the Ivy League are 3000 square feet or less and most of them are less than 2500 square feet. This was a study done by the Physical Education Department within the last few weeks. So, from the charet that we've done and from discussions that we've had with Athletics', we feel that this is adequate and the University is behind this project. It has been approved by the University. It has been approved by the Senior Administration and the Board of Trustees and we are happy with the way this is developing at this point and the University does have its approval behind the project. Mr. Schlosser — Some of the key changes, I think, with respect to the boathouse, previously it was visually isolated from the waterfront. We basically has it in the back. One of the major criteria was to move it forward for safety purposes and 10 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 visibility of the lake. Our deck actually is moved out here so basically there is a little over 200 degree visibility of the lake. Board Member Thayer — So you are leasing that building to Cornell? Mr. DeVito — Correct. Mr. Schlosser — I think I couple of other things that I failed to mention that have come up is, storage racks for both the kayak and the sailing equipment that is shown down in here and also storage racks that down to the south end of the site. There is a component to the site that we don't fully understand yet. North of the Town park, there are a variety of small craft that seem to moor there and launch there, we don't know whether that is really an approved usage, but, at the moment, there is no proposed change to any of those functions. Board Member Thayer — I was just going to ask about the marina itself and what the intended use is going to be for that in the future? Mr. DeVito- We don't plan on changing it a lot. Board Member Thayer — Is that a leased marina or is that privately owned? Mr. DeVito —Well, the marina itself is controlled by this development and, in the past, Johnson Boats Yards has been leasing that particular portion from Cornell University and will continue, well, we haven't spoken to Johnson yet about the long term interest that they may have in the project. They haven't called us, but our interest is to maintain the marina as it is or even expand on it if we are able to. Board Member Howe- We would certainly want more information on that when you come back, on the marina. Chairperson Wilcox — Ownership, leasing. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like some clarification about what you call the existing launch area for small craft to the north of the Town Park because on the drawings that you provided us with tonight, there are arrows that point to the edge of the Town Park as that area which is the launch area and I don't understand that. Mr. Walker — Eva, that is only an emergency use launch area that the Fire Department has developed for access during the winter time when other launch areas are iced over so that if there was an accident on the lake during the winter where there has to be some sort of a boat out, that's one possible place, but that's strictly emergency use, that's not used as a normal launching area. I PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 suppose if somebody took a canoe out there and launched it, if nobody was there, we wouldn't stop them. It's not a designated boat launch. Board Member Hoffmann — And that's from the Town Park area? Mr. Walker — It's adjacent to the Town Park area, or partially on the Park. The Fire Department discussed that with Cornell and then they just basically leveled the gravel out so that they could get their emergency boat in there. Board Member Hoffmann — I know that there is an area of land which slopes gently into the water just north of the Park, but along the edge of the Park you have these built up stone steps, which hardly seem like good launching areas. Mr. Walker — No, it's to that northern area. The cleared way that is not paved, that you can access with a vehicle. Board Member Hoffmann — And that is within the Town Park area? Mr. Walker — Well, it's adjacent to it, I'm not sure it's right in the boundaries. It may start at the Town parking lot and may go back. Chairperson Wilcox — So, it's important that that area not be changed. Mr. Walker — That is strictly for emergency use. Mr. Levigne — I was just going to say that the only area of that that may go on the Town Park is the access road to it. The rest of it is not in the Town Park and that has been an area that people have launched bots from sort of in an unofficial way. It has not been policed very well from a lessee's standpoint. Board Member Hoffmann — And would that use continue under these new- Mr. Devito — That is completely up to the Town of Ithaca because if there is going to be a use for that property by the general public, it is going to have to be with some agreement between the development entity and the Town of Ithaca, for liability reasons alone, it needs to be done. Board Member Hoffmann — Why would the Town of Ithaca be involved if it is not on the Town of Ithaca's property? Mr. DeVito — Because this is part of the property that is not going to be overseen, policed in any way and if the general public is going to be using it, it is my contention that the Town of Ithaca should be providing whatever over -sight is necessary. Board Member Hoffmann — That's interesting. 12 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Kanter — So, I think that probably would be a Town Board decision as this project goes on, but it also would involve some additional lease- license permission if the Town decides they would like to oversee it. Mr. DeVito- Which I am very willing to grant. Chairperson Wilcox — In effect, what you are saying is the status -quo would continue? Mr. DeVito — Correct, that's right. Board Member Hoffmann — Let's see, I had some other questions too. About the traffic and the entrance and the exit from this property, there are a couple of things I was wondering about. There was an assumption in one of the reports. It's the report from Harbor and Associates, that there would be an equal distribution of traffic coming from the north and form the south on Route 34, going in and out of this property. Mr. DeVito — Well, there hasn't been a traffic study yet, so I don't think they really know the answer to that question, whether it is true or not. My assumption is that that is not necessarily the case, but when they do the traffic study, then I'll have to bring that up. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a lot of trouble hearing you and you know, that microphone doesn't amplify so you need to speak up. If I have trouble maybe other people do too. Mr. DeVito- What I was saying is that the traffic consultant needs to do the traffic study in order to be able to ascertain whether that's the case or not. That's going to be done prior to the next phase. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but whatever information that they have given us now is based on that assumption, that there is an equal amount of traffic coming from the north and the south, which I would question. Mr. DeVito — Okay. Board Member Hoffmann- I don't know what other people on the staff, especially, feel about it, but it seems to me that there would be more traffic coming from the south. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think at this point it matters. I think when we get the engineer's report, if that assumption is still there, then we question it. 13 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Kanter — I think it would very depending on P.M. or A.M. peaks. A.M. will be heading southbound more and P.M. will be heading northbound more. Board Member Hoffmann — I will wait for a more detailed report. I just wanted to bring that up that I didn't think that is realistic. Board Member Thayer — Incidentally, the coal train makes two round trip trips per week. The freight train goes more often. They say here, in the new report that the coal train makes one round trip per day. Mr. DeVito — Well, that's the information that we got from the rail itself, so. I don't think that our consultant has stood there for a week at a time to figure out what is going on. I think we got all of the information from Norfolk Southern. Board Member Hoffmann — The other question that I had and this may also be something that you'll provide us with later, how would larger motor vehicles get into the site, things like delivery trucks bring food to the restaurant and bringing materials, trucks that have to go in and out of the site during construction. How would they be able to do that? Especially after the construction is finished and the parking lot, presumably is laid out in the way that you have proposed. How would they go in and out on this narrow access road from Route 34? How would they be able to maneuver there, in that curve through the Town Park? Mr. DeVito — Actually, access is not through the Town Park. The access itself is not part of the leased parcel. Obviously, it has to be part of the shared parcel, but that is the only access point and I think it is an excellent point we will have to address for you as part of the traffic study. I would expect that probably the improvements to Route 34 would have to come first, as would certain controls on the railroad before even construction started. At the moment, this entire site has been surveyed and there is only really one single point of entrance. I don't see that there could be a second construction entrance made. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but it is also a question of how would bigger vehicles maneuver within the parking lot. Mr. DeVito — Well, the larger vehicles right now, basically, the shuttle buses make that particular turn, that curve cut is actually a little over 35 feet wide, so it's not a narrow curve cut. Chairperson Wilcox — Here's what she is saying. How are the large vehicles that bring food and other supplies to the restaurant and hotel going to be able to maneuver in the parking lot once it's built and it's full of cars. What we are saying is, please address that when we get to the next stage to make sure that those large refrigerated vehicles have room to make their deliveries. 14 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Schlosser — That's what this circulation is right here. So, basically, this is the turning radius for a 50 foot vehicle. Which basically, if you had to get a tractor - trailer in there, they could do a circle right in here. Again, the loading dock is full enclosed and, basically isolated visually from the rest of the project. Board Member Hoffmann — Another question I have is, you mentioned that the boathouse would have bathroom faculties, but would it be open all the time so that people would have access to them. Mr. Schlosser — That is one of the issues that we have to work out with Cornell and the Sailing Club. Right now, what has been laid out there is a duplicate restroom locker facility. One which would be open all the time and one which would not, it would be private to the club. There are restroom facilities which we are proposing to take down. But, we do have to work that out with Cornell. The general intent is, at the moment, that there will be duplicate facilities. Board Member Hoffmann — And there would be access all the time? Mr. Schlosser — To, essentially, just the two - compartment public toilet. Board Member Hoffmann — Something to replace what's there now? Mr. Schlosser - That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, while you are looking in your notes, one item which has not been addressed tonight is the unknown issue of whether there is any soil contamination on the site. Mr. Schlosser — We have proposals for borings, they have not yet been done. We do take note of the comments from staff. It is as much a concern for us that we address that. Chairperson Wilcox — You've read Chris' memo. She lays out most of the issues pretty well. We've addressed most of them tonight, the marina, the view shed, the soil, the flood zone you are aware of, you know the restrictions there. We haven't mentioned drainage and storm water runoff. You know the rules, you know what you've got to do to satisfy the Town Engineer, the Planning Staff and the Board. Mr. Schlosser — We did give you a single letter, which basically indicated that when we retain a consultant, and we gave you a brief summary as to requirements that he would have to meet, which be the state requirements and SPEDES, etcetera. At this point, we just have that particular summary to show you that we are aware of them and that within the next phases, obviously, we will make the application, we would then put forth the reports. 15 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — I assume that environmentally, this is a difficult site. Mr. Schlosser — Actually, less difficult. Chairperson Wilcox — Why? Mr. Schlosser — Because it is right on the water. The issue is really water quality as opposed to storm water containment. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, I'm talking about both during construction and after construction. Mr. Schlosser — The concept basically is that this site will be graded actually to this particular location along the railroad right -of -way and there it would be collected and that will be the control and the quality control. So, basically the only items shedding back into the lake directly would be the sheet drainage from along the waterfront. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, the drainage would move east? The water would flow east? Mr. Schlosser — It would be collected east and actually, they've actually shown the ketch basins right along here and the, again this isn't my area of expertise, but basically, as described to me, the biggest concerns, first and foremost, obviously, is the sails and the fuel oils and things like that from parking the cars. The second is anything coming off of roofs and, again, that water will be collected back here and there will be a variety of treatment and filtration systems within that line before it goes back into the drainage pipes. Chairperson Wilcox — That's once the construction is complete, but during construction, obviously you have the issue of erosion control and that's very important. Mr. Schlosser — Part of the requirement is a full sediment and erosion control plan. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't remember now if you had any more information about what you would do to protect against flooding because part of this land is in the flood plain. Mr. Schlosser — The comments that we made and we gave you are, if I remember the elevations correctly, the flood plain is 286 and the site at this location, as it exists right now is anywhere from two to four feet above and our finished front will be five feet above. Again, by flood plain regulations, we have to build a foot above, we would be actually five feet above. 16 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — You've got to protect the investment. Board Member Hoffmann — And what about, not just the floor of the building, but what about the other facilities around there? Mr. Schlosser — What we have to do with foundations, we have to build to flood plain standards, but basically we have no crawl spaces, we have no basements or anything of that nature. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. We have no construction below flood plain level other than our footers and foundations, which is typical. Board Member Hoffmann — What about the parking areas and the edges of the water? Mr. Schlosser — It's all above. Board Member Hoffmann — Two to four feet? Mr. Schlosser — Two to four feet. Board Member Hoffmann — I was just talking to somebody who knows what happens in a case like this and apparently the water in the lake on the northern and southern end will slowly rise and then it will sort of go like this. Go up and down a little bit and cause flooding. It seems to me that two to four feet is not a lot of space in a situation like that. Chairperson Wilcox — Considering that they're being required to go one foot, think five feet's not bad. Board Member Hoffmann — For the building, not for the rest of it. Anyway, I'd like to hear more about it. Mr. Levigne — I'd just like to give an example, a few years ago, I think it was six or sever years ago when the fish were swimming in the parking lot at Wegmans, this site was completely drive. You'd have to have a pretty big flood to get up onto this site. Chairperson Wilcox — I think we learned as part of Lake Source Cooling that the lake does slosh back and forth, somewhat like a bathtub, but I think we're measuring here in inches. Mr. Levigne — I will, however, ask our storm water consultant to address that issue. 17 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Board Member Thayer — We haven't talked about the overflow parking area, the valet parking area. How do you propose to use that? Are you going to bus the cars and how are you going to get back? Mr. Devito — We are just going to use one valet parking attendant to be able to go back and forth to be able to pick up cars and drop cars off and come back to the site. I think it's a pretty reasonable thing. We've also talked about the potential to have, and this is obviously up in the air a little bit because we haven't decided how it is going to be organized. There is also the potential of being able to run a bus back and forth if we wanted to do that, a small shuttle bus. Board Member Thayer —So if someone approaches it on busy night and the parking lot is full, what would prevent them from driving up into that parking lot by themselves and walking back? Mr. DeVito — Just appropriate signage, I think. That's the only thing that we were planning on doing. I don't think we were planning on having any kind of a card access or anything. Board Member Thayer — Just because there could be a pedestrian problem crossing. Mr. DeVito — We don't want the public to be going back and forth. Board Member Thayer — I know we don't. It's just an issue that we should talk about later. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? I think we've covered all the issues. Do you have any idea when you might be back? Mr. Schlosser — I would say, probably 30 days. I think what we need to do, based upon the staff comments is get some more input from our consultants. We would put together exterior elevations. I guess I would ask if, basically, the Board to react a little bit to the proposed changes that we had and give us some positive feed back with respect to the concept. Chairperson Wilcox — Silence is consent here. Board Member Thayer — Definitely positive as far as moving the restaurant. Big plus. Chairperson Wilcox — Public access potential. The ability of Cornell club sports to have access. We could sit here and argue that maybe the first plan was flawed to not provide access and maybe that should have been the original plan. Mitigation of the sound issues, which somebody pointed out, sound does travel across water. We haven't looked at the view shed really in any detail, but we'll do that. 18 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 The Environmental Review is going to be the key and what the traffic consultant has to say. Safe access across the railroad tract and safe access onto Route 34, from the site and into the site from Route 34. Sufficient stacking room on the site when the train blocks the ability for cars to leave the site. I think you are aware of all these issues and we've started to address them and, to the members of the public who are here tonight, it's not the applicant's purpose to have addressed all of them tonight. It is simply to bring us up to date and show us where they are going and get our opinion and get some feedback if we think they are doing something wrong. Mr. Schlosser — Would we be better advised to at the next meeting primarily address most of the staff comments, which are really more environmental and the circulation of traffic, as opposed to spending excessive time on let's say, the elevations of the building and the design of the building. Could we take this in stages? Chairperson Wilcox — What I'm unclear of is in, let's say 30 days or four weeks, would you come back for an update of the sketch plan or would you be coming back for a preliminary site plan approval. Mr. Devito — It's my hope that we would be able to move to preliminary site plan approval, I think that' s my intent. Chairperson Wilcox — If that's what is going on, then we are going to be spending all of our time on environmental issues. MR. Kanter — Of course that would mean completion of the traffic study and the drainage study and all the studies. Ms. Balestra — The soil study too. Mr. Kanter — The studies we need a full month before scheduling the meeting, so that's basically the time frame that we'll work under. Mr. Schlosser — I'm not quite sure that I can get all that done in 30 days. We'll have to advise you when we'll be back with respect to that then. Chairperson Wilcox — You've got to get your studies done and then staff has to have the time to review them. Mr. Schlosser — I was wondering if maybe this is worthy of an interim phase rather than not be here for sixty days. Chairperson Wilcox — That's your call. 19 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. DeVito — Is there something that we should be discussing with the Town Engineer one on one prior to preliminary site plan approval or would you like us to come back and review all of the environmental issues with the entire Board? Chairperson Wilcox — The procedure is generally that you will produce the variance reports, the studies and you will submit them to the planning Department, the staff, the Engineering staff and anybody else necessary will review them for completeness. If they have any obvious issues with what's been submitted, they'll work with you or your agent and when the submissions or deemed complete, then and only then, we'll reschedule the Environmental Review in conjunction with the Public Hearing for preliminary site plan approval. Mr. DeVito — What is a reasonable turn around time from the time that we submit all the environmental and the engineer has time and the staff has time to review them? Chairperson Wilcox — Jonathan just said that they would like four weeks. Mr. Walker — Well, we have to submit 30 days before and that's the 30 days that we have to review it. Mr. Devito — That's fine. Mr. Walker — If it takes you a month to do it, then it will be two months before you come back to the Board. Mr. Kanter- Well, also as Chris pointed out in her memo, I think we would like a pretty clear indication of the railroad crossing prior to coming back for preliminary approvals. So, I think that would be a key element of it because that also has a lot to do with the access and DOT. Mr. DeVito — I had a phone conversation with Chris about this, just to clarify just essentially what it was that we needed to provide because the way that it read to me was that they needed to be essentially approvals from DOT, which obviously takes longer than even 60 days to obtain. Mr. Kanter — Now I know what you are talking about. The DOT approvals won't come unit really after preliminary approval, in terms of details, but the railroad permission for the crossings and the details will be something that we need to see earlier. Mr. DeVito — And , I'm assuming that a letter from both the railroad and potentially DOT having both these elements and saying that generally they approve these would be sufficient? Mr. Kanter- Yes. 20 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Walker — If your consultants have any questions of Engineering, feel free to call. Don't try to do it all yourself, if you have a questions. Mr. Devito — The last thing I'm going to do is do it myself. Chairperson Wilcox — As much as I want to let everybody speak, we just don't have the time. If I let one speak, then I think I am obligated to let everybody speak. They are welcome to write to the Town of send e -mail and express their opinions and when we get to the Public Hearing, they will have an opportunity to express their opinions and we want to hear their opinions, I'd love to hear them tonight, we just don't have the time and I apologize. Eva had one last comment. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I'm not convinced that all the people that we heard from last time have been represented. I think that there are some people from the general public with no Cornell connection who were here and spoke about this and the marina now and wanting to continue to use the marina and I'm not convinced that they are going to be able to do that and that concerns me a great deal. I would like to be assured that everybody who at least was here and spoke last time will have a chance to speak again. As you said, it is possible for people to write to us. Mr. DeVito — Since I haven't spoken to anybody from the general public, I can't react to that, but what I can say is this, is that being a good business man, I would like to have as many people frequent the property as I possibly can. What I want to do is encourage people to use the boat slips to the degree that I can continue the system that's been up and running, I will do so. It's to my benefit to do so, not to my disadvantage. Board Member Hoffmann — And what is particularly important to me is that there is as much public access on this one piece of land and the Town of Ithaca has access to the water. I don't know if I said this the last time or not, I would much prefer to see this whole development on the other side of Route 34, rather than on this side on the edge of the water. It's possible to build a parking lot there I see now and I would much prefer to see the whole restaurant, hotel, parking and everything on the other side of the road. Mr. DeVito — Building structure on the other side of the lake has all kinds of other issues, environmental issues, not the least of which, need to be addressed, but what it would do is it would alienate those people who are using the marina site to be able to use the inn because they would be that much further separated. What we are trying to do is have everybody be on this site without having to cross Route 34, which is even more or a problem, potentially, if you have it on the other side than it would be now. 21 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — If you have what on the other side? Mr. DeVito — If we were to have the inn on the other side of road, we would have even more traffic problems, we would have more issues with the public trying to traverse that road. It would be a very dangerous operation. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to see some facts about that, if you have them. Mr. Levigne — It's our opinion that this development will create more lake access than anything else that could go on there, with the restaurant, people coming down and utilizing the lake and sitting out in the evening, watching the sailboats, watching the windsurfers. People staying there will enhance and create much more access than anything else that could be there. Right now, the sailing and sail boarding community, while it is active on this site, is a very minute portion of our community. If you put a restaurant here with the lodge, you will tremendously increase the lake access that occurs on this site. People will be down there, hundreds of people will be down there daily, weekly, utilizing the lake that could not have done that before. So, I think this particular development would tremendously increase the use of the lake in the Town of Ithaca. Board Member Hoffmann — That could be, but I still think if this parcel was turned into more of a park with the restaurant and the inn and the parking on the other side of the street, there would be even more of an increase of public use. Chairperson Wilcox — And that's the final word. Ms. Balestra — Don't I get to say anything? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Ms. Balestra — The Planning Department has received phone calls from- I feel like it's important to state this because there are so many members of the Cornell Sailing Club here. We have received phone calls — Chairperson Wilcox — I thought they were students interested in how — Ms. Balestra — In how the government works, yeah. Unfortunately, we're not so lucky. They have expressed some discontent on issues regarding the proposal for additional skid space, kayak, canoe, sail craft racks and the size of the boathouse, that sort of thing. Whether that is an issue that can be addressed internally with Cornell, through the Real Estate Department or the Physical Education Department, I don't know, but I know that they do have some issues. Board Member Thayer — It seems like there should be a lot more communication on the part of Cornell. 22 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Levigne — That is an internal issue and we are taking care of it in house and this facility has grown tremendously since we started. It is an in -house issue that the University is handling. Mr. DeVito — I believe we have spoke to all those individuals or those entities that have the legal right to be able to speak on behalf of Cornell. I can't just speak to anybody off the street because they happen to be interested, I have to speak to those people who actually represent they entities. Chairperson Wilcox — We're done, thank you. Thank you to the public as well. George, you can come back from Siberia. Chairperson Wilcox — I just wanted to note that Andrew Davis, Vice President of the Cornell Friends of Sailing presented us with a letter and copies and I've provided copies to each member of the Planning Board who is here this evening. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a follow -up Sketch Plan review for a Master Plan development involving a proposed 50 -lot subdivision located off Birchwood Drive North, Birchwood Drive, Salem Drive, and Sanctuary Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70- 10 -3.5 and 73 -1 -8.22, Residence District R -15. The three phased proposal includes 48 residential lots and 2 park land / open space lots on approximately 48 -acres with road connections created between Birchwood Drive and Sapsucker Woods Road and between Salem Drive and Sanctuary Drive. Phase 1 proposes to extend Birchwood Drive North to the East for 12 residential lots with additional lands added to Salem Park. Rocco Lucente, Owner; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, are you about ready to go, or do you need another minute of two? Mr. Fabbroni — One more minute. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the Meeting at 8:21 p.m. Lawrence Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road — I'm here tonight with Mr. And Mrs. Lucente and I'll proceed to address where we left off back in January. Just quickly there are some new people, both on the Board and from the public who may be interested in the history. Way back in 1965, Mr. Lucente developed a master plan for all his property and, as we discussed last time, a lot of things change in time. Regulations, the most significant of which was the 1972 Clean Water Act and how it related to wetlands, and so, over the years, although no new master plan has been completely developed, 18 various ideas for this land, some of them more dense than the original one. Some of them showed different roadway patterns. This particular one, at one time, showed no through roads. 23 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Since we've been here to talk to you last time, we've met with the staff on three different occasions and we've had some field tours after we delineated the wetlands so that's what I am really here to speak to our progress tonight. There is a lot of history to what has been proposed to this land over the years. In front of you, you will see some more of that history. There is an aerial photo from 1954 and it is pertinent only to the extent that people have different impressions of the land up there. You see a very wooded area of the land, but then you'll see Hanshaw Road. Board Member Hoffmann — Which is north on this? Mr. Fabbroni — North is up where the numbers are and right now, at this point in history, it has kind of taken on a secondary growth, but there was a lot of agricultural field back then and, particularly, along the back of the properties that front on Hanshaw Road, there was a sizable open field that is now re- vegetated, but it's less mature than some of the woods that are in the wetland and in the area that is in Phase 1. The Phase 1 area was logged off in the mid - eighties, I want to say to late- eighties, so that's a little bit more of the history. You'll also see a map that shows the water and sewer line and a proposed road at the time that the northeast Sapsucker Woods water tank was built, which is right in the late fifties , so, again, it has some historical background. There is some notion of a road between Sapsucker Woods and Salem Drive as far back as 1960. Currently, the proposal that we're here to see tonight, is a three phase proposal that includes 48 lots. The first phase is the twelve lots that would be an expansion of Birchwood Drive north to a cul -de -sac. The second phase would be in the area south of the wetland and north of the properties that front on Hanshaw Road and with the extension of Birchwood Drive through to Sapsucker Woods Road. That was based on some development conferences that we had with staff and the stated preference by, at least the Engineering and the Highway Department, to have that as a through road. Similarly, we show are road for Phase 3 that goes from Sanctuary through to a long- standing right -of way, the one that I pointed out on some of those old maps, to Salem Drive. That basically came out of our conferences, but it goes back to the history of the water and sewer lines that go across form Salem to Sapsucker. On this map and the colored map that I handed out tonight, you'll see a blue and a chartreuse line. The blue line being the water main that runs in that location, the chartreuse one being the sewer main that runs in that location and it is a pretty cleared and wide right -of -way through the property, for those of you who have walked that area up there. It is used pretty regularly by pedestrians who might take the bus and go from Salem Drive and go to their home along Sanctuary Drive. So, as far as the issues that we've discussed the last time, one of the things that we've gone off and discussed was with Cornell, there is another map I handed out that sort of shows the existing homes and the road layouts in the general area. We discussed with Cornell swapping the lands, generally in the vicinity south of the Sanctuary Woods for lands that were west of Winston Court, just south of the commercial activity that is in the Village of Lansing, which some thought of 24 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 developing another access out of Winston Court to the north about all I can say tonight and I think Tom, somewhere in the audience, that didn't really bear any fruit. We sort of ran into the fact that there are many accounts and enterprises at Cornell and so the Cornell Real Estate Enterprises are not in a position to leverage and help the Sanctuary Wood's needs for land and so, you have to almost keep them as separate entities if — to put it another way, if the Sanctuary Woods was interested in those estate lots, they would be available, but it is nothing that Cornell Real Estate can trade with other lands that they own. So we did make that attempt, that was some reaction to your suggestion to look into how we could involve Cornell, how it might relate to the Taryton Road Park. You may remember some of those discussions and we made that effort. More to the point that we think we've addressed successfully, it was protection of the wetlands. You have in you packets, I believe a full wetland delineation of the entire remaining lands of Mr. Lucente, including the wetland that was of most interest between Phases 1 and 2. We've delineated the rest of the wetland on all of the property in some attempt to develop a master plan for the entire property. Basically, I have to speak to some of the points that were made. The past delineation that was made, there was some mention on the back end of these lots, it's all been protected, the back 37.5 feet of the lots that were supposed to be protected is still fully protected and the work was all commenced within five years, so there's no question on the past actively, it has nothing to do with really our proposal, but it was an item of discussion that came up the last time. This revised plan makes that lots shorter, for lack of a better description and creates more buffer area around this wetland in particular. One thing that didn't show up on your black and white master plan and which we intend to take the back 30 feet off of these two lots at the end of the cul -de -sac to increase the buffer are. I left it sort of distinguished as a strip on the color map that I handed out tonight, but we intend that 30 feet to become part of the buffer area and no longer be part of the lots. As far as park land goes, the intention is to dedicate this wetland in the buffer area to somebody. If that's the preference of the Town to be the Town, that's our intention, if it's the intention to be some other agency, if that's your preference, the Nature Conservancy, the Finger Lakes Trust, the Sapsucker Woods Lab of Ornithology, then, I guess all we were trying to say in our cover letter is you tell us and that's what it will be. In addition, we spoke about the last time, expanding Salem Drive Park to the east, rather than making this road through to Sanctuary Drive and that's what we're depicting here, is an addition to the east side of Salem Drive, we are also, in addition, proposing a usable roughly 150 foot addition to the north side of the park and, as a result of the wetlands delineation, we're really suggesting dedicating all of the remainder up to this east -west water and sewer right of way as an addition to the park. So, it's roughly a 3.5 acre addition to Salem Drive Park or, if you count the wetland, a more than doubling of the park. Our intention, in terms of dedication is to dedicate those along with the approval of the master plan and the lots. I don't want it to become a point of difficultly, we intend to give you all that open space. If we can work out a definite definition of the lots in a master plan that we can perceive to get approval for over the next six months, then you can expect those 25 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 dedications to happen within that same timeframe. I don't know that it's an issue, but it seems to cause a little confusion every time we talk about it. We now show an open space that amounts to almost 20 percent of the project, admittedly, some of it is wetland, but it is still 20 percent of the project. We are showing 48 lots on 48 acres, counting the open space and the roadway and all of that, but it is still, in terms of things you might be more familiar with, when you cluster at 3.5 units per acres or something like that, it might give you a little feel for what the density is. The density of this last, roughly 15 percent of the neighborhood is going to be the lowest density that has been developed in the whole entire area from Sapsucker Woods, across Muriel Street, so that should be seen as an improvement and some sensitivity in terms of our changing sensitivities to open space and recreation and just passive environment. That's what it is intended to be, a less dense development that what you've seen. The traffic that I spoke about, these units, in the short term, we are intending to build some one - family homes, believe it or not, but in the long term, I think you need to look at the zoning and what the zoning allows because in Mr. Lucente's fifty years, we've gone from interest rates at as low as they've been this past summer, to as high as 16 and 17 percent. If you are, just looking at your own situation, right now you could buy a lot of house for what you can afford, but if that interest rate goes back up to 8.5 percent, you may need an apartment in your house to be able to afford the same dwelling. Or, let's say you build that house and you re -sell it, some body may convert part of that house just to make their mortgage. I guess that's a way of saying, right now, believe it or not, the remainder of the 26 lots that we got approved in 1987 are going to be single - families and these houses on the first twelve lots are likely to be single - families, but in terms of your deliberation and the traffic that might be generated, I think we need to look at the worst case, which is the fact that they may have, what I call a grandmother or grandfather, I won't be chauvinist, apartment in them. That traffic, when you consider the fact that there is a lot more transit service in the area, I estimate it in the 500 -750 vehicle a day range. To some people, that is a big number, to three different outlets, Sapsucker Woods, Salem Drive, Muriel Street and again, considering the fact the we're growing the neighborhood about 15 percent, it's not a lot of traffic added to the existing traffic load. We would expect to give you some numbers in the next phase of things just to lay that issue to rest and I'm not going to pre -judge the outcome, but being not a stranger to transportation studies, I don't think that it is going to be an issue, really in the end. Sidewalks, you mentioned, I'm not familiar with sidewalks, I do know there's pedestrian — I mean, in terms of you requirements for sidewalks, I can build miles of it if you want . So, you know, it's your judgment. There is a lot of foot - traffic on the roads, observing what goes on in there for the last twenty years. A lot of people just walk up the road to the Sanctuary, a lot of people walk all over the place. The biggest issue I see for pedestrians in the whole neighborhood is that intersection of Salem Drive and North Birchwood. I really feel both for vehicles and for pedestrian safety, it ought to be a three -way stop, and this is all over. It is kind of a contorted through movement for Salem Drive and it is right angle turn and if you go straight on Salem drive, you're on North Birchwood, so it's really kind of 26 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 begging for a three way stop as a simple solution. One day I observed about four teenagers traipsing across the intersection and somebody screaming up Salem Drive, maybe not going 30 miles an hour, going more like forty, they were just sort of clowning around with each other. For vehicles alone, or vehicles coming out on North Birchwood are kind of at a disadvantage the way things are right there. I won't dwell on that, except to say that that would be one of my strong recommendations. As far as traffic calming goes, again, it's something that is your preference. There's a lot of curves in this alignment that would discourage through and fast movement, but if you're into traffic bumps or those sorts of things, say so. I know that if Fred Noteboom was here, he would be sort of pulling in the opposite direction, in terms of being able to maintain those sort of things. Maybe Dan wants to speak to that, but the comment came up and we're kind of ears open to what your preferences are along those lines. I think the final thing is a storm water plan. This overall plan, I can point out that the storm water plan for Phases 1 and 2 are very closely related, just because of the way this property this property drains. I'll show you Phase 1 in a second. Phase 2, though, most of Phase 2, because of a deep ditch that exists in the back or adjacent to the properties that front on Sapsucker Woods Road, most all of the drainage in Phase 2 will come back to this stream and into the wetland. The lay of this land is generally to the north and so, likewise most of the drainage from all of the lots in Phase 2 will come back to the wetland. Out intention, under the new State Regs, is to deal with water quality on the sites themselves, before the water leaves the individual lots by sort of a creative design along the lot lines where you do the quality treatment before it gets into the drainage shed, so to speak, and then the retention that's proposed is just outside of the wetland to build a control structure that would allow the storm water flow to back up and, by flooding the area that's the wetland by two or three inches you can retain an awful lot of water. We've talked about this conceptually. At the point you commit to a basic layout then we can go to the next step and develop the drainage for Dan's review for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 for that area. Part of Phase 1 actually drains to the north and into the wetlands that are more or less along a stream up north and they circle back under a culvert under the utility right -or -way and then into the stream that runs between properties on Salem Drive. Likewise, we would do quality treatment on the sites before it actually leaves and then there is a ditch behind the Phase 1 and south of the Sanctuary Drive subdivision that would lead the water back into the wetland. We have an idea of some combined driveways that would require a nation wide pyramid and at that location, we could retain a lot of water by virtue of those structures and also by working with the culvert that the Town has already put under the utility right -of- way, we would deal with the storm water retention. So, there would be two main areas of storm water retention, the 4.6 acre wetland, as you know it, and the linear area along the wetland to the north. I think, the final point is there was a lot of talk about the neighborhood and the rentals and all of that. I want to say that we spent a lot of time up there this year delineating wetlands and observing the neighborhood and I would invite you all to come here and see what we all remember as a real neighborhood, where kids 27 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 play outside and neighbors get together and have neighborhood events. The fact that they're largely graduate students with familiar who come in for PhD's for four or five years at a time, Birchwood in particular is a real neighborhood, the developer lives in the neighborhood, besides, so he has a vested interest what goes on in the neighborhood. With that, I think I've hit all the points that we talked about the last time. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Larry. Board Member Howe — I just want to clarify, I think you said that for Phase 1 you said you see those all as being single family homes? Mr. Fabbroni — I'm saying, our intention right now is to build single - family homes, but my point was that the market can change and if the interest rate jumps back up to 8.5 in a hurry, people wouldn't be affording $200,000 homes the way they are at 5.5 or 6 percent. Board Member Howe — What's the time frame for building on the lots? Is there an open time frame? Mr. Fabbroni — Well, pretty much, our intention now with this development is pretty much Mr. Lucente will be building on these twelve lots and the other lots in the Phase 2 and 3 that will be coming through will largely be sold. So, that if you want to build a house, you can buy a lot and build your own house. That is kind of difficult for us to project anything other than a two - family where there is going to be a sale of lots. The zoning allows that and the density is about half of what the density in a whole neighborhood has been. The honest answer to your question is we wouldn't require, we want to be able to do what zoning allows us to do. Board Member Conneman — Would you build on those twelve lots next year? Mr. Fabbroni — Right now, the last two lots in this phase will probably be the next two lots built and then, George, we've been building at two a year for the last ten years, so that's basically the program that I would lay out to you. Board Member Conneman — Let me ask the question to you the question I a different way, the houses that you build two a year, are those $200,000 houses? Mr. Fabbroni — Yeah. And they'll probably be single - families as we see them right now, but we wouldn't want to be held to that, for the reasons I've said to you, particularly if someone buys a single family and they have no recourse but to try and develop a $500 or $600 rental apartment to carry the mortgage. Chairperson Wilcox — Current zoning does allow an accessory apartment. 28 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed that there was a letter waiting for us here from the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Mr. Fabbroni — I haven't seen it. Board Member Hoffmann — So, you haven't it. Would you like to see my copy? Mr. Fabbroni —Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — This appears to be different from your understanding. Mr. Fabbroni — For one thing, we only offered one triangle to them at the time and there seemed to be some discussion from the Board about adding buffer to the wetland and expanding the Salem Drive part, so that is what we've brought back to you. In the process, we've also delineated all of the wetlands and so, in particular- Board Member Hoffmann — Do you know which lots this letter is talking about. Mr. Fabbroni — The area that they are talking about, there was a triangle here that we originally talked to them about dedicating and they said they were interested in. We then completed the delineation and found that all of this land is useable land, basically, it's outside of the wetland. It is very accessible to water and sewer utilities, so we made an estate lot out of that area that they are talking about. The other tow lots were shown as a concept for Phases 2 and 3, but we never discussed that, so whether they misunderstood the map or not. The earlier master plan you saw, you'll see there are three parcels labeled 1, 2, 3, the only one we ever discussed with them was 1 at the time. Board Member Hoffmann — So, this letter, just to explain what it is about, it indicates that the Lab of Ornithology would will to accept some land from Mr. Lucente. Mr. Fabbroni — I don't know if they are aware with our discussion with the Real Estate Department, I assume that they are, where we offered to trade a lot more land. Basically, all the land that you see as the five estate lots and then some. I kind of feel that it is up to Cornell University to work their own act out if that's what they want. What we are presenting to you is a much less dense proposal where you'd have a roughly 1.5 acre lot that you'd build one home on with a driveway to it and it would be pretty low impact. If the Lab of Ornithology is interested in that land, they can always purchase those five lots as an alternative. Board Member Hoffmann — Are those the lots that you have described as estate lots? 29 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you explain a little bit more why they are different and why they are called estate lots? Mr. Fabbroni — Because they are much larger than any of the other lots. The name is just our phraseology? Board Member Conneman — Would you build one house on that? Mr. Fabbroni — That is correct. Board Member Conneman —Are they wetter also? Mr. Fabbroni — Look at the map and you'll see where the wetlands are. Part of the reason is that part of the lots would be wetland, but the majority of the useable land is not wetland, if you look at that map. The useable land is much larger that a 15,000 square foot lot, I'll tell you, it is 2.5 times larger. The thought was, how could we utilize the utilities that were there and the planning that has gone on and sort of assert our right to use the land and still recognize the sensitivity and the impacts that developing adjacent to the Lab of Ornithology might involve and so that was the thinking, Eva, on larger lots, the Phraseology is just ours. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Well, to go back to this letter, it was addressed to us from the Laboratory of Ornithology to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. We got information from you that they were not interested. It's obviously not up to us to try to deal with what's between you and Cornell University. Mr. Fabbroni — You're confusing the two things. They're speaking of the earlier master plan that we presented. Chairperson Wilcox — Don't say they're, give us a noun, not a pronoun. The Lab of Ornithology. Mr. Fabbroni — Ron Rorbach and Scott Scutcliff are confusing the earlier mater plan that we discussed in January with the lands that we discussed with the Real Estate people for trade. One has nothing to do with the other. I'm sorry that I don't have that earlier master plan with me, I don't think. If you keep talking, might be able to find it in my folder. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess what I would like to say is that I wish that you would do something to bring something to us that makes sense. If you don't know if, you said you are assuming that the Cornell Real Estate Department has 30 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 talked to the Lab of Ornithology people, I wouldn't make the assumption necessarily, I would try to find out if they had and I would try to talk to both of them if I were in your place. Mr. Fabbroni — Could I ask you why? Because Cornell Real Estate deals with every piece of property, the problem is that there accounts don't deal with each other. Cornell Real Estate would be the entity that would accept any property for anybody in the University. Their accounts, their enterprises don't merge or meld with each other. The problem is that we went to Cornell Real Estate because they're the central command so to speak. Board Member Hoffmann — Whatever, it's just not something we should have to discuss here, it should be something that you work out and bring to us. Either they don't want it or they want it and that's it. Mr. Fabbroni — They don't want all the land, Eva, that's what I am trying to say. The three pieces of land, that they are talking about, we didn't offer to them, number one and they are not the land that we- we spoke about a lot larger area if they were interested in controlling the land adjacent to the laboratory. All the land that is shown as the estate lots, plus the wet land that is north of Salem Drive Park, plus some of the area that the lots take up we offered as trade and the answer from Cornell Real Estate was that they couldn't trade because their enterprise, as it relates to lands that are in the name of Cornell University as well, has nothing to do with the Lab of Ornithology. It's all about money internal to Cornell and at that point, how do we deal with money internal to Cornell is what I am asking. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know, but I wish this hadn't come to us and in this Board. Let me ask you something else. There was a study of the bird populations on part of this land on 24 of the 48 areas, only the southern part, why did it not include the northern part, the entire parcel? Mr. Fabbroni — Well, that's where we started the study, number one, back in the winter, as our thinking to sell the lots, rather than develop them all ourselves changed. We didn't have the full 3/4 of the year. However, I will tell you that, what's not said in the report, we have independent evidence from people at the Lab of Ornithology themselves that they haven't seen these hawks for, in some cases, some of them, for four years. The other thing that I failed to mention is that the unique natural area, I spoke to Bob Wessly and he told me had he had the aerial photos when he did read the lineation in 1999, that showed Sanctuary Drive there, that the unique natural area would never have extended south of that subdivision because he was working from 1991 aerial photos. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, we have that information in the papers we have. still didn't understand why the northern part of the 48 acres parcel, which is closer to Sapsucker Woods was not included in this study of birds because it 31 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 would seem more likely that birds would be there than in the southern part. I'm not sure that the answer you gave me is satisfactory. Mr. Fabbroni — I guess it's better to say what was than to try and re -state that. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, why was the study done on the southern most 24 acres? Mr. Fabbroni — The Study? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, the one that Eva referred to with regard to the bird counts? Mr. Fabbroni — Well, the bird counts because of how it related to the UNA, we felt that the UNA was misclassified in that area and that is why we stared out centering our study there and we did the winter inventory of nesting areas as far back as March of this year. To be a thorough bird study, we felt that we had to observe at different times of the year because there are migratory patterns and there are other things that go on. We were faced with , I guess I don't know if it is the right word, disproving the UNA Classifications. Chairperson Wilcox — Stop being defensive, just answer the question because I am trying to understand. Was the intent to do the entire parcel, all 48 acres at some point? Mr. Fabbroni — If you see it as necessary, we — Chairperson Wilcox — Was the intent to do it? Just answer the question, Larry. Don't get defensive. Was the intent to do all 48 originally? Mr. Fabbroni — No because we presented these estate lots, which we feel would address the issue we're bringing up. Chairperson Wilcox — So, the southern 24 acres was chosen because that was the general area of the UNA? Mr. Fabbroni — That's where the UNA was extended to and we felt was an error and Bob verified that as far back as February to us. Chairperson Wilcox — Does that answer your question? Now you know why the southern 24 acres were done. Board Member Hoffmann — I have to accept the explanation I got even though it doesn't quite make sense. 32 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Sure it makes sense. If the issue is that the developer is unhappy with or thinks that the UNA boundary is incorrect or should be modified, then the only way to achieve that is to go out into the field and say the reason for delineating this UNA was the presence of this certain object, or tree, or bird, or whatever, you go out and survey it and either disprove or prove that it is true. Mr. Fabbroni — (Inaudible speaking away from the microphone) Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — Someone else can ask questions for a while, let me look at what else I have here. Board Member Howe — I'm just curious, what is typical in terms of the management of this wetland area and who would be a likely candidate for taking that over and managing it in the Town. Mr. Kanter — It would be a new thing for the Town to do. I think we would certainly have to ask the Town Board what their thoughts on it were. I almost think that something that all of us would need to talk about. Board Member Howe — So, it's atypical then, is my interpretation? Mr. Kanter — It's new. Chairperson Wilcox — And we have no idea whether the Town would be interested in acquiring that parcel because usually the developer retains it . Mr. Barney — I think the question is whether the Town feels it has the capability to manage this or whether some other entity would be more capable or even more interested. Mr. Kanter — I think that there is no question that reserving it as open space or permanently preserving it is an excellent idea, but there are probably other ways of doing it. You could have conservation easements, homeowner's association. would be better to have it as one piece of land as opposed to cut up and part of the back. That would be very difficult. Chairperson Wilcox — To ensure protection? Mr. Kanter —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Sidewalks? Board Member Thayer — Sidewalk Policy, it was neat to see that. 33 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, it was. We've been discussing it with regard to another major proposed subdivision. Board Member Thayer — How do you feel about it with regard to this particular project? Chairperson Wilcox — I would have to see a little bit more information, but, boy this just sounds like the area that the sidewalk policy was intended for. Maybe not that other proposed subdivision that we've been looking at, maybe, maybe not. That one I think is much more debatable, but here, we have to go back and look at the actual resolution and make sure that it does fit that, that you can't terminate them, you have to be able to walk to public transportation areas, it have to be sufficient traffic, whatever, but it just seems like this is the are where the sidewalk is important and necessary. They come with a price though. They can be a wonderful amenity in the appropriate areas. In the more rural areas of the Town, I think they make them less rural looking, but this is not a more rural area. This is a pretty dense area with pretty intense development. Board Member Hoffmann — And we've heard both from Mr. Fabbroni today and from residents in that area when we had the Public Hearing last time that there are a lot of people with young children and things there who use those roads. Chairperson Wilcox — We had a Public Hearing last time? We had a sketch plan review, that's right. Board Member Howe — I think the only question is does the existing development here patch in. Chairperson Wilcox — Potentially we could have sidewalks dead - ending and that's not good and that's something that will have to be looked at. Certainly the applicant will have to look at . Efficiently and safely moving people around the development. Board Member Hoffmann — But, I think especially where there are these roads that are proposed to extend. For instance Birchwood Drive on the south, it is supposed to be extended to go all the way to Sapsucker Woods Road and that is likely to be through traffic and that would be very important to have sidewalks in that area. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry are you going to act as the traffic engineer or is Mr. Lucente going to hire someone? Mr. Fabbroni — I will be the traffic engineer, I have a Master's in transportation engineering. 34 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — I think the impact of full build out on the existing residential area will be important to see. Not just Phase 1, but let's get Phase 1, 2 and 3 done, all as part of this. Board Member Hoffmann- Yes, and there has to be some sort of setting up about when the various open space lands and the park area are added and finished. Chairperson Wilcox — And dedicated. Larry knows we like to get them as soon as we can. Mr. Fabbroni - What I was trying to say is if you feel comfortable about the over all layout, then that answer will come along very quickly. We'd like to know we have an overall plan that we can move ahead and act on. Board Member Hoffmann — I still feel a little uncertain about these estate lots and how that's going to work because it seems that access to them will have to be across wetlands. At least to the ones that are closest to the northwestern corner of this land. Mr. Fabbroni — That's the point at which we would do the storm water retention and combine a dry -way crossing with storm water retention and I guess the only thing I can say is that particular wetland is the result of a stream running through the area because you can kind of see from the linear nature of it. Yes, it's a wetland, but it's a drainage way. Board Member Conneman — Larry, this is going to be a stupid question, let me go back, you offered to trade, but did anybody offer to sell? In other words, did you approach the Ornithology Lab and say "Look, we've got "x" many acres out there, and we could build homes on them, which would encroach on you, would you like to buy them ?" I understand what you said about Cornell Real Estate, but trade says you want to take these and trade them for "x" many acres equivalent on campus, that's ridiculous; they're not going to do that. The Ornithology Lab is part of Cornell, but it is also separate. Mr. Fabbroni — We can go with this plot, if it answers you question and Eva's earlier. If you feel it is more forthright to do it directly — Board Member Conneman — I don't know, I don't really understand Cornell University myself, as you already know. It seems to me that that is encroaching not only on some wetlands, but also on Sapsucker Woods and somebody, I would think would look at that and would say that area should be part of the bird sanctuary. Mr. Fabbroni — They've been interested in that land for 20 years. It's understood that the money that it would take to purchase it has been the main obstacle. 35 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Board Member Conneman — "They" being the bird sanctuary? Mr. Fabbroni — Excuse me, yes, and the fact that Cornell's billion dollar Real Estate Department can't help out the Lab of Ornithology to that end is what I was saying earlier. How do we inject ourselves into that dilemma? Board Member Conneman — All I can say is have you been up to the new Ornithology Lab? That's a big bird. Maybe they have a donor who would be willing to make a deal with you. Trading with the Real Estate Department would be like trading with Sadam Hussein. But there is an opportunity to sell or donate or make a deal on it or something, but it seems to me that building the estate lots on — you say wetlands, I say wetland, which is different, /there is a difference. Those soils are wet, as wet as you can get. Mr. Fabbroni — There is a pine forest up in there, there is upland hard woods. Board Member Conneman — There is always little pieces of everything. Mr. Fabbroni — I would be happy to take you on a walk. Board Member Conneman — I've walked over all that stuff my whole life. I say why don't you approach the Ornithology Lab directly and ask the question? No one has asked the question. No one has asked that question. You asked to trade. Mr. Fabbroni — We can go ask them that question directly before we come back here. Board Member Conneman — I would be pleased if you did. Chairperson Wilcox — Overall comments on the general plan as laid out? Are we comfortable with what's being proposed in terms of the laid out of the lots and the woods with specifics to come? They're big lots and I have not walked that area, so I don't know it. They're big lots, but it's almost like they're trying to squeeze a couple extra lots out of that wetland. Yes, the lots are certainly bigger in the development then what is called for by the zoning. I don't mid developers coming in and trying to maximize the number of lots and our job is to push back and say "no ". There's some land that shouldn't be developed and there is some land that is more difficult to develop and you potentially have to make the lots bigger. Boy, I'd love to see those lots either not built upon or deed restrictions put upon them so that they always remain open or that the Lab or Ornithology finds a donor or start a fund raiser. They raised how many millions to build that place? Seven million? I don't know what theses lots will go for, but they're so wet, they can't be worth much. No, I'm being facetious Larry. Overall, the proposed layout of the roads and the lots, subject to whatever changes we make later, depending upon 36 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 the various circumstances that may or may not arise, I am comfortable. We like sidewalks, if appropriate and if they're consistent with the new Town policy. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to see more information about traffic flows. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, absolutely, traffic is going to be important. Larry, I'm not going to sit here and as a member of this Planning Board, I'm not going to tell you about which traffic calming to use or whether to use traffic calming or not, that's up to you, your expertise, the Town Engineer's expertise to come up with a plan which you think is reasonable and which you think we will accept. You know the drill. We will see the traffic, you'll see the traffic report and we'll know if maybe some traffic calming measures are necessary here. We don't have a lot of them in the Town. I am hard - pressed to think of where we have used traffic - claming measures, at least this Board. I think that would be the Town Board's prerogative almost , to do traffic calming. Ms. Ritter — Even narrow roads are considered, to some extent, traffic calming. Mr. Kanter — That's right, we might want to get input from Fred Noteboom about the possibility of somewhat narrower roads than we might normally allow. Chairperson Wilcox — For example. But speed bumps are a problem because of snow plows. Mr. Walker — We're not in Florida. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Larry, anything else you need this evening? Mr. Fabbroni — I guess we're wondering, realizing we come back with the answers to these questions, which I don't find over - whelming, when we can proceed into the Phase 1 approval, pretty much had plans, other than the storm water issues that we have. I get the sense tonight, I think the key on the storm water issues because the lot layouts, at least for 1 and 2 aren't big issue, not committing you to approval of them, but they are sort of key to the plan that is developed. Chairperson Wilcox — I see, Larry that you are going to come back with all of the required and necessary materials to do an Environmental Review that address the issues that we've spoke about on the entire 48 acre parcel. Ms. Ritter — That's right and we've received legal counsel tonight that this is a Type 1 Action for the 48 lots. Mr. Fabbroni — So, we want to work through that as an approval of the overall master plan. 37 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Or we may do the Environmental Review on the entire parcel, but we may only approve — Mr. Kanter — You can do a phased approval. Chairperson Wilcox — We can do phased approvals too. Mr. Fabbroni — I understand that. Chairperson Wilcox — But we will do the Environmental Review on the entire parcel. Mr. Kanter — Fred, back on the traffic study, I guess we're saying we want a traffic study, I think one important thing would be to look at those new proposed access connections to Sapsucker Woods Road and Salem Drive to see what type of distribution of traffic there would be, what type of flow there would be going from the development to those. Chairperson Wilcox — Into the existing street network? Mr. Kanter — Yep. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, absolutely. Mr. Kanter — Especially since those are new connections, to see how that is going to really work. Mr. Fabbroni — Well, you'll get that because we'll wind up doing an intersection study at the three main intersections. You'll learn a lot about people's travel desires, particularly from the turning movements at the existing Salem Drive and Hanshaw, and Muriel Street and Hanshaw. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else you need from us Larry, this evening? Mr. Fabbroni — I think we're all set. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else we need to say or provide at this point? Board Member Hoffmann — Just, look seriously again at those lots close to the Sapsucker Woods area and try to some up with something that spares the wetlands. Even if you say that it is really as stream or whatever, they have been delineated as wetlands and we feel wetlands are important. 38 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Fabbroni — I hear you and I heard all of you, we feel like we cut back considerably from the earlier mast plan. We cut back from about 20 lots to five, so, I mean, that's some of your pushing back and, you know, without waiting for you to push back, we didn't show a horse shoe road up in there with all kinds of lots off of it. Chairperson Wilcox — You knew that wouldn't fly. Board Member Conneman — We wouldn't have approved that. Mr. Kanter — One suggestion would be, as an alternate, if those lots are going to be kept in that configuration for purposes of the master plan and the environmental analysis, to do some preliminary work on how the driveways would cross the wetlands and what that would mean, at least for the Board's — Chairperson Wilcox — As part of the Environmental Review. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, for the Board's information so that you can make some judgments about it. Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely. That may solve our problem to some extent or at least mitigate the issues that we are having. Mr. Fabbroni — The intention is that at the narrowest point, that you see here. Mr. Barney — I don't see a narrow point on this second estate lot in there. Mr. Fabbroni — There would be two driveways only to the four lots. Mr. Barney — I see, so they are common drives. Mr. Fabbroni — So, you can see where there's be one on the western most and then there'd be one on sort of the boundary line of the two eastern most, would be the two locations that I can develop more detail for you. Inaudible voice from the audience. Chairperson Wilcox — Were you here earlier this evening? Did you hear what I said? Would you like me to repeat it? It is generally the practice of this Board to allow the public to speak at sketch plan reviews, which is an opportunity for the public to listen. The Public Hearing is the opportunity for the Board to listen and the public to speak. We still have one more somewhat controversial sketch plan to get through tonight and we try not to work past ten o'clock. Before any approvals are done, preliminary site plan approval or preliminary subdivision approval or whatever, a public hearing will be held and every member who wishes to address the Planning Board will have that opportunity and it will be 39 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 advertised and we will listen to what you have to say. I wish we could do it this evening, but I have a responsibility to both the public and to the applicants. Larry, all set? Thank you very much. ADENGA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed residential development, Overlook at West Hill, located at 1290 Trumansburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -4- 14.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes subdivision of the 48 +/- acre parcel into 27 lots, including a 5 +/- acre parcel for the existing medical practice, one 24 +/- acre parcel for a 128 -unit multiple family community in 16 buildings and a community center, and 25 parcels for single family residences. The proposal also includes rezoning of the 24 +/- acre parcel from Residence District R -15 to Multiple Residence District. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Aris Investments, Applicant; Grace Chiang, AIA, HOLT Architects, P.C. and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, Agents Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Sense from the Board, could we go until about 10:15 p.m., maybe a little longer? Mr. Barney — Then we have an hour long executive session item. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right, we have the little executive session. Okay, we'll see. We have to get to that, you're right. Chris Papamichael, Aris Investments- I want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present to you our site plan for the Overlook at West Hill. In this development, our goal is to reach a wide range of income levels in order to create a diverse residential community that is the representative cross session of the residents of the Town Ithaca. To achieve this goal, our proposal consists of 128 rental apartments, targeted for low to moderate income families and 25 market rate for sale homes, which will target a higher income bracket. My firm, Aris Investments is a New York based, family -owned real estate firm. We've been involved in the ownership and operation of apartments for over 30 years. We've been involved here in the Ithaca market for over two and a half years and the Overlook Development is a direct response to what we have witnessed as owners here in the Ithaca market. We made the decision to enter the Ithaca market after going forward with the acquisition and re- development of the complex of 111 units, known as the Meadows Town Homes. In our two and a half years and management of this complex, we've noticed a huge void of quality affordable housing in the community. In our own statistics, roughly 70 percent of the prospects who call for our property could not afford the market rate housing opportunities available in the Ithaca area. There are some statistics that I would like to share with you that are generated from our third party market study. Less than 50 percent of the households in the Town of Ithaca own their own home. Of 40 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 the renter households, more than 50 percent pay more than 30 percent of their income towards rent and more than 23 percent pay more than 50 percent of their income towards rent. Applying this generally accepted standard of a household to pay no more than 30 percent of their income towards rent, this data points to a severe housing affordability problem in the Town of Ithaca. Even when excluding the existing housing affordable developments in the community, the 128 units proposed will only satisfy 11 percent of the total demand for affordable housing in the target area. The proposal study also estimates that, depending on the income bracket, between 20 to 30 percent of the existing renter pool would qualify to live in this development. Now, we are aware that affordable housing can bring certain stigmas with it. Stigmas created by developments in contrast to what we are proposing here tonight. In our early conversations with the Town, they made it very clear to us that quality development with diverse income is paramount to any development that they will approve and the Overlook is specifically created to meet these goals. In order to assure the highest quality product, we have pulled together a team of leading professionals, community planning, designing, finance and management teams. Now, I will briefly walk you through the results of this collaboration. Firstly, this development is made possible through the use of the low income housing tax credit program. This tax credit program requires that the rents are set for individuals earning no more than 60 percent of the area median income. In Tompkins County, the area median income is $55,000. In an effort to create a more diverse income mix, we further skewed the rents below the 60 percent level to also cater to residents earning 50 and 30 percent of the area median income, specifically, 50 percent of the units will be met for the 60 percent AMI level, 35 percent at the 50 percent level and 15 percent at the 30 percent level, this will allow for rents from anywhere at the low end of 68 percent below market rents to at the higher end, roughly 25 percent below market rents. We also plan to, in our DACR application, commit to a 50 year affordability period versus the 15 year, which is required by the DACR and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. I'd also like to add that there is no financial incentive or additional subsidy given under this program to account for the loss of rent that we would incur by further skewing these rents below the 60 percent level. In addition to the 128 units proposed in the first phase, we also plan to build a community center, which would house a management office, classrooms, computer center, gym and a community room. This center will be for the use of all the residents of the first phase. The second phase, as I mentioned, will include 25 for sale market rate homes, while of course, it is too early yet to determine pricing of these homes, we feel that we will target first time homebuyers in this phase. One member of our development team is Related Capital. Related is the largest owner of apartment complexes in the county. They have a portfolio of roughly 270,000 apartments and 70 percent of which are affordable. Of course they bring the experience and the financial capacity necessary to make this development a reality. They've already committed to 100 percent of the debt in equity for this transaction. Related Capital also asset manages each property in its portfolio and, despite its size, they've never lost a property to foreclosure. 41 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Another very important aspect of this development or any affordable housing development is the day to day management. For this we've chosen a firm known as Wind Residential. They also are a national leading management firm with 50,000 units in their portfolio, 14,000 of which are affordable. They have a talent of bringing together local service providers to tailor a program that will best meet the needs of the West Hill residents. They've also developed many highly successful programs that promote a sense of community and good will among the developments. For example, one of these programs is "Kids First ", which provides a supervised atmosphere for after school and summer children's programs. As we mentioned, we plan to develop a high - quality project that compliments the neighborhood. In order to do so, we've engaged the services of HOLT as architects, Trowbridge and Wolf as landscape architects, and T.G. Miller as civil engineers. We feel that they've developed a strong reputation in the community to deliver quality. Also, our co- general partner on the transaction is Ithaca Neighborhood Housing. Ithaca Neighborhood Housing has a 25 year track record in the Ithaca market for making affordable housing possible for thousands of Ithaca residents. At this time, I'd like to hand over the floor to Paul Mazzarella, who is Executive Director of Ithaca Neighborhood Housing. Paul Mazzarella, 115 West Clinton Street — Good evening. I'd like to talk just a little bit about the need for this housing. Our perspective is that the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County is a fairly unique housing market in upstate New York. It is unique because this is an area where the population is continuing to grow as opposed to a lot of the urban areas and even the rural counties, which are losing population. It is also an area where, even faster than the population growth, we've seen a growth of households. So, for example, in Tompkins County from 1990 to 2000, our population grew by about 2400 people or 2.6 percent. However, the number of households grew by about nine percent during that same period and what we are seeing is that that growth is even accelerated today. That's putting a tremendous amount or pressure on lower- income households that are looking for affordable housing. In truth, I think this is a persistent and severe problem that's growing worse and worse as time goes by because the supply of affordable housing simply isn't keeping pace with the demand that is being created by new households. We are very much in support of this project because we believe that it will be a major step towards providing more affordable rental housing for people with modest incomes here in Tompkins County. Our interest in this project goes beyond simply the professional interest of seeing this kind of housing built. We are hoping to become a permanent owner of this project at the end of the 15 year tax credit period and we're proposing to buy the property and hold it in the INHS portfolio in perpetuity and maintain it as affordable housing. Right now we own about 120 units of scattered site affordable housing in the community. We think there is a need for a lot more and 42 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 we are very much in favor of this project being build and we are very much in favor of us becoming a partner so that we can purchase the property. I'd like to maybe jump ahead and address just a couple of the issues that have been raised about this in pervious discussions. One question that has come up at the Town Board meetings is does the location of this project represent a concentration of affordable housing or low income housing within this immediate area? I'm sure you are all familiar with the Linderman Creek Project, which is also in the Town of Ithaca and is a similar and recently build project. If you could refer to this map over here at the far left, that shows all of the affordable housing in the Ithaca urban area and unfortunately, it is all concentrated in the Ithaca urban area, which the exception of several projects. This is a little bit misleading because the three projects that are not in the Ithaca urban area are represented as numbers with little arrows that are pointing towards Trumansburg, Newfield and Caroline, which are the locations of the only other three existing affordable housing developments. But what we have currently in Tompkins County is a number of different developments that represent a total of about 1200 affordable units. The vast majority of those units are located in the City of Ithaca right now, almost 700. There are about 320 in the Town of Ithaca and they are spread around fairly distant from each other. I do not believe, personally, that the addition of this project at the site that is proposed is going to represent a concentration that is going to have negative impacts within the community. In fact, I think that a lot of the demand that exists for affordable housing is within the population that resides in the Ithaca urban area and this is going to be a very good location in that it is close to services, it's on a bus line and it can serve the needs of the residents who live and work in this area today. A second issue that has come up is, will this adversely impact the schools? I've done some research into what happens with low income housing in general and the existing low income housing in this area, in particular, how if affects the schools. First thing I want to note is that nationally, apartments have much lower incidents of children then do single family homes. So, when you are looking at development, single family or duplex developments tend to have a lot more children. For every hundred units of single and duplex, there are 64 children. As opposed to that in apartments nationally, there are only 21 children for every 100 apartments. Now, to be clear about this, that includes all different kinds of apartments, including senior. So I looked into the local situation and tried to determine what the demand is going to be created. I looked very closely at Linderman Creek and the properties owned by Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services mostly because I can get very good data from those two projects and what I found is that in the one, two and three bedroom units in all those properties, there were an average of about less than one child per unit. Based on what I have learned from that experience, I am estimating that in this project, there will be approximately 90 children living in the 128 units. Not all of those children will be school -aged however. Some of them will be preschool -aged. I am estimating that there will be about 34 children attending Enfield Elementary School, 17 at Dewitt Middle School and 27 in the Ithaca High School. There is 43 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 one big assumption here, that I have to acknowledge and that is that we don't know exactly what the distribution of these children across the age groups are, so I made the assumption that they would be evenly distributed across all ages. I did talk to several officials in the Ithaca School District about this, about these estimates and they thought they were reasonable and they also informed me that they think Enfield Elementary School and DeWitt can both handle this number of children or even a little bit more without any undue pressure on the school system. There is also a pretty clear acknowledgement that many of the children who will live in Overlook are actually already living in this area and attending schools and so, for those children, there will be a neutral impact on the school system. I know you are going to want to look into this a lot more and you can do more research, but I thought that early we should address some of these issues. Thank you for your attention, I'd like to now turn the mike over to Peter Trowbridge who will talk about the site. Peter Trowbridge, 1345 Mecklenburg Road — There are five points that I would like to make briefly this evening to give the Board a broad over view of the project. The first is to look at conformance to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning. The second is to look at the site plan development strategy. The third is to take you through the elements of the site plan. The fourth is to describe the current architecture of the buildings and the quality of materials. The fifth, which is rather critical this evening, is a timeline, a projected path of decisions between now and March that we are hoping to make and target dates. And finally, I would like to just summarize both concluded and on -going studies that we're undertaking that include archeology, traffic and SPEDES permits. We have concluded the traffic analysis so that we have moved ahead in a number of the areas looking at both the environmental impacts and how they might be mitigated. The first thing is to give you an orientation. I'm everyone knows where the site is. There was a critical decision made early on that this project would have a traffic intersection that aligns with Cayuga Medical Center. As you know, that is a signal light intersection and we did design that intersection (inaudible) We have also done an extensive traffic analysis for our master plan that we are engaging HOLT Architects for Cayuga Medical Center. So, their view has been very drawn. One other aspect of the traffic study, at the time they factored in additional background trips that included mutual housing and we may have to look at that. For the overview, the site is good. The primary entrance, as I said, is right across from Cayuga Medical Center. The project is downward on the north and west side. There are a couple of water line easements, one coming from Trumansburg Road, one going out and to the south and east. The primary plan was to create a project that had high quality affordable units that related to large, open space so we really treated the project in many ways like a cluster development taking the number of units that might otherwise be attributed to a site like this in an R -15 44 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Zone, limit ourselves to that number of units and distribute them in a way that would provide the kind of qualities that I think you are looking for in the Comprehensive Plan to try to tailor the site then for the kind of goals of balancing open space in neighborhoods and avoiding sprawl. Also, I know I'm not telling you anything, you should know from your Comprehensive Plan and from review of reconsideration of zoning that medium and high density housing is being considered in the hospital and Trumansburg corridor and so this project is consistent with the underlying plan for the area. Before we go on with the details, I wanted to give you a broad overview of what our intentions are. There are three primary phases on a parcel. One is a five acre parcel that will remain as the Kyong house and barn complex. There is a little less, roughly 24 acre area that is now R -15 at the center of the site and that will be the location of the 128 unit, sixteen building of housing one building that is the community center. The remaining 19 acres would be market -rate single - family homes that would remain in the R -15 Zone and be able to act, in a way, as a transition zone between the multi - family housing and the preexisting single - family homes on both Hopkins and Hayts. The second thing I would like to cover then is the concept. What we have tried to do is we set aside 13 acres in this area of 24 acres as open space. Some of that set aside is seen as community green space, right near the entrance of the project and hopefully, with that location, we will attract people from outside of this development to use that green space so it will become really public park space, even though it wouldn't be dedicated as public park space. We're working with TCAT, right now TCAT is thinking that they might want to have bus stops on Trumansburg Road, but they are still open to ideas and we are working with them and the Town to bring public transportation into the site. We've provided for bus turn around and drop off. We've talked to Brian Wilbur relative to fire and he is very happy with the arrangement of this project, even without the (inaudible) One thing about this kind of development, as you can imagine, as compared to a study we did. If we compare what we are looking at here with what is possible under an R -15 zone, if you take roughly the same number of units, but, rather than single - family homes with driveways and more impervious surface, what we get is more open space. (inaudible) Between parking and the door, all the gradings are five percent or less so that we made sure that parking, walkways and entrances are all ADA compliant. So half of the units in this project, on the first floor, are ADA compliant. I'm just going on a little bit to building. I'll turn back to the site plan. This is the configuration, there are four units on two level, so there are stacked units, eight units to a building. Depending on the configuration of one, two and three bedrooms, the interior walls are adjusted to make that curve. This is the housing 45 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 type that HOLT Architects has put together. In the design for the building and the goal of our team was to create a quality project that was also consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. So, I know that design team, both Grace Chiang and Miles were looking at surrounding farm houses, doing a number of things, considering roof lines, gables, porches, exterior color, architectural material, type of clapboard and shingles. We've tried to come up with the homes that really appear to be consistent with the surrounding architecture. This is the balcony and porch side that faces the green space. We tried to create views from people's porches into the small quad areas. Each unit has a private door, it gives a level a privacy. There is no shared entrances and our intention there, again, is to provide individual identity. At there same time, having buildings grouped together to provide a good sense of community. One of the last things that I would like to cover with you and this is rather critical for us right now in this schedule. We have provided a draft LEAF to staff. We will make a final LEAF with our next submission which we are hoping to provide to the Board. We will be turning that in next Friday. One thing that we would like to point out this evening when you consider your lead agency status because we hope to work with the Board to address all of the environmental concerns that you have. We will address them through the LEAF process with mitigating measures. We did have one workshop out at the hospital a month ago, we are planning another one. In addition to the normal review process that you have through site plan review, the zoning and subdivision, we are providing an additional layer of public review and participation in the process to make sure that the Environmental Review process is as inclusive as it can be. One issue, however, is that we would that we wouldn't have to go through the DEIS process. One thing that is important about out timeline between now and March is that the DHCR application is due in March and so we're looking at over the next four months to come to the decision for site plan approval at a meeting in February. Having said that, just a few other issues as I mentioned earlier on, we have complete a 1A archeological study. We are now doing the 1 B archeological study, completed traffic. T.G. Millers is looking at water quality issues. We do have and are proposing a water quality basin at the entrance to the project site, which we are now looking at as a shallow wetland area and the second water quality basin is close to the green space as well. I think that has probably covered most of the issues and I would like to turn it back to Chris for a couple minutes to talk about some other issues of ownership conversion and summary. Mr. Papamichael — Thank you Peter. INHS and Aris are still in negotiation and talk about what will happen with the property at the end of the 15 year period. Either way, the property will be help in the affordability status for a period of 50 years. I would also like to reiterate what Peter said that we will continue to hold as we have held in the past, public workshops. Before the next such meeting, we will notify local neighbors, employers and organizations in order to walk them through the development process and some of their concerns. The site plan approval is a very critical piece of the DHCR application process and we hope to 46 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 have that by the March deadline. We're confident that if we do have the approval, that we will be able to see this project through to completion. I thank you and open up for any questions that you might have. Chairperson Wilcox — You do we have to answer questions? We've got Peter; an architect in the back, welcome Grace; an engineer, just in case. Board Member Conneman — Peter, I have a question about the diagram over there. What is that finger sticking out to the left? Is that a right -of -way for a road or something? Mr. Trowbridge — This is a part of the property and it is roughly 58 feet wide and there really is no intention to do anything with that. At this point, it might get attached to one of the lots. It could be held in reserve for some future date or if the Town of interested. At this point, it is probably likely that it would get attached to either one of the lots. Board Member Conneman — I was at the site when the Town tour visited it. Some of that is awfully steep. It looks to me like you'd have an awfully steep road coming up off from Hayts Road. Mr. Trowbridge - Well, it's not we worked through that today. Board Member Conneman — No, I mean the other one from Hayts road. Mr. Trowbridge — Here. Actually this won't be that steep. There is a depressed area, but we will have some cut and fill, but overall we've looked at grading and road profiles and everything is well below ten percent. In fact, six to eight percent in most cases, is the maximum grade. Board Member Conneman — Go back to the 13 acres in the middle. That looked awfully rough and steep. What are you going to do? Mr. Trowbridge — Well, we just were talking about that today. I would like to come back to the Board the next time, but there are a couple of thought about that that might be an area that we brush hog and keep in a meadow state and brush hog that once a year to keep in a meadow state, rather than to keep everything in pristine lawn. We would like to consider out options and there was some discussion today with the possibility that the water quality basin might get attached to that as well and perhaps have more of a natural area. Board Member Conneman — Well, that's my question. When we were up there, there was a lady who lived in one of those residences up there and her point was that if you built the houses there, that would obstruct the line of view. Would you be able to, when you come back, give up some idea of roof height and stuff like that so that we can see what that looks like. 47 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Trowbridge — This contour right here is 50 feet below this elevation and if these units are, let's say 28 feet tall, the views are well over the top of the first phase. The second phase, with the market rate houses, those will be closer, but once again, this is 20 feet lower from that point, so, if there was a one -story house, even if there was a one -story house in the market -rate section, they could still look right over the top of it. Two -story houses, they would probably be seeing in those homes. Board Member Conneman — I understand. Would you provide us with some data on this. Mr. Trowbridge — Oh yeah. Board Member Thayer — Traffic concerns, we had a lot of those. Water pressure concerns? There is already low water pressure in that area. Dan, what can be done about that? Mr. Walker — Well, we're already looking at an improvement that would move our control valve closer to the tank from the new water tank that we have being built at EcoVillage. That would provide adequate water pressure for all the multiple - residence zone. It won't provide adequate pressure for the single families, other than maybe for the first four lots that are lowest on the lot. That would require an additional improvement from the water system. Board Member Thayer — I know the people on Hopkins Road have been crying for water for years. Mr. Walker — We not so much Hopkins Road, the people on Hayts Road have been crying for water for years. They'll have to take that up with the Town Board. can do it, but there would be a lot of people who don't want me to. One of the options, the project that the Town of Ulysses is building, that tank is on a higher grade. That could serve all the residential groups, plus Hopkins Road and a portion of Hayts Road, but there is some pretty strong policy decision making that has to be made by the Town Board. If this Board wants to recommend that, regarding that water, that would be fine. I'm just going to give the technical opportunities, I'm neutral. Chairperson Wilcox — You don't set policies. Mr. Walker — We could bring that water pressure down with about a probably 4,000 foot pipe. We'd have to pump from DuBois Road to this site. Board Member Conneman — The five acres that is left out, what will that be zoned as? 48 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — That would stay the way it is. Mr. Kanter — That's R -15. They're not proposing to change that right now. Board Member Conneman — That would be R -15, which means what? That means you could develop a shopping center some day? Mr. Kanter —No, that's residential. R -15, residents with 15,000 square foot lots. Chairperson Wilcox —It could be further subdivided, potentially. Board Member Conneman- Sure. I was just curious. Mr. Kanter — Now, the Town Board and the Codes and Ordinances Committee have talked about commercial zoning in that area, but it didn't end up in the proposed zoning revisions and it's not part of this particular proposal, but, certainly a development like this may cause people to think about this some more at some point in the future. Chairperson Wilcox — Dry cleaners, bread, convenience store. Mr. Kanter — I don't know about dry cleaners. Chairperson Wilcox — Pizza. Mr. Kanter — Neighborhood services. Board Member Thayer — If the project didn't get re- zoned, we'd be looking at L3A map, would that be feasible for you? Mr. Papamichael — Currently, we haven't looked at the feasibility of the total R -15 build out, we are focusing right now on the affordable aspect. So, to answer your questions, we have not explored that. Board Member Thayer — There seems to be a lot of resentment to the re- zoning and that's why I asked the question. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Anybody else? Mr. Kanter — I think there was something mentioned about the bus service. We actually have a copy of a TCAT letter that I'm not sure whether the applicants have seen or not. It was a recent letter we have received, dated October 28`" where TCAT very clearly says, or at least this representative of TCAT, let's put it that way, indicates that TCAT buses will not be entering the project site. I talked about this in my memo a little bit. I think that's not a great policy decision by TCAT. I think it's something that this Board might want to think about how we 49 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 might approach TCAT with this because I think it would be much better for the buses to come into the site, rather than have people up on Route 96, just because of the safety issues involved. Chairperson Wilcox — Crossing Route 96. Mr. Kanter — Some people getting off buses would have to cross 96. Of course, there is a traffic light, but still, it's a very busy road. Mr. Walker — If you remember, they stated that when Linderman Creek was first built. Now they're going into the site. Mr. Kanter — That's usually they're initial statement or viewpoint, but I think that if the Town's position is that we would certainly like to see them pursue the possibility of bringing the bus in there, the applicant seems to be considering a design for that as part of the site development, I think we should pursue that opportunity. Chairperson Wilcox — I agree. It's far safer. And again, TCAT would only go in there is the appropriate facilities are built so that the bus can turn around properly without having to back up. That's the case here. Mr. Trowbridge — Our expectation is that there would be a certain percentage of people in the project that would work at the hospital and be able to walk directly to work. So, not only would we have walkways that were connected to the bus stop, but the hope is that a certain percentage of people could walk directly to work. Board Member Thayer — Jonathan, you mentioned that several lots didn't meet the R -15 lot requirements? They would have to be re- designed when they bring it back? Mr. Kanter — Either that or variances would have to present and there were several that I mentioned in my memo that didn't meet either lot widths of depths don't know if that's something that the applicant might want to consider re- configuring. Chairperson Wilcox — Lot size is sufficient? Mr. Kanter — It appears, it's not exactly clear. When we get to the preliminary subdivision stage, we'll need obviously dimensions and things like that. Board Member Hoffmann — Jonathan, could you talk a little about this Town Park, the open space plan that has been proposed to this general area. I assume that that is just a general area, there is no specific piece of land. 50 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 (inaudible) Mr. Trowbridge — We did talk to Jonathan in regard to the open space plan. Just an added point, we did talk to Jonathan on how to do the open space plan and our hope would be that there is going to be recreation, like "Tot Lot" for small children at the core of the project, near the community center. The park space, we still are designing it out here, probably, we don't know exactly what will be involved, it may not be public ground and I'm not sure that it is important that it has public ownership, as long as there is some understanding , some agreement that this is open space. One thing that I mentioned too for the hospital access there will be that trial. Again , we talked about it today. It's not going to be a sidewalk that is directly on the road. It will be pulled away, but we might be between the walkway and the road system so that it will have more of a trail -like quality than a sidewalk. Again, this is an issue that we will have to talk about, but we've tried to position the open space in a place where the people for the community can feel that they are welcome. Putting it in an interior site might prevent them from going there. Chairperson Wilcox — Eve, follow up? Board Member Hoffmann — No, not right now. Board Member Thayer — We really haven't talked about traffic. Chairperson Wilcox — We haven't talked about traffic, we know that they have to provide the traffic impacts. Board Member Thayer — How much an we ask them to give us on that? Can we go all the way down to the City because little old Cliff Street has got to handle a lot more traffic than there is now and now it's over - burdened. Chairperson Wilcox — I think we can ask them for whatever we feel is reasonable in order to determine what the environmental impacts are and what, if any mitigation measures may be required or if the environmental impacts are so great that we don't continue from there. I don't want to sit here and rattle off a whole list of intersections and say study these. Board Member Thayer — If we had Route 13, thank god we don't, coming up that hill, it would be different, but that's a real small little highway coming out of the City. Mr. Kanter — As the applicant mentioned, they did have SRF complete a traffic impact analysis on the intersections that they did look at, Hayts Road and Bundy Road and the Medical Center Intersection. I think if you would like to see other areas studied, this would be the time to talk about it. That same question about farther down on Cliff Street, in particular all the way down at what is basically 51 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 now Route 13, Fulton Street, I guess, came up at the Town Board meeting as a potential issue. Board Member Thayer — I think it should go all the way down into the City. Mr. Walker — Basically, if you look at Cliff Street, at the Bundy Road, Hayts Road intersection, there isn't an awful lot different then — you know, what happens between Bundy and the Octopus is pretty scattered, except for people cutting up the hill trying to beat the traffic and I drive that everyday. I don't see a lot of change in traffic. I think that this project — you have Bundy Road and you have all the traffic that is going down the hill and up the hill and that's Bundy Road, you basically are going to determine the impact on the lower part of Cliff Street. Board Member Thayer — You try to make a left turn off of Bundy Road right now and it is tough, let alone the additional traffic. Mr. Walker — Now, keep in mind this possibly could reduce some of this traffic. Chairperson Wilcox — All right mister creative engineer, speak. Mr. Walker — If, in fact, a lot of that traffic that is coming up Bundy Road is going to the hospital. I come down Hayts Road or Bundy Road, different ways, there is a lot of traffic that comes out to Hayts Road back in Enfield that is headed to the hospital because I follow those cars and they either sneak through the professional building or they come down and make a left turn into the hospital. They're coming from Schuyler County or points west and maybe because they don't have the housing so that they could live near the hospital. If there is 128 units, there might be 50 people working at the hospital on the day shift that don't have to drive. Board Member Thayer — We don't have any proof of that. Mr. Walker — We don't have any proof of that, but that is just a speculation. No matter what happens, the hospital, itself, is generating more traffic because it is a viable organization and they are expanding constantly. Board Member Thayer — I would think that they need a left hand turn on 96. Mr. Kanter — That is one issue that I raised in my memo, was actually the traffic study looked at that and come up with the conclusion that a left turn lane for north bound traffic on 96 would not be necessary. I think that is something that we really want to get State DOT to take a close look at. Mr. Walker — They actually need a left hand turn lane southbound into the hospital because, technically, we have one now because everybody goes on the 52 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 shoulder so when the cars are stopped to turn into the hospital. There is already a right turn lane that the State built going north bound to the hospital. Board Member Thayer — Trying to make a left turn from Route 96 onto Bundy is pretty dangerous, let alone up there. Mr. Walker — Yeah, there's not a lot of gaps in traffic. Chairperson Wilcox — Your statement about traffic counts and traffic patterns is probably similar to what they are down on Meadow Street at Fulton. Mr. Walker - Right, because there is no other way to get on to Cliff Street until you get to Route 13. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I'm trying to think if you're coming up Cliff Street, let's say that you are going north, other than Vinegar Hill, I can't think of anything else. Mr. Walker — You've got Campbell Avenue and then you've got — Board Member Thayer — Vinegar Hill. Mr. Walker — Vinegar Hill and then there is one in between, Brookfield. I don't see a lot of — there is some traffic coming up Brookfield, but that's usually cutting across from Mecklenburg Road. Mr. Kanter — The traffic impact study projects about 53 vehicle in the morning peak hour turning right out of the project site, going south on 96 so if you assume all of those get down to Route 13, which may not be the case, but if they do. Perhaps what's just some kind of an indication of the current conditions down at Route 13 are because, obviously they are what they and is 53 additional cars given the current conditions, a significant impact or not? I don't think so, but there's a lot of people, obviously some people disagree with me. Chairperson Wilcox — 54 cars per hour right? Mr. Kanter — In the morning peak hour. Chairperson Wilcox — One per minute. Mr. Kanter —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Other questions, issues, comments, things we'd like to see the applicant provide to us. 53 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — I agree with all the things in the memo that we got fro Jonathan Chairperson Wilcox — Comments on the overall plan, design, staging? Board Member Hoffmann — It seems to me that we just heard a statement based on that map up there that there's not a concentration on West Hill. Board Member Thayer — You've got Linderman Creek, that just doubled in size and then we've got this one. That sounds to me like a concentration. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but if you compare with all of those that are in the City and in other areas. Board Member Thayer — Yeah, but they are single - family homes, we are talking about this multiple resident density. It's leaning a lot. Chairperson Wilcox — I was thinking — it is leaning. Board Member Thayer — I was wondering if they considered any other locations. Chairperson Wilcox — There is not a lot of room to build multiple family units on East Hill. There also seems to be the appropriate public transportation, possibly because of the hospital, possibly because of the Professional Building, possibly because of the numerous doctor's offices along there. The Town Board saw two proposals, we didn't, but they saw two proposals at the same time. The other one was farther up the road. Board Member Thayer — That's in an agricultural district so that's a little different. Board Member Hoffmann — I think this one though, because of the statements about cooperating with the hospital and trying to serve the people who work at the hospital is a little different. Board Member Thayer — Maybe we could get some kind of a survey to find out if that is really true, if that's going to happen. Board Member Hoffmann — But I heard in an earlier presentation — I heard the presentation that was before the Town Board for this project and the other one too. I came to that Town Board meeting. I have a distinct memory of hearing — Chairperson Wilcox — Paul, you have to come to the microphone, please. You are far enough away that we are not going to pick you up. Board Member Conneman — I think they gave us the number — but I mean in terms of the kinds of people that might live in a development like that. That's 54 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 what Larry is saying, what evidence do we have that anybody who works at the hospital is going to live there? Do all the people who work at the hospital come from Trumansburg or Seneca County? Mr. Mazzarella — We've had discussions with the administration of the hospital and we know several things, one is that a lot of the employees at the hospital live outside Tompkins County and commute into the County. We know that a lot of the people who work at the hospital earn wages that would make them eligible to live in this project. What we don't know is how many of them will make the choice to live here and I think that is pretty speculative on our part to say that. We make the housing available and then individual families make their own choices about where they want to live. Mr. Kanter — While we have Paul there, could I just ask a question about preferences with these kinds of affordable housing programs, can preferences be given, say, to a certain group like employees at the Medical Center for a project like this or how would that work? Mr. Mazzarella — In my opinion, no preferences can't be given because we are subject to an array of different fair housing laws that require us to rent on an even basis. So, the only type of preference, I think, that could be given is if you are building a senior housing development . In which case, you could limit it to seniors. Other than that, our obligation is to give every applicant a fair chance at living in the housing. Mr. Kanter — So, how does that process work? It's based on personal qualifying and the income levels, but then, how are waiting lists usually set up for those things? Mr. Mazzarella — Generally, when the project is ready to open, we advertise it and solicit applicants, there is some discretion on the part of the property manager about who is selected in terms of their ability, there is a process of screening to have good applicants. I would stress that one of the things about this project that is going to be high quality is the property management. A lot of the negative perceptions about low- income housing has more to do with the quality of the property management than it does to do with the project itself and Winn is an excellent property manager, so I think you're going to find that they do a good job of managing this and maintaining a good environmental there. Mr. Papamichael — I will certainly double check this, but I believe that preferences can be given if the person to whom they are giving the preference if providing some sort of service to the complex. In other words, I think if they were trading services with the hospital for a priority on certain units, I think that would be acceptable. 55 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Mr. Kanter — Possibly a little bit more information on that aspect of it would be helpful. Chairperson Wilcox — The hour is getting late. We need to take care of one piece of business with regard to that. Just so that everyone in the audience knows what we are doing, we have a draft resolution in front of us, which reads as follows, I'll skip the Whereas': "The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the proposed Overlook at West Hill development consisting of two phases of residential development, including 128 affordable rental apartment units in 16 buildings and a community center in Phase I on a 24 +/- acre portion of Tax Parcel No. 24 -4 -14.2, and 25 lots for single - family, market rate homes in Phase II on about 19 acres of the subject property. The current owners would retain about 5 acres containing the existing medical practice fronting on Trumansburg Road. The entire site is currently zoned R -15 Residence and contains 48 +/- acres. The applicant is requesting consideration of rezoning the 24 +/- acres for affordable rental apartments from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Aris Investments, Applicant; Grace Chiang, HOLT Architects and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects, Agents, and; The proposed actions, which include subdivision approval and site plan approval by the Planning Board and rezoning by the Town Board, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca, and; A preliminary report entitled, "Proposed Residential Development, Overlook at West Hill, Aris Investments, Ithaca, New York" (October 14, 2003) has been submitted by the applicant for the above - described actions; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed subdivision approval, site plan approval and rezoning for the proposed Overlook at West Hill, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies." So moved by the Chair. Seconded by Larry Thayer. All those in favor? Anybody opposed? No one is opposed. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board will be lead agency. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -092: Lead Agency Designation, Overlook at West Hill, Tax Parcel No. 24 -4 -14.2, 1290 Trumansburg Road MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 56 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the proposed Overlook at West Hill development consisting of two phases of residential development, including 128 affordable rental apartment units in 16 buildings and a community center in Phase I on a 24 +/- acre portion of Tax Parcel No. 24 -4 -14.2, and 25 lots for single - family, market rate homes in Phase II on about 19 acres of the subject property. The current owners would retain about 5 acres containing the existing medical practice fronting on Trumansburg Road. The entire site is currently zoned R -15 Residence and contains 48 +/- acres. The applicant is requesting consideration of rezoning the 24 +/- acres for affordable rental apartments from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Aris Investments, Applicant; Grace Chiang, HOLT Architects and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, Landscape Architects, Agents, and 2. The proposed actions, which include subdivision approval and site plan approval by the Planning Board and rezoning by the Town Board, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca, and 3. A preliminary report entitled, "Proposed Residential Development, Overlook at West Hill, Aris Investments, Ithaca, New York" (October 14, 2003) has been submitted by the applicant for the above - described actions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed subdivision approval, site plan approval and rezoning for the proposed Overlook at West Hill, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 57 PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Peter, you are sort of acting as the lead technical person. Is there anything else you need from this Board this evening? Is there something you wanted when you came in that you haven't — Mr. Trowbridge — (inaudible) The DOT is evaluating the issue of right and left hand turning lane. It's not our prerogative , nor is it your prerogative of a State highway to make that decision. They are evaluating a traffic consultant's evaluation and they will be getting back to us. Some of the issues are not in our hands. Board Member Conneman — Peter, one thing, I suspect people up on Hopkins Road would like to be reassured that you're not going to build a road up there. Mr. Trowbridge — The Board would be anticipating a site plan review process. We can't build a road on our own. Board Member Conneman — well, just we would ask for anything more that might come up. Mr. Trowbridge — (inaudible) Mr. Kanter — I know you can't decide this tonight, but do you want to give some feedback on the question of whether the long environmental assessment form versus environmental impact statement approach is going to work for you guys because I think that's kind of key. Chairperson Wilcox — The issue is having the appropriate study with the appropriate detail. Mr. Kanter — Assuming you get all the studies you think you need. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, absolutely I'm comfortable with the approach. As long as we get the information. The key is the information. Mr. Kanter — We're are pre- determining the neg. -dec. as the determination. You obviously will have to evaluate it all. As well as hearing back from all the other involved and interested agencies and their comments too. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Thank you all very much. The Chair moves that the Planning Board go into executive session to receive legal advice, do I have a second? Seconded by Larry. All in favor? Upon MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer, the Board entered into executive session at 10:37 p.m. to discussion of possible reconsideration of a previous application. 58 4 q, t M PLANNING BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 2003 MINUTES APPROVED NOVEMBER 18, 2003 • Upon MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman, the Board returned to regular session at 10:45 p.m. PB RESOLUTION 2003 -093: REAFFIRM PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -090 Reconsider Site Plan Approval Resolution: Cayuga Medical Center= Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24. -3 -2.1 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe. RESOLVED, that after Executive Session consideration, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board reaffirms PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -090 to reconsider its determination on the Cayuga Medical Center Radiation Oncology Addition modification of condition, approved by the Board at the October 7, 2003 meeting, based upon new evidence to the board indicating that the hospital may have made misrepresentations regarding the Waiver and Certificate of Need under review by the Project Review Committee of the State Health Department. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe. • NAYS: Thayer The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS The Board commended Lauren Bishop for the fine job she had done reporting on Planning Board matters for the Ithaca Journal. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the November 4, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:49 p.m. Re pectfully,Submitted, Lori Love 59 • • n u TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, November 4, 2003 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a follow -up Sketch Plan review for The Remington located at 1000 East Shore Drive between East Shore Drive and Cayuga Lake, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 19 -2 -29 and 19- 1 -5.2, Business "E" District. The proposal includes demolishing the two existing buildings to construct a two -story lodge including a 258 -seat restaurant, 25 guest rooms, and a new boathouse. The proposal also includes 163 parking spaces (107 spaces on site and 56 spaces located to the east of East Shore Drive) and the continued use of the existing marina (boat launch and docking facilities). Cornell University, Owner; Paramount Realty Group, Applicant; David A. Schlosser, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of a follow -up Sketch Plan review for a Master Plan development involving a proposed 50 -lot subdivision located off Birchwood Drive North, Birchwood Drive, Salem Drive, and Sanctuary Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 70- 10 -3.5 and 73 -1 -8.22, Residence District R -15. The three phased proposal includes 48 residential lots and 2 park land / open space lots on approximately 48 -acres with road connections created between Birchwood Drive and Sapsucker Woods Road and between Salem Drive and Sanctuary Drive. Phase 1 proposes to extend Birchwood Drive North to the East for 12 residential lots with additional lands added to Salem Park. Rocco Lucente, Owner; Lawrence P. Fabbrom, P.E., L.S., Agent. 8:30 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed residential development, Overlook at West Hill, located at 1290. Truman sburg Road (NYS Route 96), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -4 -14.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal includes subdivision of the 48 +/- acre parcel into 27 lots, including a 5 +/- acre parcel for the existing medical practice, one 24 +/- acre parcel for a 128 -unit multiple family community in 16 buildings and a community center, and 25 parcels for single family residences. The proposal also includes rezoning of the 24 +/- acre parcel from Residence District R -15 to Multiple Residence District. Song Ja Kyong, Owner; Aris Investments, Applicant; Grace Chiang, AIA, HOLT Architects, P.C. and Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, Agents. 5. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 6. Approval of Minutes: October 21, 2003. 7. Other Business: 8. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 (PL EASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACYIN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION K s' �� f i��� -. ! ��� ���.i LuL4G.7 .�.�• i�� G� / / �') �G� i!Lr L.�_ �. C I / /e :t • c, ��� � s - % Ste/ -�-� '2 Ile evc(o �CCC'dv— %� u' /`%�GvuD �Slvt' Zi /1igcA , �L' A0lhLk-ApR**Y Ry ?Lte K KP%ti c. 11 °� Cyr,;J PICA - Cur.: fcc ''l %A - '�N9��,� Ov►CN4K- a� 3�S4M� �-� �rN c Snw�Sit Ru. �, z -� ►<<�s r V I u4 firtrV4LL z. VWLI OISZ I Gt►m _ ZI1 may Dov►Iph ' 60VVI ii sa i li v► 120 1/c(le A S21 cl (J... d�P 1116 I L l l - co,r it 6LLa6t ClrahAM III Fprris Ell — Z�Cl/ _ MA pcK�E ��;D 8 RU IA SLA13 lcl pe r-� I ne(1 (n6 \J ,kiln Nrn-L G ur4 cxk Wye -e� -�� 4u�elrrci/' ipc,"l M azzar"e((" ckc .�(,�L'.C[i. ��� �(n`�v✓��UGG���VSI`P� cpr ✓�CC��j rr Al Aw iy ;c� a„��_ s� Ili 10 1)10 LCO G (f ra \ uKc r4ri e 5 j�(c5 L U n 6�(�70 (CJA VGL TC�l S� / 3 4 5 1#IoA?W4i5Vk3442q M ° 'I '0. 1(b Prn�w��� P��G� u^� le. /l 1 1 y�,, S� �✓� jt� 306 54-9L� Ov - 3 t o SO4-ern, %,4 / 3 0 7 t-w ;vt ec w 5rb a 9 PS Rcs-; 4c Son&yP, 144c ,S'(D U <<c A <,r - jS � IZA PO (_- :Fo Cs (DES I?egr R\L,sC� � /Vru's; �t 0 r TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 (PL EASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION �— tot �� ivy Ili �j i Rvh A 0 ,^/ 7/, V �, J e C S A l J ft.i ar c. ( 1 I k �d A `{ ZC-, r 23 ( I'`(�uJ Chic vi (�a,rI.cS k�•c.�I Cee i25 1 LOS,, (Z,'� � Corv% �{ vG, �5 1�1 �c>>!�� Sc S)K� 1 ��,,}- �1.Q,,,, �h `u, 532 `f •,'�..2•! � _ � �,` Cr7 �-c / � �� r, 73 Ail ooe, .�/ %ii/� c - C u � lJr��r� -/,;, �r JI W+Gi ✓) p'Z l PR G�' :��t �T901C/7fi�l pC�G! �G GUr � 6 see 1062 rci4FLA �n N-wuj (,,o,rvL,w I�e.►� Ca r lse ✓� 33o ,z i 51� , C fN vl2�i'( — Cq, !x U sc,-r /ric 6-Lct qr Ros-e r. lie ;mac e r La w �' � � e 7 C v r �, � (I �r1 � ✓ (opt r i( 5ct' �l Y1 b L R v� �S 3 �7 L 7 —�j/�c �— tot �� ivy Ili �j i Rvh A 0 ,^/ 7/, V �, J Y'l C� 2(Ice Chi �;(V\� C�r.S L�► IL c 2,52 0 'Rl, - 4 r 17 3 14 a S � 2i-7 N. JZ : 77%4acr—)�� T�/heuze:�- •