The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 1991-06-04�r FRUM TOWN OF TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JUNE 41 1991 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 4, 1991, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Robert Kenerson, Virginia Langhans, James Baker, Stephen Smith, Judith Aronson, William Lesser, John Barney (Town Attorney), Floyd Forman (Town Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Dan Walker (Town Engineer). ALSO PRESENT: Paul L. Hartman, Robert S. Miller, Carolyn M. Miller, D.S. Kiefer, Tim Whitney, Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson, Bill Szabo, Larry Fabbroni, John Gutenberger, Shirley Egan, Geoff Hamburg, Don McPherson, Ken Baldassarre, Annabelle Manning, V.J. Baldassarre, W.P. Paleen, Eleanor Sturgeon, George Sheldrake, Elsie Sheldrake, Glenn Snyder, Harley Steffy, Bruce Brittain, Douglas Brittain, Hoyt Benjamin, Karen Baum, Dennis Stein, Dave Auble, Albert Wright, R. Curtis Gray. Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7:41 p.m. and accepted for the record the Clerk's Affidavit of Posting and •Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 28, 1991, and May 30, 1991, respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, upon the NYS Department of Transportation, upon the Tompkins County Highway Department, upon the Clerk of the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on May 29, 1991,0 Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM. PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov closed this portion of the meeting. SKETCH PLAN REVIEW. PROPOSED CORNELL UNIVERSITY TENNIS FACILITY, TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PINE TREE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 400 FEET SOUTH OF ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; PRISCILLA NOETZEL- WILSON, AGENT, Chairperson Grigorov opened the discussion on the above - noted • matter and read aloud from the Agenda as noted above. Maps were appended to the bulletin board. At Planning Board -2- June 4, 1991 r. At this point, Chairperson Grigorov introduced the new Town of Ithaca Planner Floyd Forman to members of the Board. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson addressed the Board and stated that she is Project Manager /Architect from Architectural Services at Cornell University. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson offered that with her this evening is Timothy Whitney, Project Architect, from Sasaki Associates of Watertown, Mass., adding that Sasaki Associates are consultants for the Cornell Tennis Facility. Y Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that if the Tennis Facility is built it will replace the existing Kite Hill Tennis Bubble. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that the proposed location of the project is the west side of Pine Tree Road and just to the north of the Equestrian Center, adding that the area is zoned R -30 for residential use, but educational /institutional uses are permitted by Special Permit. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that, as a program, the facility consists of an interior tennis center building with six indoor courts and fixed seating for 180 spectators, support spaces, a lobby, toilet /shower rooms, coach office, storage and mechanical spaces. It also includes an outdoor tennis center originally programmed with eight courts; it is currently shown as only six on the site plan because Cornell is carrying two of those courts as an add - alternate. The program includes parking for 46 automobiles and accessways, as well as landscaping. The Cornell Athletics and Physical Education Departments propose the use of this facility during the academic year . to be the following. Cornell sees physical education classes being held in the facility from around 9 :00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, and in the afternoons from 4 :00 p.m. to around 9:00 p.m. there would be tennis practice by the tennis teams from Cornell. All other times of the day, and it is envisioned that the facility would be opening around 7:00 a.m. and staying open until around 11 :00 p.m. or 12 :00 midnight, the facility would be open for subscription paying members; that is, of course, during the academic year. During the summer the outdoor courts would be open for tennis clinics and camps which would be in the morning and early afternoon hours, the rest of the time, afternoon and evening hours, the courts would be available for community use. There will be Ivy League play carried out in the facility, and, at the moment it is planned that there would be two to three invitational tournments per year. At this point, Ms. Noetzel- Wilson turned the presentation over to Mr. Tim Whitney. Mr. Whitney stated that the site is very constrained because of a variety of factors. There is the proposed realignment of Pine Tree Road which is "dotted" lightly on the site plan; it essentially cuts near the tennis facility's proposed parking lot, so, Pine Tree Road as it is currently proposed will move westerly from where it is shown 1 now and Cornell has needed to keep the parking and the building behind that location. Mr. Whitney said that the above is the constraint on the eastern side. Mr. Whitney stated that the Planning Board - R June 4 , 1991 constraint on the southern side is toward the Equitation parking lot. Mr. Whitney said that the Equitation Center has a very large requirement for turning their trailers around and after many discussions with them Mr. Whitney realized that the turning radii in their parking lot could not be tampered with. Mr. Whitney stated that there are wetlands to the south, basically a drainage swale, cutting across through the proposed Tennis Center drive; there is also wet land to the north. Mr. Whitney stated that there was also a need to preserve the meadows shown in the "upper left corner" of the site plan; Cornell had requested that the meadows be kept as a natural area. Mr. Whitney said that Cornell is trying to minimize the apparent bulk of the building; the first approach they took was to push the proposed building as far back from the road as possible because they want to keep the Tennis Center farther back than the Egitation Center. Mr. Whitney offered that the proposed Tennis Center site slopes from east to down toward the west; the more the building can be moved to the west the more the finished floor can be lowered. Mr. Whitney said that the finished floor of the building is five feet lower than the Equitation Center. Mr. Whitney said that that also allows Cornell to set the outdoor courts down. Mr. Whitney noted that Cornell wants to keep the natural quality of the pasture. Mr. Whitney said that the first floor is down five feet and the outdoor tennis courts are down an additional couple of feet so, essentially, the building and the tennis courts are terracing down the hill as one looks westerly. Mr. Whitney offered that, as an add-alternate, Cornell has outdoor lighting for the outdoor courts, and Cornell wants to contain that outdoor lighting behind the building within a planted and screened area. Mr. Whitney said that the lighting fixtures would be high quality fixtures mounted on an approximately 35-foot high pole lighting the six or eight courts, depending on the budget. Mr. Whitney stated that the proposed building is a metal building approximately 52 feet high and very similar in materials and color to the Equitations Center; Cornell has not finalized the color, but it will be compatible with the Equitation Center. Mr. Whitney stated that Cornell is trying to make the proposed building a barn-like structure sitting in a meadow. Mr. Whitney commented that the outdoor courts will be contained in a very thick hedgerow. Mr. Whitney stated that the Equitation Center is approximately 36 feet in height; the proposed building is 52 feet in height, but the proposed building is set down the hill and pushed back from the road, so the apparent mass of the building is broken down and in some ways looks smaller than the Equitation Center. Mr. Whitney said that the lighting has not been finalized. Mr. Whitney stated that the proposed Tennis Center would share an entrance with the Equitations Center because of a possible realignment of Pine Tree Road. Mr. Whitney mentioned that the parking lot would be screened by a four-foot-high wooden fence. Mr. Whitney pointed out existing trees that Cornell would preserve. 4 Planning Board -4 June 4, 1991 • Board Member Langhans wondered how Cornell arrived at the 52 -foot height. Mr. Whitney responded that the first requirement of forty feet is a clearance requirement for competitive tennis. Mr. Whitney said that for summer ventilation a roof monitor was added; fans, not air conditioning, are added. Mr. Whitney pointed out that there would be windows at both ends of the structure, and in the office, but, essentially, it is an opaque building. Mr. Whitney said that as to the lighting, other than the tennis courts, Cornell would propose the minimum four fixtures for safety in the parking lot. Chairperson Grigorov asked about the maximum number of cars with respect to parking when the varsity is playing. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson replied that 46 spaces are being provided for the day -to -day use, and the Cornell Athletics Department has confirmed that they would be coordinating any scheduling of major events between the Tennis Center and the Equitation Center; there would never be two major events happening at the same time. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that for a major event the total provided capacity for parking would be 120 spaces, so they would look to Equitations for overflow parking. Ms. Langhans wondered about a walkway from the existing gravel parking. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson responded that it could be created, but there is a link between the north Equitations parking lot and the proposed building that could very easily be provided. Mr. Whitney said that there • hard surfaces; catch basins will drains for the building, and adding that a detention pond will Ms. Langhans asked about going to be grass or clay. surface. Board Member Kener Mr. Whitney replied that directly across the street, street; the building will be would be underground drainage for all be provided in the parking lot, roof catch basins for the tennis court, be built out of the wetland area, the outside courts and Mr. Whitney answered, son wondered about any the gas service woul along with electric heated by gas. whether they are they would be hard utility problems, d be coming in from service off the Board Member Lesser asked about the movement of students. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson answered, by bus. Attorney Barney, referring to the cupola on top of the proposed building, wondered if, by adding the cupola, that was the only way to get the ventilation. Mr. Whitney answered, no, it is not the only way, but Cornell felt that the minimum size of that piece adds quite a bit to the quality of the building. Mr. Whitney said that the cupola adds approximately eight feet to the height of the building. Attorney Barney asked about the "silo" at the front of the building. Mr. Whitney answered that it is essentially a vestibule, which is 26 feet high. At this point, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone else had any • questions or comments concerning the proposed Tennis Center. t Planning Board -5- June 4, 1991 • Town Planner Floyd Forman asked -- if he were the closest house to the proposed Tennis Center, and all the lights were on at night, what would he see? Mr. Whitney replied that, in terms of the front lot it would be very minimal because there are four small fixtures "here "; the biggest impact would be the outdoor courts with the 35 -foot high fixtures. Mr. Whitney said that the light one would pick up would be the light that is hitting the moisture in the air. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this matter is not a public hearing, but if anyone in the public has a concern they could voice that concern at tonight's meeting. Dooley Kiefer, a member of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, wondered what planning principles guided Cornell to move a facility such as the Tennis Center off the central Campus, but leave a baseball field on central Campus? Ms. Noetzel - Wilson responded that she did not know if she was qualified to answer that because she is not from Cornell planning. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that one consideration for moving the Tennis Facility off central Campus was because it,is a very low density use when one considers the maximum occupancy in the existing building, as far as players, consists of 24 persons. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson stated that it is not a very viable thing to have on central Campus where space is very valuable. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that she was not qualified to answer anything about the baseball field. Robert Kenerson wondered if proposed facility would satisfy Noetzel- Wilson said that there stated that the eight courts would of time, but there is the pr expanded by two courts. Mr. expansion would be two courts of a fifty -year plan. there were any hopes that this the needs in the future. Mse is future expansion, Mr. Whitney satisfy the need for some period obability that the building could be Whitney stated that the maximum an indoor facility, adding, that is A voice from the back of the room wondered about locker rooms, showers, and who was going to use the facility -- is it going to be University- connected people and is the community going to be able to use it? Mr. Whitney, indicating on map, pointed out the men's and women's locker rooms and showers, coach's office, and storage area. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson offered that this facility, as she understood it from Cornell Athletics, is going to try to be self - supporting, which means that they will be paying for their operational costs, maintenance, etc, from the Physical Education classes that pay fees, as well as from a group of subscription members. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson commented that her understanding is that because of the nature of the University these subscription members have to come from the Cornell community. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that in the summertime, or any warm weather period, the outdoor courts would be available for community use and there would not be any fee collected with that. • Robert Kenerson wondered where the spectators would sit. Mr. Whitney indicated on the map where the 30 per court spectator seats were located. I Planning Board -6- June 4, 1991 • Mr. R. Curtis Gray, 657 Elmira Road, spoke from the back of the room and stated that about 20 years ago he and his wife used to attend exhibition tennis matches at Cornell, adding that there would be about 2000 people in attendance. Mr. Gray wondered how many people would be attending matches at the proposed Tennis Center. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson said that, at the moment, the Tennis Bubble has no spectator space whatsoever. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson stated that, at this point, Cornell does not know what to expect in terms of numbers of spectators. Ms. Langhans wondered if the Invitational Tennis Tournaments were other than Collegiate play. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson replied, yes. Bill Szabo, of the Cornell Athletic Department, addressed the Board and stated that, normally, in a situation where a famous tennis player came in, temporary seating would be set up around one court. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson offered that, by Code, the building is limited to 300 persons or less. Chairperson Grigorov wondered about the wetlands. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson responded that Cornell is working with terrestrial environmental wetland consultant specialists from Phoenix, New York, which is near Syracuse, New York. Ms. Noetzel- Wilson commented that Cornell has tried to stay away from the wetlands on the north, and, basically, away from the wetland at the south of the project; the one that Cornell will be involved with is the small drainage ditch that • comes in at an angle and runs into the Equitations parking lot. Ms. Noetzel - Wilson said that Cornell does not intend to fill the drainage ditch; they will be putting a culvert in and bridging over for the access road, and for that purpose Cornell is going for a jurisdictional determination from the Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Lesser commented that he thought it would be very helpful to have some balloons indicating the various final heights to get some kind of visual feel for what it would be. Mr. Lesser noted that Cornell is asking for a substantial variance over the Town's normal height limitations. Chairperson Grigorov asked if there were any other comments. There being none, Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Cornell University Tennis Facility Sketch Plan Review duly closed. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED "MINNIE'S BQ", CONSISTING OF THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO A RESTAURANT -TYPE OPERATION INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AND PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, ON A SITE ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF ELMIRA RD. (NYS RTE. 13) APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET SOUTHWEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH SEVEN -MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 6- 33- 2 -7.2, BUSINESS "C" DISTRICT. KEN BALDASSARRE, OWNER /APPLICANT. (ADJOURNED FROM APRIL 16, 1991) • Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Planning Board -7- June 4, 1991 At this • Board copies for the manufactured Michigan. #1•) point, Mr. Baldassarre distributed to members of the of material concerning the ventilation system proposed chicken barbecue stand. The ventilation system is by the Sturdi -Bilt Company located in Detroit, (Ventilation System material attached hereto as Exhibit A large map was appended to the bulletin board. Chairperson Grigorov noted that the Board was looking for information on the adequacy, reliability, and operational mechanisms of the hood system, particularly with respect to the removal of the odor of smoke and the like, how long it lasts, what kind of cleaning operations are needed, and what kind of maintenance operations are needed to maintain it Hoyt Benjamin, of the B &W Restaurant Supply, approached the Board and offered that he was open to questions about the ventilation system. Attorney Barney wondered what one would smell after the system is turned on. Mr. Benjamin responded that the system is not a mechanical process for removing an odor, commenting that, in his information, there is'not any kind of that equipment being used; generally, it is not available and if it were available it would be extremely expensive. Attorney Barney asked if one could smell the • same odor outside as they would inside. Mr. Benjamin said that that was a pretty fair statement. Mr. Benjamin said that the system contains the emissions as they are coming off the equipment. Mr. Benjamin noted that, typically, this stuff is designed for the inside of a building to safely conduct the grease -laden air from the inside, remove the grease and get the air outside, adding that that is the entire principal of a restaurant exhaust system. Mr. Benjamin stated that the primary concern of any restaurant exhaust system is that it be fire safe. Mr. Benjamin said that the baffle filters that come with the hood are designed to quickly accumulate any grease that goes up with the heated air, adding, the grease accumulates on the baffle filters that rest at an angle in the back of the hood; the air passes through them and little particles of grease are trapped on the filters, and the air moving through the system is always somewhere between 2000 -3000. Mr. Benjamin stated that that temperature is hot enough to keep the grease in a liquid state; in a liquid state it follows the filter back down into the collection trough and into a cup for disposal; this has to be cleaned at regular intervals, depending on what is being cooked and how fast it gets greasy. Mr. Benjamin said that it does not take smoke out per se. Mr. Benjamin stated that he did not know of any restaurant in Ithaca, including the big dining halls at Cornell University, where there is anything other than this type of system; this is what is designed for commercial restaurant use. Mr. Benjamin stated that this system would meet the Town Fire code, Building codes, and Health Dept. • codes, adding that it has all the approvals that are necessary from the various State and Federal agencies for this kind of equipment for this kind of application. Mr. Benjamin said that, beyond the very Planning Board -8- June 4, 1991 • simple principles involved in this, one would be looking for something that is not commercially available, not commercially used, and that the codes are not written for, commenting that the codes are more specific about fire problems than anything. Board Member Bob Kenerson asked about the anticipated height. Mr. Benjamin replied that, to meet the code, it would be 40" over the level of the roof. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the charcoal filters were a different system. Mr. Baldassarre responded that he wanted to get the best system available and this is what Mr. Benjamin recommended. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the drainage system information was in. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that the drainage is shown on the site plan. Mr. Frantz said that the parking lot would be gravel. Mr. Frantz said that he did not see drainage as being any problem as a result of this proposal. Chairperson Grigorov, referring to the landscaping, noted that there are a couple of areas of lawn, a parking area in the back, lighting inside the building. Ms. Langhans wondered where the parking was located that is not to be permitted. Mr. Baldassarre replied that there would be no parking in the front; there will only be parking on the side and in the back. Chairperson Grigorov said that the main difficulties were with the smoke and the odor. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a • asked if there were anyone from the public who questions. Public Hearing and had any comments or George Sheldrake, of 713 and 715 Elmira Road approached the Board. Mr. Sheldrake stated that he owns Earlybird Farm. Mr. Sheldrake, directing his comment to Mr. Benjamin, wondered if he knew of any restaurant in Ithaca that has a 30' by 4' charcoal grille. Mr. Benjamin answered, no. Mr. Sheldrake was concerned about the smoke. Mr. Sheldrake noted that Mr. Baldassarre would have a sprinkler system, and asked what the plans were for water. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that the water will be coming to the corner of the property that the subject building sits on; this will be the last property that the end of the watermain will touch in the first phase; the second phase will be in the next summer's (1992) construction season. Mr. Walker said that there will not be water or sewer out there until next summer (1992). Mr. C. Gray, owner of the Grayhaven Motel on Elmira Road, spoke from the floor and stated that he is the guy that will get all the stink from the smoke. Mr. Gray, commenting on the traffic, stated that there are no roads on Elmira Road where there is a turn -in road or a turn -out road. Mr. Gray wondered where Mr. Baldassarre was going to build. Mr. Baldassarre said he plans no expansion; he will be using the existing building. Mr. Gray mentioned a, traffic light to control traffic, stating that there are accidents on that road every week. Mr. Gray felt that this proposal should be held up at least a year until' the Board finds out what is happening with the 4 -lane highway on Rte: 13. Mr. Frantz responded that there are no E Planning Board -9- June 4, 1991 plans for any 4 -lane highway; the State plans are for improvements to replace the bridges over the railroad tracks and Buttermilk Creek. Eleanor Sturgeon, of 718 Elmira Road, approached the Board and read aloud the following letter dated 6/4/91. "To The Ithaca Town Board - I am writing this in protest of the food establishment proposed for my neighborhood. It will cause traffic hazards on an already busy road, cars and probably trucks will park on the road sides. It is already difficult to enter and exit ones own driveway in this neighborhood. Besides the above mentioned problem, there are others variables to consider, such as water and sewer. Sincerely, John Bargher 716 Elmira Road Ithaca, NY" • Ms. Sturgeon noted that Mr. Bargher has rented his home at 716 Elmira Road for 17 -20 years. Ms. Sturgeon mentioned the high density in the area where the business is proposed. Ms. Sturgeon wondered if the Health Dept. has looked at the sanitation aspect of the proposal. Ms. Sturgeon stated that there are no parking spaces along Elmira Road, and there is no safe turn -off. Ms. Sturgeon said that the space they speak of as parking space is an old farm area which might, or might not, take the weight of traffic in the changing seasons of the year. Chairperson Grigorov responded that nothing can happen without the Health Dept. approval. Ms. Sturgeon stated that there is no sewage or water, and the risk of smoke to people who have allergy problems, such as herself, will affect the neighborhood. Ms. Sturgeon reiterated that the project is moving into a high- density area for a halfway rural area; a high- density residential area. Chairperson Grigorov interjected that it is a commercial zone. Ms. Sturgeon said that it may be a commercial zone, but until just recently it has been wholly residential. It was wholly residential until the Veterinarian moved in, there were only two farm markets in that area, commenting that it is an area that is probably 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile long. Ms. Sturgeon offered that there have been a lot of accidents on Elmira Road, Ms. Sturgeon said that she keeps flares in her home for when accidents happen on Elmira Road, commenting that it is a dangerous area. Ms. Sturgeon stated that she felt it is not a safe area for a restaurant, unless a traffic light is installed, and more amenities of the City are offered. Ms. Sturgeon stated that • she did not plan on the neighborhood changing, as she liked it the way it was when she purchased her home; now people are buying land with definite plans to change the neighborhood. t Planning Board -10- June 4, 1991 • At this point, Chairperson Grigorov read into the record a letter from Elsie McMillan. "June 4, 1991 TO: Zoning Board Town of Ithaca FROM: Elsie McMillan 812 Elmira Road Ithaca, NY 14850 I learned about the hearing tonight (from a neighbor) too late to change plans and attend. The item of a proposed barbecue stand is the one of particular concern. Although I, myself, would not be likely to be affected by such a business at that location, I wish to show support for my neighbors - and there are several households who are sure to be affected. I strongly oppose the use of the stand for a barbecue business unless the odor, smoke, and traffic caused by it is kept to a level satisfactory to the close residents. After all, they were there first! If permission is granted, with restrictions, I hope provisions for enforcement of the restrictions will also be provided 'for. To be sure, the area is zoned for business, but there are many business uses for the site that would not be opposed by those living is nearby. Business zone or no, I believe the right of the residents to an environment at least as wholesome and pleasant as it has been for the past twenty or, thirty years should not be jeopardized for the first business proposal that comes along. The owner of the barbecue business will not be living there. Many long -time residents will. Those are thoughts I would have expressed in person had I been able to attend the hearing tonight. At this point, George following letter: "Mr. and Mrs. Dane Cruz 713 Elmira Rd. Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 277 -0880 June 2, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. Elsie McMillan" Sheldrake read into the record the Due to a previous engagement my husband and I are unable to attend tonights meeting to discuss the proposal of a barbeque drive -in near our home on Elmira Rd. We live within 200 feet of the proposed site and feel that we must state our position. A cooking establishment, of any sort, this near to our home would be most bothersome. The Planning Board V. -11- June 4, 1991 &� smoke created by cooking would be in direct line with our open •? windows and porch. My 85 year old father lives with us and my concern entends to his health and comfort. It is impossible to believe that this establishment could be accomplished without .continual disruption and discomfort to our home. It is therefore our request that that the proposal be denied. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Helen Littleton- Cruz" Robert Miller, of 823 Elmira Road, spoke from the floor and stated that he just heard about the proposal the other day, and questioned the fact that, if this is a business zone, it does allow the proposed operation. Chairperson Grigorov answered, yes, a restaurant would be legal and no variances would be- necessary. Harley Steffy appeared before the Board and stated that he was representing Sybil Phillips, a homeowner on Elmira Road who is a stone's throw away from the proposed project. Mr. Steffy stated that Sybil is allergic to smoke, and this would be an extreme hardship on her. Mr. Steffy, referring to grease, wondered what percentage of it the filtering system removed from the air. Mr.- Benjamin replied that he did not have it on the tip of his finger, but it is certainly not • 1000, but probably it would be 50% to 60 %. Mr. Steffy wondered how far the prevailing winds would drift the remaining grease. Mr. Benjamin responded that he did not know. Mr. Steffy felt that it would be at least the distance that a stone could be thrown. Mr. Benjamin stated that Mr. Steffy's concerns about the smoke, grease and the odor, are best understood by looking at other establishments that have fairly sizable cooking areas and look to see what comes out of their exhausts. Mr. Benjamin stated that the NFPA Fire Codes have to be followed when being involved with restaurants. Mr. Steffy said that he thought any restaurant is a fire hazard. Mr. Steffy stated that he felt the proposed project would cause undue hardship on all the people that reside in that area. Town Planner Floyd Forman, directing his question to Mr. Baldassarre, asked Mr. Baldassarre to go over traffic numbers that he expected to generate being open on weekends. Mr. Baldassarre responded that he predicts the average person would pick up 2,3, or 4 chicken halves. Mr. Forman noted that there could be an average of 300 people, and most of those people would come in between 12 :00 noon to 2:00 P.M. Mr. Forman wondered, picking a peak hour of 12:00 noon to 1:00 P.M., how much traffic would the applicant expect to generate in that peak hour. Mr. Baldassarre responded that he could not honestly say; he did not know. Mr. Forman, pointing to the map, said that people would be driving down "here ", turning across traffic and into the chicken stand for lunch, then heading back out "here ", again cutting across traffic, then back down to the State Park, Mr. Baldassarre said that not everyone would be going to the Park. Mr. Forman said that he understood that, but part of the draw in the 1 Planning Board -12- June 4 , 1991 summertime would be that the stand would be open on Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Forman said that when trip generation is figured, the number is doubled, so when the number is 300 people that would be 600 trips; meaning one trip in and one trip out. Mr. Forman wondered if he was being fair in stating that much of the business would take place between 11 :00 A.M. - 12 :00 noon and 5 :00 P.M. - 6 : 00 P.M. Mr. Baldassarre said that is right. Mr. Forman wondered if a tractor trailer could pull into the stand, swing around, and pull back out. Mr. Baldassarre indicated on the map how the tractor trailer could maneuver. Assistant Town Planner said that the amount of traffic added to Elmira Road probably may not be a lot, the problem is in the turns. Mr. Forman stated that Othat was the point he was trying to make. Mr. Forman said that it wasn' t so much the traffic numbers that were at all disturbing, it was just the cutting across traffic that raised an issue that should be dealt with by the Board. Dooley Kiefer, member of the conservation Advisory Council, stated that the sight distance at that location is not very good, commenting that she felt that a business that generates less traffic might be appropriate for that site, and not a business that generates lots of traffic. Ms . Kiefer wondered if the Planning Board had it in their discretion to deny certain types of business in a commercial zone. Chairperson Grigorov responded with, not arbitrarily, no. There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Virginia Langhans asked Mr. Baldassarre what he is going to do about water. Mr. Baldassarre responded that he would have a 1000 gallon underground water tank and have water delivered to the site. Ms . Langhans wondered if that would be enough water for a sprinkler system. Mr. Baldassarre answered, yes, there would be enough pressure. Dan Walker said that the Town Zoning Officer Andrew Frost would be looking at that from a fire standpoint. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the problems facing the Board are the odors and the traffic . Mr. Baldassarre said that he would be open Friday, although not every Friday, probably just July and August. The applicant noted that he would be open Saturday and Sunday and holidays. The applicant said he would not operate the stand during the week. Mr. Baldassarre stated that he had originally asked for 85-90 days out of the year. William Lesser wondered if the Town planners could give the Board some idea of the traffic impact, especially on the weekends. Mr. Lesser said that he felt the traffic pattern during the week was somewhat predictable, but the weekend traffic should be researched. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz said that he does not have any weekend traffic data for Elmira Road, but during the weekday the average daily volume is in the range of 13,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Frantz said that the weekend traffic is probably higher than the average road simply because of the presence of the State 7 • • • Planning Board Parks. Ms. Langhans into the City of Ithaca. -13- June 4, 1991 said that Elmira Road is one of the entrances Town Engineer Dan Walker said that one aspect of traffic is that right now there is Earlybird Farms, the Veterinarian, and the three motels which are all within about a mile, plus the Eddydale Farm Market which is about 1/2 mile down, plus a fair amount of traffic that comes out of Seven Mile Drive, the Town Highway Garage is on Seven Mile Drive, the County Highway Garage is on Bostwick Road, and any County traffic that is going south would take that road, adding that there is a significant traffic problem there right now. Mr. Walker said that it is a "congested" problem and the Town Highway Department usually responds, if there is anyone there, to assist with traffic control immediately. Mr. Walker noted that the amount of traffic the proposed establishment might generate is probably comparable to what happens at the farm markets during the Spring busy season. Mr. Walker mentioned the Veterinarian's Office in that there have been traffic problems there because there is very poor sight distance from the driveway right across the street. Mr. Walker said that the proposed establishment may increase the problem by 100, but there would have to be a pretty in -depth study really to determine how much worse this makes the problem. Mr. Kenerson mentioned Stellar Stereo, Mr. Walker responded that they are fairly low volume. Mr. Walker stated that he is concerned about traffic in that area because the Town enters and exits Seven Mile Drive with slow moving vehicles in that area, especially in the summertime, adding that the Town has been talking with the State to solve that problem. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that he checked the sight distance regarding the proposed chicken stand and noted that the shortest sight distance is to the south, toward Elmira, and it was somewhere between 400' to 5001. Chairperson Grigorov wondered what was considered okay for the 50 mph speed limit. Mr. Frantz responded that it is within the range. Mr. Frantz reported that the sight distance to the north is 1000' or more. Board Member William Lesser wondered if, this matter aside, it is possible, if the Board agrees, to ask that some kind of traffic study be done, because this sort of request is coming up more and more frequently, and there is not a lot of traffic information to work from in making a judgement. A voice wondered what kind of traffic study. Mr. Lesser responded, for one thing, weekend traffic is being discussed. Ms. Sturgeon said that Saturday traffic is horrendous, and Sunday, from about 11:00 a.m. until the State Parks close is also horrendous. Mr. Frantz, answering Mr. Lesser's comment about a traffic study, stated that one option the Board has is to make a Positive Determination of Environmental Significance based on potential adverse impacts of traffic, then direct the applicant to look into a potential impact of traffic, including what the traffic volumes are, by the hour, on the weekends, and what would be the lefthand turns into the site, along with the righthand turns, then come back to the Board with that information. Board Member Stephen Smith stated that that would be rather difficult. Mr. Frantz also mentioned adding any other potentially large impacts. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the other problem, of course, is the odor. Planning Board -14- June 4, 1991 l] • At this point, Chairperson Grigorov referred to Mr. Frantz's Planning Board meeting notes 6/4/91 on Minnie's BQ, which are attached hereto as Exhibit #2• • • Chairperson Grigorov wondered - when the winds are prevailing winds, does that mean the direction the wind is blowing. Mr. Frantz replied, yes. Mr. Lesser wondered if anyone was familiar with an operation such as the one proposed here looks like with fans, commenting that everyone is familiar with McDonald's and Mano's type operation. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the proposed stand will be open on one side. Mr. Lesser stated that it was hard for him to envision what an open barbecue pit would be like, and if it would be a major problem or no problem at all with the smoke. Mr. Lesser wondered if there was anything in the area at all like the proposed stand. Mr. Baldassarre replied, no, there are other barbecue pits around, but none that look like the proposed one, the others are all open, adding that his stand would be closed on three sides. Mr. Frantz, commenting on the odor problem, stated that it happens in all restaurants; on a warm day especially, one can be driving down Spencer Road which is directly behind Elmira Road, and smell the odors from the restaurants along Elmira Road. Mr. Frantz stated that odors are very common in areas where there are restaurants, and, frankly, he did not know how one can eliminate odors. Mr. Lesser stated that he did not think the odor can be eliminated, but it is just hard to visualize because most restaurants do not have a 30 -foot charcoal pit. Mr. Baldassarre said that he would not always be using a 30 -foot charcoal pit, he would start out with a 20 -foot charcoal pit. Virginia Langhans offered that the problem is that even though the site is zoned commercial, a restaurant is being constructed in a residential area. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Baldassarre how much of a savings he envisions by using the existing structure. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Baldassarre how valuable the structure was to him, because it seems like a fair amount of work would have to be done to it. Mr. Smith wondered if it would be better to put a new structure there. Mr. Baldassarre stated that he did not think so. Stephen Smith mentioned strip development. Mr. Lesser stated that he is hesitant to support something when there is potential of a traffic matter, which he, personally, has no real knowledge of, except for the personal experience of driving through there sometimes on summer weekends. Mr. Lesser said that he is reluctant to commit the community, and certainly the people who use that road and live there, to something like the proposed use that may be appropriate and it may not; he really did not know. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the problem is that it is a legal use for this area so that makes it a little bit different than if it were something that needed a variance. Board Member Judith Aronson, commenting on the suggestion Mr. Frantz made, asked if we could have a Positive Determination rather Planning Board -15- June 4, 1991 than a Negative one, because most of what has been addressed falls within the environmental area, whether it is traffic, odors, or safety. Mr. Lesser wondered about a traffic study, and if it would necessarily be revealing, and to put the applicant to the delay and expense of a fairly thorough traffic study for summer weekends, would the Board likely be'in a position where they would be able to make a substantially better decision at that point than they could have. Ms. Langhans noted that the Board would have to wait for the summer weekend. Mr. Frantz stated that the Board would be in a positon, based on the information available in the traffic study to: Number One, identify whether or not there are any problems from the development, then if there are no problems identified in a more detailed traffic study, then fine, go ahead and approve the project based on that additional knowledge that the Board has, adding, on the other hand, if the report study does identify problems then the Board has something to refer to in mandating mitigating measures to the applicant. A voice wondered how many measures could possibly be mandated. Mr. Frantz responded, lefthand turn lanes and stuff like that. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if there were any mitigating measures for the traffic. Mr. Frantz responded, yes, there are a number of design measures that could be incorporated any time, if needed. Chairperson Grigorov said she did not mean anything on the road, but wondered if there was anything the applicant could do on his site. Ms. Langhans stated that a traffic lane would still have to be crossed. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that he thought a traffic study would show something that is already pretty much common • knowledge among the State Transportation Planners, that, regarding the capacity of Elmira Road as a major thoroughfare and as a local road, those two uses are in conflict just based on existing usage there now, i.e., the existing turning movements. Mr. Walker said that at least a three lane road would probably be a suggestion from the State Traffic Engineers to mitigate existing problems on the road now with the existing commercial and motel uses in that area, along with the turning movements, adding that just Seven Mile Drive alone, and Five Mile Drive farther down the line, are both problem intersections. Mr. Walker said that one design the State was trying to push through involves a four -lane bridge and a four -lane roadway, but there is a major funding problem., and that is why there is not a four -lane road there now. Mr. Walker offered that at one point the State was planning on the roadway construction all the way out to Shady Corners, but that project has been pulled back. Mr. Walker stated that a traffic study would show what is already known. Virginia Langhans agreed with Mr. Walker. Mr. Lesser wondered, from a traffic study, would it be possible, looking at those numbers, to substantiate a problem. Mr. Lesser wondered if there was a significant problem there at this time. Mr. Walker responded with, yes, one is going to see a problem with turning movements off that, and that could be proven by the problems with turning movements onto the existing facilities that are on the other side of the road now. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if there was a way to prove there is not a problem. Mr. Walker said that a traffic study can be done and prove that no one!has any trouble turning and the traffic does not back up, and there are never any accidents, but a study like that Planning Board -16- June 4, 1991 would be questioned. Mr. Walker stated that in his professional • opinion there is a traffic problem out there. Mr. Lesser, directing his question to Mr. Walker, wondered if, in his professional opinion, would this proposal, as the Board understands it, exacerbate that problem notably? Mr. Walker responded that Mr. Lesser's question was very subjective. Mr. Walker replied that, if there are existing traffic problems out there, it could be shown how traffic backs up, how people go around on the shoulders, and the evidence of the shoulders breaking down. Mr. Walker stated that he has observed, informally, that a study would come up with an answer that there is a traffic problem with additional turning movements out there; it is creating additional traffic congestion problems there. Mr. Walker noted that it is a 50 mph zone, but everbody drives 65 mph. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if traffic would prevent someone from putting a business on Elmira Road. Mr. Walker responded that the traffic is why someone would want to put a business there. Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that what Mr. Baldassarre is proposing is probably the most intensive use, adding, in order to make a go of the business he is going to have to sell an awful lot of chicken. Mr. Forman cited a car dealership, for example, where a few people are coming in and buying a large object, but Mr. Baldassarre has to sell an awful lot of small inexpensive items in order to survive, and they are doing it rather quickly to come in and out. Mr. Forman offered that it is the number of people that have to make those movements in and out of traffic; it's one thing again, a car dealership or a large • object where a few people are going to come in, and if ten cars are sold a week the dealership is probably doing okay, but Mr. Baldassarre, as he put it, has to sell 500 -700 chickens per day on a weekend in order to make a go of it, so there are a large number of people making those turning movements. Mr. Lesser noted that any sales are concentrated within just a small portion of those days. Alfred Eddy, of,Eddydale Farm Market, offered that sometimes one car will purchase 20 chickens. Mr. Eddy commented that the least traffic on Elmira Road is Sunday morning. Mr. Eddy commented that no one has made the Seven Mile Drive turn as much as he has in the last 25 years, he goes home that way. Virginia Langhans stated that it sounds as though it is going to be difficult. Mr. Lesser stated that it sounds to him that some traffic information is needed, but he did not know if the applicant wants to go to that trouble and expense. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she does not want the Board to just use that as a cop -out. Mr. Lesser said that is not a cop -out if the Board asks for it. Chairperson Grigorov stated that it should really be considered whether it is worthwhile. Judith Aronson wondered if it was being suggested, in the absence of a Positive Determination, that the Board really has no alternative. Chairperson Grigorov responded, no, she was not • suggesting that. Robert Kenerson stated that it did not sound as though things were going any place. Planning Board -17- June 4, 1991 • Mr. Kenerson MOVED that the application be denied. Chairperson Grigorov stated there really has to be some good grounds. Attorney Barney stated that if it is going to be denied SEQR does not have to be dealt with. Mr. Kenerson stated that, even though it complies, it is not, apparently, going to be a satisfactory use, such as: safety use, disturbance in the neighborhood, we have said it all. Chairperson Grigorov stated that it has to be very specific because this is a legal use. Mr. Kenerson stated, yes, it is a legal use, but the way the legal use that is being applied here is with the increased traffic loads and the impact on traffic, and the impact on the neighborhood from odors and grease, etc. Attorney Barney summarized what was said, indicating as follows. 0 first, upon the finding that the traffic turning moments here of this particular use which would involve a considerable amount of traffic to sell the volume of the product that is being sought here would create a significant traffic hazard on Route 13, and second, that the use of the fans does not eliminate the odors and the odors would constitute a significant deleterious impact on the people in the surrounding vicinity,: and third, that it is not really possible to design a site here that would accommodate the turning movements of the cars in such a way that it could be done safely. Attorney Barney suggested that these could be findings, and if the Board approved of!'them the Board would be suggesting or moving a denial of the site plan approval. Mr. Kenerson agreed with Attorney • Barney._ Chairperson Grigorov noted that there had been a motion made, and wondered if anyone wanted to second the motion. Judith Aronson SECONDED the motion. Mr. Lesser wondered if the Board was vulnerable on the traffic for making a finding with no specific data. Attorney Barney stated that he thought the; Town Engineer had indicated that there is a significant problem there already, and there has also been testimony from a number of People in the audience. Stephen Smith wondered if the absence of water ,and sewer would have any bearing on this? Attorney Barney stated that that would be another finding and probably should be included because, at present, there is no public water and public sewer. Chairperson Grigorov asked if there was any further discussion. Chairperson Grigorov asked for those in favor of denying approval. Chairperson Grigorov asked that all those in favor of denying approval do so and signify aloud by saying Aye. Chairperson Grigorov noted that no one opposed and there were no abstentions. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Baldassarre asked if he would receive a copy of the denial in the mail. Chairperson Grigorov answered, yes. Stephen Smith • apologized for the matter taking so long. The following resolution was adopted by the Planning Board. Planning Board -18- June 4, 1991 • RESOLVED, that, in the matter of the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed "Minnie's BQ ", consisting of the conversion of an existing structure to a restaurant -type operation including landscaping and parking lot improvements, on a site on the southeast side of Elmira Road (NYS Rte. 13) approximately 250 feet southwest of its intersection with seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 33- 2 -7.2, Business "C" District, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board deny and hereby does deny the requested Site Plan Approval upon the following findings, 1e that the 600 -plus daily traffic turning movements required to sell the volume of product needed, according to the applicant, to make the operation feasible would involve a considerable amount of traffic and would increase dramatically an already hazardous and over - burdened situation on NYS 13 at the proposed site; 2* that using the fans proposed would not eliminate the odors, and those odors would constitute a significant deleterious impact on the people in to surrounding vicinity; 3* that it is not really possible to design a site that would accommodate the turning movements of the cars in such a way that they could be done safelty without significantly altering the highway itself which cannot be done without the State designing and agreeing to such alterations, and • 4. that, at present, there is neither public water nor public sewer available. (Roll call vote: Aye - Aronson, Baker, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Grigorov. Nay - None.) Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed "Minnie's BQ ", duly closed. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION AND RENOVATION OF HASBROUCK APARTMENTS, CORNELL UNIVERSITY, LOCATED ON PLEASANT GROVE ROAD, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 6- 67 -1 -2.1 AND 6 -68 -1 -10.1, MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; ALBERT WRIGHT, AGENT, Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Maps were appended to the bulletin board. Mr. Albert Wright, Architect /Project Manager, from Cornell University addressed' "the Board and stated that Cornell was before the Board for final site plan approval. Mr. Wright said that the Zoning Board of Appeals had granted Cornell the requested variances on • Wednesday, May 22, 1991. Mr. Wright mentioned that the variances were. one, allowed to reduce the number of parking spaces by 60; two, for the site plan to vary from the required separation between Planning Board -19- June 4, 1991 • buildings, and, would receive a Mr. Wright approval on th appended site pl three, for half of the buildings, 14 buildings, that third floor, to be 36 feet tall. stated that Cornell needs the Planning Board's e design of the reduced parking, adding that the an illustrates the proposal for that. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public had any comments or questions. Doug Brittain, of 135 Warren Road, spoke from the floor and expressed his displeasure about the project. Mr. Brittain stated that his whole point was that he felt it fairly important that Cornell keep to the process the Planning Board outlined for them. Mr. Brittain is concerned that the process be done correctly. Mr. Brittain was concerned about the view. Mr. Lesser wondered if moving the three story houses farther west would change the situation, and, secondly, wondered about the pines along Warren Road obliterating the horizon view. Mr. Brittain said that if the pines grow six inches a year and they have to obliterate a 37' building it is quite a few years. Mr. Brittain said that the Cornell Golf Course put in some trees but one can still see Hasbrouck in spite of all the trees. Mr. Brittain is concerned about the height of the building. • Larry Fabbroni, of 127 Warren Road, approached the Board and stated that he has about 287' of frontage on Warren Road. Mr. Fabbroni stated that, from his front porch, he enjoys the best view of Hasbrouck. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he is in favor of the improvement being proposed for the complex. Mr. Fabbroni said that he has lived at his present address for 13 years, and when he looks at Hasbrouck it reminds him of some WWII barracks he visited friends at when they were stationed at different bases, and he thinks the esthetics that are proposed for this project are great, including the two buildings that he ''can see the best from his front porch. Mr. Fabbroni stated that his view is unobstructed and is likely to be for a long time. Mr. Fabbroni stated that he would still be able to see enough of the West Hill horizon to satisfy him, even after the buildings are raised., Mr. Fabbroni said that there is probably a foot or two difference in the other buildings that are going to go up to three stories, so the whole issue of whether these two buildings are going to make a radical difference in terms of what one looks at, he does not think it will. Mr. Fabbroni stated that the other point he wants to make is that, as he looks at the panorama out of his front view, Hasbrouck is a small part of it. Mr. Fabbroni said that his final point is that there are many homes in the community with peaked roofs. Bruce Brittain, of 135 Warren Road, addressed the Board and stated that Dooley Kiefer of the Conservation Adivsory Council had • asked him to reiterate to the Planning Board the CAC concerns: water and sewer provision, traffic impacts. ' Planning Board -20- June 4, 1991 John Gutenberger, of 110 Eastwood Terrace, appeared before the Board and stated that the University had hosted a public meeting regarding Hasbrouck in January 1991. Mr. Gutenberger said that there was a small attendance at the January meeting, and the residents that were there had requested two things: pitched roofs, and to have the additions to the buildings set back away from Pleasant Grove Road. Mr. Gutenberger commented that the plans before the Board tonight and the previous plans were not exactly boxing the University in; they were in response to the neighborhood concerns that were raised back in January to move those buildings back from the road and to have the pitched roofs to blend in better with the neighborhood. Doug Brittain, of 135 Warren Road, again approached the Board and stated that he was in'attendance at the January 1991 meeting and he had heard different stuff than Mr. Fabbroni mentioned. Mr. Brittain stated that he had asked about the height of the roof at the January meeting. Mr. Brittain commented that he was told it was 37 feet, adding that he commented that the Town had a 30 -foot height law, and someone responded, yes, but they were told it doesn't matter. Mr. Wright stated that Cornell did meet, on at least three occasions, with the Town planning staff, adding that Cornell was encouraged to proceed with the design as Cornell had conceptualized it, with the pitched roofs, because staff had felt it was very much in keeping with the residential neighborhood. There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Stephen Smith stated that his original objection was that the variance over the 30 -foot height limitation was being asked mainly for esthetic reasons; it was not necessarily because of the view blockage, because one is gaining very little by moving it down the hill and the design is being ruined. Mr. Smith stated that, if the Zoning Board of Appeals has no problem by granting a variance based solely on esthetics ... Attorney Egan, from Cornell, interjected that there are extremely impractical reasons from the point of view of the engineering design of the truss. Ms. Langhans stated that Ithaca is unique in that it has views, and one should try and protect the views. Ms. Langhans commented that she did not know; just by lowering the two buildings, whether it would help the view. Ms. Langhans noted that she was disappointed that Cornell did not set up the balloons. Mr. Lesser said that the basic decision has been made, and given the essentials that have been granted, and the preliminary site approval, it seemed to him that it makes sense to place the tall buildings toward the back of the development as shown on the plan. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if one thought the two to four feet would make the difference between seeing the skyline and not seeing it, adding that, to her that is the question. Ms. Aronson wondered if that had to be weighed against the • appearance of the project itself, if there are some of the three story buildings in the back, and then two up front. Ms. Aronson stated that one has to also consider the integrity of the overall Planning Board -21- June 4, 1991 design for a gain that is so minimal. Ms. Aronson stated that, at this point, she would • tend to be more persuaded by two things: the integrity of the design, and the well -being of the people who live in the community. as part of the _o final approval tonight, and the other issue he saw Ms. Langhans stated that she felt it should be noted that the construction trailer arrived as of yesterday, June 3, 19919 Mr. Kenerson wondered about the prior approval of Building No. 41 and Building No. 43 and whether they will continue to be part of the final site plan approval. Attorney Barney said that a determination has to be made on which buildings will be three story as part of the _o final approval tonight, and the other issue he saw was a question about the herbicides and pesticides. Mr. Lesser wondered if moving the taller buildings farther away from Warren Road would have any impact at all on the view of the horizon. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that he thought it would be very very minimal. Chairperson Grigorov wondered about the parking. Mr. Wright, indicating on the map, stated that parallel parking would be "here" and "here ". Mr. Frantz noted that he thought it wise to minimize, as much as possible, the parking on the horseshoe portion of the project because that is where much of the traffic is concentrated. There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the • Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. Robert Keneson: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion and renovation of Hasbrouck Apartments, Cornell University, located on Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6- 67 -1 -2.1 and 6 -68 -1 -10.1, Multiple Residence District. Said expansion is proposed to consist of the addition of 92 living units to the site by the addition of a third floor to several existing buildings, additional parking spaces, and landscape improvements. 2. This is a Type I action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review for site plan approval considerations, has, on March 19, 1991, made a negative determination of environmental significance. 3. The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on March 19, 1991 and May 71 1991, has reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment Form, an environmental assessment prepared by the Town Planning Department, the comments of the Environmental Review Committee of the Town of Ithaca Conservation Advisory Council, a site plan entitled "Hasbrouck Apartments, Cornell University ", prepared by Planning Board -22- June 4 , 1991 the LA Group Landscape Architecture and Engineering, P.C. and Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architecture and Engineering, P.C. , dated February 28, 1991, two colored renderings representing buildings for which height and distance variances are required, and other application materials for this submission. 4 . The Planning Board, at Public Hearing on May 7 , 1991, granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval, subject to conditions, for this proposal . THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED: That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final Site Plan Approval to the site plan entitled "Hasbrouck Apartments, Cornell University" , prepared by the LA Group Landscape Architecture and Engineering, P.C. and Einhorn Yaffee Prescott Architecture and Engineering, P.C. , dated February 28, 1991 and revised May 13, 1991, including specifically the three-story construction proposed for buildings #41 and #43, subject to the following conditions : 1 . Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for more than 246 dwelling units, arrangements being made, satisfactory to the Town Board and the Town Engineer, to provide for such additional public sewer infrastructure as may be necessary to handle increased loading resulting from the proposed expansion, or provision of alternative means, acceptable to the Town Board and the Town Engineer and the Tompkins County Department of Health, of handling any such additional loading, it being understood by the applicant that the granting of this Final Site Plan Approval in no way guarantees that such infrastructure will be available at any time in the future, 2 . Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any third-floor dwelling units, arrangements being made, satisfactory to the Town Board and the Town Engineer, to provide for such additional water infrastructure as may be necessary to provide adequate service to the site, it being understood by the applicant that the granting of this Final site Plan Approval in no way guarantees that such infrastructure will be available at any time in the future. 3 . Approval, by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permits, of final drainage plans and soil erosion control plans for both during and after construction. AND, IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board approves the manner of using herbicides and pesticides, as set forth in the letter of May 22, 1991 from Mr. Dennis B. Osika of the Cornell University Grounds Department, and in the pamphlet submitted with such letter. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Planning Board -23- June 4, 1991 r. • Aye - Grigorov, Nay - Langhans. • • Kenerson, Baker, Lesser, Smith, Aronson. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the expansion and renovation of Hasbrouck Apartments, Cornell University, duly closed. AGENDA ITEM. CONTINUE CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED SCOPE FOR CORNELL UNIVERSITY GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, Mr. Lesser suggested that further consideration of the Cornell University G /EIS be postponed to a later date. Mr. Lesser stated that he felt the evening was too advanced to give sufficient attention to the matter. Mr. Frantz responded that it is an extremely important decision, but it was up to the Board. Chairperson Grigorov offered that it should be discussed since it is on the agenda and somebody has come to talk about it. Mr. Lesser agreed with Chairperson Grigorov in that the matter should be discussed. Chairperson Grigorov said that a decision would not be made tonight. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this issue is not actually a public hearing, but if anyone would like to speak, please come to the microphone. John Gutenberger, of Cornell University, stated that it would be helpful, and it should be noted, if there are additional items that the Board would like the University to look at. Mr. Gutenberger stated that the Board should at least give Cornell an indication of where they think the proposed Draft Scope for the Cornell University G /EIS now stands. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the public had seen the latest draft, because Bruce Brittain's comments obviously apply to the previous one, and many of his comments are incorporated into the new one. Mr. Frantz distributed copies of the revised Draft Scope, attached hereto as Exhibit #3. Ms. Aronson suggested that the discussion would be much more fruitful if the public that submitted comments had an opportunity to read the most recent document. Mr. Lesser wondered about the legal status of the decision that the Board makes -- does it mean that after the scope has been adopted the Board cannot, in the future, request an inclusion of any other topics that are not listed? Attorney Barney responded that once a Scope is adopted it is a guideline; as additional material comes forward the Board can request that the Scope be altered in some fashion to deal with that information. Attorney Barney stated that, if the Board is going to defer the consideration and provide copies to the public, he would suggest that the Board might want to request of the public that if they have any comments they be submitted in writing, perhaps a week or so in advance of the scheduled meeting, so that the meeting would be productive. Planning Board -24- June 4, 1991 Town Engineer Dan Walker the proposed scope and forward of this week, or by the first him to touch base with Cornell noted that the deadline of public. suggested to the Board that they review any written comments to him by the end of next week, adding, this will enable regarding the comments. Mr. Walker written comments also pertains to the It was the consensus of the Board that the above issue be placed on the Agenda for the June 18, 1991 Planning Board Meeting. Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the proposed scope for the Cornell University G /EIS postponed to the June 18, 1991 Planning Board meeting. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN BOARD REGARDING PROPOSED LOCAL LAW RELATING TO SITE PLAN APPLICATION PROCEDURES, Town Attorney Barney stated that this proposed local law is a product of the Codes and ordinances Committee, adding that it is largely self - explanatory, and it is designed to spell out a little bit more clearly what needs to be presented by way of site plans for preliminary and final site plan approval. Attorney Barney said that the current Zoning Ordinance does not have stated a really comprehensive set of criteria that the Planning Board should be using when it is approving site plans. Attorney Barney stated that the • Codes and Ordinances Committee is also working on a "Sunset Clause" provision. The Board held a discussion on the "Sunset Clause" provision. There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion on Procedures for Site Plan Applications and Application of a "Sunset Clause" Provision to Previously Approved Site Plans. MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. James Baker. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Town Board the adoption of the proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to Procedures for Site Plan Applications. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Aronson. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. [The referenced proposed local law is attached hereto as Exhibit #4.] • MOTION by Dr. William Lesser, seconded by Mr. Robert Kenerson: • Planning Board -25- June 4, 1991 WHEREAS, the Town Board the of Ithaca Zoning Applications, and WHEREAS, the plans; Town of Ithaca Planning Board has recommended to the adopition of the proposed Local Law Amending the Town Ordinance Relating to Procedures for Site Plan NOW, THEREFORE, and hereby does r Committee that said Clause" provision, 3, of said proposed Ordinance Relating previously approved Planning Board is aware of previously approved site IT IS RESOLVED, that the Planning Board recommend ecommend to the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee consider the application of the "Sunset as set forth in proposed Section 46 -d, paragraph Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning to Procedures for Site Plan Applications, to site plans. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Grigorov, Kenerson, Baker, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Aronson. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS There was no ADJOURNMENT other business discussed. Upon Motion, Chairperson Grigorov declared the June 4, 1991, meeting of the Town,of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Bryant, Recording Secretary, Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 0- i .1 F+IeI�c� - T.c�U/ (R� D, •.jbod Jarvica - ' `VENTILATION PRODOC i'S' - AVE, • DETROIT, MICH. 48438.1159 • i- 313.88 -9137 • �- 800 - 521.4895 DELUXE #96 CANOPIES , 13 F G T W (� USF '�• 16"' 20 : 13• IISTIC 10 F+IeI�c� - T.c�U/ (R� D, •.jbod Jarvica - ' `VENTILATION PRODOC i'S' - AVE, • DETROIT, MICH. 48438.1159 • i- 313.88 -9137 • �- 800 - 521.4895 DELUXE #96 CANOPIES i a i 11- — T' B & W SUPPLY 510 Third St,. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273 -5300 WIDTH — fl y e a APPROVAL SHEET IM0916WA�. DATA , 13 F G T W '�• i a i 11- — T' B & W SUPPLY 510 Third St,. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273 -5300 WIDTH — fl y e a APPROVAL SHEET IM0916WA�. DATA ff6. 13 F G T W '�• 16"' 20 : 13• 1 b4 a4• 2' 2•t i9• 1e• 144" 25 le SPECI•FICAT10NS q D90seSt:RIiEs, BTAINLE8S STEEL When shows: Stu�dl -BMIt canopy constructed of all 18 gauge itea , Al outside Joints continuous externally he larc welded and 'polished. All exposed sur- tal: 'gal type 302 stainless steel;. 14 oil h, Beck getter speclally fabricated :to ece vpp raese axtiactor type filters, and pitched o c rome p!ated g'rea'se drain with enclosed; Ee 'I to nleii steel coved- grease cup of Ieai t. an; {2 gallon fapacity. ;24" �Igh !flat top'., de,!� gn o t1It I' ght.against:an 8ft;6" 8ft.9" high cal Ihg.. Include; a. full complement of:20'1 W :d lrliaantl lheavjr duty; •all stainless steel, duo- actlon; baffle type;' UL Listed grease exkFAct`Fe and hanger straps; Provlslons,for.optlonal dhab ceiIling; by others: National Sancta- tjon �olindailon Listed. Built to NFPA Bulletin 196 and t1j.IiI it BOCA requirements. D9eG isE �ES. GALVANIZED STEEL: Sturdi -Bilt canopy 4onsEructe� of 'a11.16 gauge galvanize i e6 All outside Joints .conilh6ous external yy he arc; wiled ed and polished.. All;eiiposed e tq r, eng Interlor surfaces supplied wlth a whIte a ofyy Coatln'. Back gutter speclilly fah= r c�� to va' grease extrictor, type filters, and p� H ed to c rome b] ated grease dralri w tli :. •r. :' t' I ` r jmbleI; fta nless`stee cbved,grease cb of I s ha 1/2 gallon.capacit'. , 2„ �., { . es n to f t �Ight,aga nst an 80.611 . = 8 '911 h19'tet�ng::; �nctudes a lul l _ coinp�emen - :. § 11 b deb h�ivy duty, allsta n cis 'steel, duo =ac ont ppff�e type; U�,Llsted grease,eztrstioi an h IiII refi {}l Prov'sjons; o optional drop cell ing by o hers.• llatlonal Sanitation FoUnda =. 1', tlonj tad; au t to NFPA Bulletin 196 and curren BOC� redly rements. s 1' d� VAP00 -1 0b (QNT `100 watt, 6111 NSF; and CSA Approved Incandescent flreguarll_ci': f .I- 9.t.ng (,x tffe �j 11 heivy duty aluminum Junction box mounted oh xtbHoe of hood and removable) plastic. coa ed; d_eer time glass globe Without wire guard .mounted 1h flood, not prewired to junctloh_ box::': p: I e�! • Action 1 Fiete�i Fwtul�eo ... • ECONOMICAL, loiglaslipQ galvanized sleel • SELF DPAI .NING anq Ilon dripping EASILY SOAI(FD, sprilyed pi washed with mild soap fur cii.11l c �Ieallincj I. *'HEAVY GUAGE, Mot► corroding galvanized construction • UNDERWRITER'S laboratory tested and lisle d • MEETS ALL recluilelnellts of national fire prolochon associillienl bulletin #96 l :11MVIDES POSITIVE FLAME JIA'.I�I�IER: CONSTRUCTION, I'S PREVENT KITCIiEN -II- L'S FROM ENTERING A : FWORK AND BEYOND. Grease -laden all is drawn into Ill f ille: by e%INILIC. st taxis. As the air passers through Ilse syy6;1611r. Ire au:odynanucally designed twin balfle slruclure fu ("es I�fu air into a series of compressions, expansions anc� � iessure changes. The grease, heavier than air, separt It's apti sellles safely and quickly on the baffles. wirer a smn6lb sti0aces assure rapid, dripless run off into collection Ijoughs. Meanwhile. the grease -free air has passed throu(il1 the liller and up through the exhaust duct. — A911on 2 T WRI BAF[1:� CONS"f I lllC l fill I CAUSi:S Gl-'EASL TO PHL(API TATE fHCJ EXHAUST / Ili SM U .tl ALVANIZED Sllli FA C 5-C AIN GREASE 'I'i I CAN . I'Y't31J *ER. FIRE GUAIID GREASE f ILTER CLASSIFICATION BY UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES. IIIC. AS TO FI.ARAIAADILITY ONLY AFTER EXPOSURE TO GREASE LADEN AIR • Yi D� pi •M 1� f:vj• nea Fiftt T .0to 0 0 a • HEAVY GUAGE, Non coitoding altiminulil construci:ion • SELF. DRAI!JING arld non dripping • EASILY SOAKU, s )rayed or wasl lull with mild soap fol. tlif�ck cleaning • UNDERWRI(ER'S laboratory tested and li: lu�l • MEETS ALL requireipents of national fire piotectlojl association bulletin #96 PROVIDES POSITIVE FLAME iARRIER• ° CONSTRUCTION, IELPS PREVENT KITCHEN ,. ARES FROM ENTERING )UCTWORK AND BEYOND..': L01:11 r7i Grease -laden air is dl awn iplu thrs tiller by exhaust tans. As the air passes throe h the s sleet, file aerodynamically designed twin battle il ructyte fo ces the air into a series of compressions, expansions imc� Inessure changes. The . grease, heavier thall air, sefi[aralLs and settles safely and quickly on the baffles. whet e smoufh surfaces assure -rapid, dripless run off into collection loughs. Meanwhile, the grease -free air has Messed Iltiouilll the filter and up through file exhaust duct. Action. 2 1WI tj,0.AFFI.E CONSrlal c lIt.,lI CAUSSS G EASE 1 AT FR EXI1AUST Alf i. S o 1_,-i A _ MINUM SUFtt:ACi: S h A N G�EASE TO: CAPIOP\1 G [t. 'ER B & W SUPPLY 510 Third St. 111taca, HY j4850 1 t �!' 7 KJ Alp is FIRE GUAnp G�t EASE FILTER CLASSIFICATION BY UNDERWRITERS LABORAIOHIES, INC. AS TO I.AMMABILITY ONLY AFTER EXPOSURE TO GREASE LADEN AIR Avallubee hoot TURDI -BII_ I -- cc�� - - - -- VENTILATION PRo))t_1(] I S 0.100 Pt1RITAN AVE, i...PETfi MICK 48238.1159 i 0 1.313 861'9731 • 1h800 521.2895 A 510 IidCi RtIIVCR� Ithaca, NY 14850 (607)'273-53(1() - II C - NTRiFUCAi- U111mBLAST ROOF ,VENTHATOit De irect and fieil. Drive The Type ACRU -p ancj AC U it t -hlast roof ventilators are available in either direr, or )eft drive. These ventilators have p�eed dbsigned especla�) for ho Ion wtjere 11 Is necessary to elect fumes up and a I ay frgni the building. These units Incorporate an alums��ilh pacliwaIccl Ion ned; non - overloading centrifugal whee . Th jn d and drives are enclosed In a weathertlght comparll 'ent and cooled by air tubes from an area free of conta1nina ec1l ItII ies. C u -I 11j root ventilator Is des! signed for COMMERCIAL KITCHEN N Ab' _ICA IO S and features a one piece The Type VCR p t r g N N bottom spinning to-prevenl grease leakage. The VCR is belt drive only and has tit §ante 1ealdres as the ACRU -B. The VCR Is D.L. approved for operallon Up to 300 °F. Type VCR is available In sizes 1211 ihic ilgh 4A490 belt drive only. These ven- tllators are AMCA cerllfled (pr air - and - _sound When specifying VCR mo��e tells substitute V In the catalog number for R (I xam) a 120V2B . The Type VCR Is also availa�) e as a square base wall mount unit In sizes 126 thr'( 'It 245 be�I drive only. When specifying VCR wall Inoirni units add "W" to model number (Example 120V2M). - -- - -- B _.... . . - -- - -- ACRU•D DIMENSIONAL nATA I. .... - C VVl • 1, TUBE`- ...... .... . .......- .. '._ it - -111 — 1 0 _� -G -_. A LR 16267 The type ACR ire fire requ 1e4,1 tjta iy�a V,C o smoke gn E35331 Meet N86141 y pr oA khcin slat I the VCR b grease commercial a page 60 4 - App'x. Size A Ij 70 11 7 G T -Sq. 21— 190_ 100 _13.112 _13.112 21 VENT _. 20 _ 120 =3116_ 3d- 118 TUBE _17 17 -13116 3d 18 150 -718_ 35-18 165_: —19 _19 -318_ _18 22;718 _35.118 4dJ16 -_180 _ 67 24 -15116 9 - -2- 2 --20 - — - 29 5116 - 10 2 _20 -- _72_ 87 _24 - - T 24 90 LR 16267 The type ACR ire fire requ 1e4,1 tjta iy�a V,C o smoke gn E35331 Meet N86141 y pr oA khcin slat I the VCR b grease commercial a page 60 4 - -- - App'x. Size A Ij 70 11 7 G T -Sq. 21— 190_ 100 _13.112 _13.112 21 18 _. 20 _ 120 =3116_ 3d- 118 135 _17 17 -13116 3d 18 150 -718_ 35-18 165_: —19 _19 -318_ _18 22;718 _35.118 4dJ16 -_180 _ - -- - App'x. Ship'g. c D G T -Sq. wt. 4 5 -118 2 18 _. 20 8 516_ 7.114_ 2_ 19 .. 28_ 19 518_ _ 7]14_ 2 _ 30 _18 _ _ 67 24 -15116 9 - -2- 2 --20 - — - 29 5116 - 10 2 _20 -- _72_ 87 _24 - - 24 90 .29.518_ r— -..— -- � . -- -- —24 -- -- 36.518 2 11— 2 24 102' - _ ACRU•BNCR DIMENSIONAL BATA ACRU•B l . VCR' Size _A _a _ _C 11 0_ T•Sci. Less Mir Less MI 100: 15 -1118_ 25 --18_ 2b -711 6 -518 2 - 18 - -- 30 _ NA 120_ 17-13/16 30. 18 2� 311 - - 2 20 55 61 i.._ '.....1. . 135 17_13116 •3(6- IB_ 3:151 �� —5 - 2 20- 60_ . 66 150 19 -718 35- lf1 2 24 70 77 __ _��• .T..- _.t... _ -165 =1-9_ 8— 9;5L _2_ _2 _ 75, 83- �80 22 718_ �a: ! 35.51 _ _ _ 2 —24— _SO 100 ' ^J95 22 718 _�d• IB_ - 3�1 _ �__.2 24— 100 _10_ 210 _255112 4� 153 51 3 _30 _200_ 220 _225_ 25-112 9 18_ � 51 - - 5 _ 3_. 30 220_ 242 245. 27.11!16 � 18 35 -11 18 518 3 30 240 264 270 28.1118 18 �7 31 —15 3 38 260 _286 300 33 -7116 5 _ 16 3.1 _ 1 _28— _3 36 300_ 336 330 33.11116 _5 - IB_ All _.22� 3 42 _ 365— 37�_ 365 35.15116 8 - 18 48 - 2918_ 3 42 380 420 402_ 37 -7118 _6 IB 5b•15f�e X21__ 3 _48— �40 484_ 445_ 42 7_116_ _78 IB 53.7118 26716 3 54 -_ -500 556_ 490 44-3/16 _ 78• !8 58.111 32:718 3 �5 650 _715 VCR Is available In sizes 12d (hfil 49d belt Drive only. ors re available as I. Wien fisted models CRUBU.,,_ tied for the removal W, 762) NFPA 96.— oACU ofen Cook Comi , cart les that the ACRU -D, ACRU•B/VCR shown • �� {p�isi on ar 1 cefieed Co be I the AMCA Seal. The ratings shown are bes- son. 6d pQn lep�q made In accordance with AMCA Standard 210 (and AMCA.: ;is hdarc( X1101 er d comply with the requirements of the AMCA CeAllled .am Ralings .rod etrl.' The soups retlnaq glawn ere ablafned in accordance with AMCA Stan'- gqbr{l 9W, let! Seldlr Numl'ar 2A. Loudness values In cones at a dls ante of 5 feat were ca culaled In accordance with AMCA Standard 9 _ /! / n LJ • UA:OC;�8�* OF 1,% TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 - HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747 i T0: Planning Board members FROM: George R: Frantz, Acting Town Planner G /� DATE: May 30, 1991 RE: Planning °IBoard meeting -- 6/4/91 A few items regarding the meeting agenda: r ve is Facilitv. ZONING 273 -1747 Priscilla Noetzel- FIilson of Cornell University will present th= University's plan for a tennis center on Pine Tree Road north of the Equitation Centler. This will be a sketch plan review intended to afford the Planning Board an opportunity to review the project and Comment on it, At this time Cornell.has no set timetable for bringing the proposed facility to the Town. for Special Approval and construction, However because of the interest generated by r_;;a proposal over the past several months, the University feels it review. appropriate to present it to the Planning Board now fer inform-. Minnie's Bp. ; -. The applicants havel returned to the Planning Board wit1h additional information regarding the ventilation system, and a revised ^site Plan as requested by the Planning Board--on-April 16. I have also spoken with Hoyt Benjamin of B &W Supply, vendor.of the ventilating equipment, regarding its capabilities. The exhaust system 1proposed, as I related l to.you at the April ril 16 meetin g, is expected to address the - potential problem of smoke. However _it is not_ exlpected_to .be- ef- f- ecti =ve — in-- e= l - -im- n-ati -ftg- potential- - cooking odors from the exhaust, There are a couple of factors which may reduce .the any adverse. impactsl.on the surrounding properties due to odors. The first one is that the exhaust from the pit will be directed upward into the atmosphere by•the fans of the exhaust system. Also, because of the orientation of the site and Elmira Road, the prevailing northwest winds can be expected to disperse the exhaust in the direction of e barn and undeveloped area to the southeast of the site.(see aerith b al photo in packet) Hasbrouck Apartments. The Zoning Board ofl��Appeals on Wednesday, May 22 granted Cornell University the variances related to the proposed expansion-of �17 t • C, r� U r ' CORNELL, " U N I V E K S 1 T Y Associate Vice President Facilities Planning and Construction Carolyn Grigorov !i Town of Ithaca 125 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 1480 Dear Carolyn: 17 I I bill rrlrl h,mr: rd III1IC.I, XCti I 14 `titi!'I Fat �i III 1iv. ...v. May 31, 1991 The attached scope description for the GETS is aptirove: t - � C: Administration ana I is submitted for approval by the Town Pianr,in^ ^^� We appreciate the' Town's efforts in helping prepare this outline o* s 1 ie Z matter that will be examined in the GEIS process. We will be responsive local concerns an&d will use this process to formulate a. plan to In eio us al; reach mutually acceptabje conclusions about long range develo ^rrr;en! or I 1p defined area. �I Very tr ihl vOt:rs, I ,uf Paul M. Grir, I LSR /tm Attachment r Proposed Scope of Issues and • Outline for the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement i Cornell University, Ithaca, New York The purpose of this proposed Scope is to provide a guide to the information and level of detail to be included in Ithe Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement ( DGEIS) for certain lands of Cornell University. These lands are the area known as The Orchards bounded • by Route 366, Game Farm Road and Cascadilra- Creek, and other University owned lands to the south bounded by Caslcadilla Creek, the Town of Dryden Town Line, Snyder Hill Road, Pine Tree Road, Slaterville Road, The City of Ithaca line, Ellis Hollow Road and Judd Falls Road as illustrated on thellattached figure. The purpose of the DGEIS is to present a plan for the development of The Orchards over a 20 year time frame and, to the extent possible, providd information on proposed development for the lands south of The Orchards. Portions of these lands are subject to use by New York State. Planning and development of statutory facilities is governed in part by the State of New York. As part of this process, Cornell will supply to the best of. its ability, available information on state projects that fall within the area covered by the GEIS, and also the East Hill Plaza commercial area. • The level of detail of analysis will be greater on The Orchards parcel, about which more specific plans are known, than on the lands to the south which will be used by New York State. The following information shall be included in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. I COVER SHEET The cover sheet shall include: A A statement that it is a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. B. The name of the project. C. The locatio °n of the project. • i P ) 1 43 5/31/91 0 • • D The name and address of the lead agency and the name and telephone number of la contact person at the lead agency. i E. The name and address of the preparers of the document and the name and telephone !number of a contact. F. The date of acceptance of the DGEIS. G. The deadline date by which comments are due. The cover sheet shall be followed by an Executive Summary providing the following: A. A brief desscription of the action. B. A listing of significant beneficial and adverse impacts and specification of controversial issues. C A listing f r g i proposed mitigation measures. i D A discussion of the alternatives considered. E. A listing Ilof the matters to be decided including required permits and approvals and funding. The Table of Contents shall follow the Executive Summary . This section of the DGEIS will provide a generic description of the development program planned for The Orchards. It will be as specific as possible given that the building mix will evolve within the development program. A description will also be provided of known or anticipated development plans for lands within the project boundaries south of The Orchards. 2 5/31/91 • Specifically provided will bie: A. Project Purpose, Need and Benefits 1. Background and historical growth trends at Cornell will be discussed. 21 The need for The Orchards project -within the r- entext of h iste ie tre e w0>',° ted will be explained as specific needs for space that Cornell anticipates. The need for other projects south of The Orchards will be discussed. 3. The e objectives of The Orchards development will be discussed. The objI6ctives of other development south of The Orchards will be discussed. 4. The social economic, educational and other benefits of the proposed action will be presented. • Be Location 1. The geographic boundaries of the project utilizing appropriate maps IL will be presented. More detailed mapping may be available for The Orchards than for areas to the south. 2. A description of existing access to various parts of the project will be prolvided. I 31 A description of existing zoning of the project will be provided. C Design ands, Layout The final design and layout of The Orchards area may not be available for many years. The GEIS will present square footage, types of use and will describe development program guidelines or criteria for • design and layout of the Orchards. Land clearing plans will be described. 3 5/31/91 M i Informationfor the area south of The Orchards will be provided to the extent • that it is available. 1. Total Site Area a A general estimate of proposed impervious area will be provided. h An estimate of the amount of land to be cleared will be provided. i C An estimate of the amount of open space will be provided. d. Development impact on adjoining properties in the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden will be identified. 2. Structures • a. Gross floor area and type of use of structures will be provided, for projects that have been developed to this level of detail I! such as the proposed tennis facility. b. Schematic layout, height and massing of buildings will be provided, for projects that have been developed to this level of detail such as the ro osed tennis facility. P P C Conceptual utility plans will be provided, including evaluation of off -site impact. 3. Pa lE-ing Circulation and Parking Assumptions about ublic transportation P services and the effect on the estimate of future parking needs will be included. i • a Schematic Road Layout 4 5/31/91 • • 11 1 11 a. hF Conceptual relationship of parking requirements to building uses and areas. c Assumptions on Public Transportation D. Construction and Operation 1. Construction a. An estimate of the total construction period will be given and an estimate of construction phasing provided, with schedule. b. Potential development on .adjoining properties will be discussed. 2. Operation a. A general discussion bf the operation of each type of facility under consideration will be provided. E. Approvals 1. A discussion of zoning and other regulatory approvals -required to construct the various project elements will be provided. This section of the DGEIS will provide a baseline description of the environment in order that an assessment of adjacent to the site, conditions and potential project impacts can be made, in and A. Geology, Soils and Topography 5 5/31/91 L 1. Based on published surveys and reports, this section will discuss the •dep th to and type of bedrock material. Any limitations to development or opportunities for use will be noted. 2. Based on published surveys and reports, a discussion of soil types, physical properties, engineering properties and agricultural properties will be presented. A map of soil types will be prepared. Suitability for use,and potential limitations to development will be discussed. 3. Impact on soil from past agricultural management practices, including pesticide application, will be investigated and analyzed. Suitability for proposed uses and potential limitations to development will be discussed. 41 A description of topography will be provided. Detailed topography at 2' contour intervals will be presented for The Orchards. USGS topography will be presented for the remainder of the project. A slope map will be made for The Orchards. Significant topographic features • will's be described. Potential limits to development will be noted. The topography of the surrounding area will be described. 5. The; old landfill site adjacent to the creek will be discussed, identifying past use and present status. B. Water Resources __ =p 1. Groundwater a. The location and description of any aquifers or recharge areas under or nearby the project area will be noted. Depth to water tables and limitations as it may impact retention ponds will be discussed from published sources. b. Any water quality problems associated with present runoff to the creek will be identified. 6 5/31/91 • • • 2. Surface Water a. ! Users and levels of use of relevant surface waters will be provided utilizing published data. b. Drainage characteristics of the project area watershed will be modelled using the US Soil Conservation Service TR -20 model. 5, 10, 25, 50 and 100 -year return storms will be modelled to__pro_v_ide baseline information for management of storm water runoff. Drainage patterns and channels will be described. C Water quality issues of the poultry wastewater disposal lagoon _ will be discussed and analyzed. Sediment at the bottom of this lagoon will also be analyzed. Limitations to development and . alternatives will be discussed. d. Floodplains and floodways will be illustrated utilizing Federal Emergency Management Agency Mapping, C Air Resources 1. Climate a. A discussion of climatic factors includin g , wind temperature, P - precipitation and humidity will be provided. 2. Air (;;Quality a. National and state air quality standards for the project area will be listed and the existing levels, based on available data, and compliance status for each pollutant noted. Existing pollutant sources and sensitive receptors will be noted: D. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 7 5/31/91 e i 1. Vegetation • a. ',', Vegetation types in the project area will be listed by species and mapped based on field investigation. Site vegetation will be characterized by species presence and abundance, age, size, uti n distri b o dominance community types, value as wildlife habitat and productivity. Any unique, rare, threatened or endangered species will be noted. 2. Fish and Wildlife a. Fish and wildlife species in the project area will be Iisted based on field investigation. Species presence and abundance, distribution, dominance and productivity will be discussed. Any unique, rare, threatened or endangered species will be noted. 3. Wetlands a. Wetland areas will be delineated and mapped utilizing U:S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria. Wetlands meeting criteria for regulation by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation will also be delineated and mapped. Wetland characteristics including acreage, vegetative cover, classification and benefits will be discussed. E. Agricultural Resources II 1. Soils a. Soils will be listed by name, slope and soil group ranking within the NYS Land Classification System. The number of acres within each group and the location on a map will be provided. • 2. Agricultural Land Management System 8 5/31/91 • a. An inventory of existing erosion control and drainage systems will be provided and any existing soil and water conservation plans will be discussed. 3. Operations • a. The number and types of farm and associated operations on and adjacent to the site will be listed. b. Research and educational programs will be listed. C The type and proximity of agricultural facilities such as storage sheds, barns, sorting and .packing houses will be listed. F. Transportation 1. Transportation Services • a. p A complete description of existing facilities will be provided. The description will include size, capacity and condition of the facility. Descriptions of roadways, highways, traffic controls, site ingress and egress and parking will be included. b. '' The current level of facility use will be fully described.. The existing AM:_aind PM peak hour traffic volumes will be counted at key intersections, the vehicle mix will be reported and current problems identified and described. The following intersections will be included: • Caldwell Road and NYS Route 366 • Tower Road and NYS Route 366 • Tower Road and Judd Falls Road • Judd Falls Road (north) and NYS Route 366 • Judd Falls Road (south) and NYS Route 366 • a Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road 9 5/31/91 �#s • • • • Ellis Hollow Road and Pine Tree Road • Dryden Avenue, Maple Avenue, Ithaca Road and Oak Avenue (Six Corners) • Stevenson and Game Farm Road C The trip generation of the proposed project will be determined rand added to the projection of future background traffic. -The future traffic- c-endi+ieps With and without the + will b examined to deter-mine the traffic- impacts a��e6med With 04 proposed et, (this sentence relocated to section on impacts) d. The noise impact of any projected changes of traffic volume on Ellis Hollow Road will be evaluated. 2. Public Transportation a. The existing components of the public transportation system will be fully described. - b. Services currently available within the study area will be defined, and measures of current usage will be reported. 31 Pedestrian Environment Z Existing pedestrian activities will be described in the context of overall transportation. b. Future pedestrian activities generated by the proposed development will be described in the context of the overall transportation system. 4. Bicycle Facilities a Existing bicycle facilities will be described 70 5/31/91 �� L • • • h Future bicycle facilities will be discussed. G Land Use and Zoning 1. Existing Land Use a. A description and map of existing land uses on and within 14 mile of the project area will be provided. 314 Residential areas of Pine Tree Road, Bryant Park, Varna and Forest Home will be included, b. A description of existing zoning on and within 1J-2-mile of the project area will be provided. 314 c Commercial areas including East Hill Plaza will be described and evaluated. e & The existing Town of Ithaca land use plan will be discussed. The on -going plan update will be discussed as it affects the project. e. Past waste disposal °practices on the site by Cornell will be investigated and discussed. Limitations to development and alternatives will b discussed.- e An evaluation of surface and ground water containment will be included. 1 L Community Services This section' will present a discussion of existing levels of usage and projected future needs. 1. Police and security services as provided by the Town, State, County and if Cornell University will be discussed. Manpower and equipment levels and adequacy will be discussed. IG �L 11 5/31/91 } r. 2. Fire protection manpower and equipment levels will be inventoried. • The existing and future adequacy of fire protection services will be discussed. 3. Health care manpower and facilities provided by the Town and Connell University will be inventoried and assessed. 4. Rec1reational facilities provided by the Town and Cornell will be inventoried and assessed. 5. Socli al Services provided by the Town will be inventoried and assessed. 6. Primary and secondary schools serving the area will be inventoried and, assessed. 7. Utility services provided by Cornell and regulated public utility companies including electric power, natural gas and telephone service is will be inventoried and assessed. 8. Potable and fire protection water supply provided by municipal systems and private (Cornell University) system will be inventoried Ii and' assessed. Energy analysis will include hydraulic modeling using "Kentucky Pipe" model. 9. Sewage disposal options including privately owned " on-site " systems will be inventoried and assessed. 10. Solid waste disposal facilities provided by the County will be ii discussed. Collection and recycling programs by Cornell will be discussed. L Demography 1. Population characteristics including household size composition and • age will be discussed using the most recent available census data. 12 5/31/91 RE L • 0 I 21 Population projections will be presented using published data. J. Cultural Resources I 1. Visual Character 20 I� a. The visual character of the project area including Cascadilla u Creek will be discussed and illustrated with photographs. Surrounding roads from within the project area which are visible will be noted. A zone of visibility map will be prepared. Educational Resources to the Community a p 2. Hisll a. . i M b. Noil'se a. ii Educational resources will be described. and Archaeological Resources Historic areas and structures listed on the State.or National Register and those structures with the potential for such eligibility will be located.-and described. Local registers of historic places and structures will be consulted. A Phase 1A Cultural Resources Survey will be conducted to determine the potential for presence of archaeological resources and the need to conduct field surveys as construction progresses. Existing noise sources in and nearby the project area will be described and subjectively evaluated. Any nearby sensitive receptors will be located and described, including residential, areas around the site. 13 A� 5/31/91 This section will describe the potential impacts of the project as described in Section III and on the environment as described in Section IV. Impacts and mitigating measures will be discussed for both construction and operation phases. Mitigating measures will be presented for each significant impactllidentified, The DGEIS will take a "threshold" approach to many potential impacts. For example, traffic impacts will be spaced out: over a number of years as development occurs. The future traffic conditions with and without the project will be examined to determine the traffic impacts associated with the propiosed project. The DGEIS will recommend the specific traffic improvements necessary to mitigate impacts as certain thresholds are - reached. For other impacts, particularly those related to construction, generic mitigation measures applicable throughout the life of the i�project will be proposed. Threshold limits will be proposed by Cornell and its consultants for Town review. • The proposed change in zoning from R -30 to Special Land Use will be described and its impacts on current land use restrictions will be explained. C7 VI. ALTERNATIVE This section of the DGEIS will present alternatives at a level of detail sufficient to permit a comparative assessment of costs, benefits and environmental risks for each alternative. The level .of detail of the discussion will be greater. for The Orchards. The following alternatives will be considered: A. Alternative, Design and Technologies 1. Land Use Plan and Development Program Potential alternative land use plans and development programs will be examined. B. Alternative Sites 14 �3 5/31/91 C • I u i 10 Al' iternative sites which could meet the project objectives will be disc cussed. Factors considered will include the availability of land, suitability of alternative site(s) to accommodate design requirements, - - - avI ilability of utilities, compatibility with zoning and land use plans, compatibility with natural resource considerations and accessibility. I CO Alternative Size 1. An increase or decrease in project size will be considered and D. Alternate Scheduling 1. Alternate construction and operations phasing will be discussed. E. Alternate Land Use 1. Use of the project area for other uses will be considered. F. No Actionli 1. The no- action alternative will be considered, including its effect on Cornell University's needs and possible displacement of impacts. �I This section will identify those natural resources identified in Section IV consumed, converted or made unavailable for future use. This section will also present a' summa of unavoidable adverse impacts. acts. p that will be 5/31/91 f1� This section will describe potential growth inducing aspects, including potential increases in . development pressure on other lands and various secondary impacts. Specifically considered will be the following: A. Population 1. Potential increases in population due to job creation and consequent need for housing, education, commercial and other support facilities. B. Developme,�nt Potential 1. Potential new development caused by expanded infrastructure such as road improvements or utilities. • • C. Growth potential for the University will be described. 1.. Campus physical growth needs and their likely impact on the GEIS area will be explained. 21- The potential "ripple effect" of Cornell development will be described. Ate, Use 1. This section will estimate the direct and indirect use of energy attributable to the proposed development. B. Conservation 1. This', section will describe the energy conservation opportunities available for the proposed development. 16 5/31/91 - a • . � a • • The following technical appendices will be included. Additional appendices may be prepared as necessary. A. References,,' Including Published Materials and Person Consulted Be Relevant Correspondence C Traffic Study u D Storm Water Management Calculations E. Utilities i F. Wetlands Reports G Cultural Resources Report 17 PL 5/31/91 TOWN OF ITHACA • LOCAL LAW N0. OF THE YEAR 19 i ^ :i ♦. r DRAFT TOWN OF ITHACA • LOCAL LAW N0. OF THE YEAR 19 i :i A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO PROCEDURES FORISITE PLAN APPLICATIONS. Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca as follows: The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca as readopted, amended and revised effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended as follows: _.. 1. Article IX, Section 46, the opening paragraph, is amended to read as follows: . "Section 46., Procedure Related to Establishment of a Zoning District. When an application is submitted to the Town Board-for-.establishment of a Residence District R5, Multiple Residence, Business 'A', 'B', 'CAP •'D', =and 'E', and any other Special-Land Use .Districts, the establishment of which may be. permitted under this Ordinance, all hereinafter referred to as 'Districts', the applicant shall proceed as follows:" ' 2. Article IX,. Section 46, subdivision.l,° is amended to read as . follows: 9 =!'The applicant shall submit Aa general !site .plan to the ..Town Board which Fshall show.property lines, including metes and bounds, adjacent public streets,....topography; size 4and location df existing or -proposedt' structures, and thel. applicant -shall submit such other'.pl'ans and - information and any other features deemed. reasonably necessary by the- Town Board for adequate study. .of the proposed plan. Upon, its review of the general site ,plan,, they Town 'Board may refer ' the matter to the Planning, Board for further review: and recommendation." m 3. Article IX, Section 46, subdivision 2, first sentence, is amended to read as follows: -- ?' -- - -- "Upon - referral - -of- -the -matter -to- the ' Planning -- Board -by- the - - - Town Board; •.;the Planning. Board. may' require such changes in4 the general!. site plan as' are necessary to. meet the requirementsi� of this ordinance -and. may make any other recommendations which it deems necessary to promote the general health, safety, morals, ando the general welfare of the community." 4. Article IX, Section 46, subdivision 3, is amended to read as follows: do •.. " } I , s i i •.. " } I i i 1 1 I 2L1.JJL4140P9 LL, Lbik, :!r L. 't t LV . JC/CralY n3. Whenever a District is created pursuant to the_ provisions of this Article, the owner shall be bound by the general, site plan as approved and adopted by the Town Board." 5. Article IX is further amended by renumbering former section 46 -a to be 46 -b and adding a new section 46 -a reading as follows: "Section 46 -a. Procedure Related to Special Approvals. In those circumstances where site plan approval by the Planning Board is a ipre- condition to the granting of a Special Approval forba use, the applicant shall proceed as follows: 1. The applicant will submit a site plan which shall show property lines, including metes and bounds, adjacent public streets, topography, size and location of existing or proposed structures, and such other plans and information and any other features deemed reasonably necessary by the Planning Board for adequate study of the proposed plan. 2-. The Planning Board may require such changes in the site plan as are necessary to meet the requirements of this Ordinance and may make any other recommendations which it deems necessary to promote the general health, safety, morals, and *the -general welfare of < the community, The 'Planning Board shall then adopt a resolution recommending, either approval, approval with modifications; or disappr'o!val of the proposed plan. Before Zany such resolution is adopted,. the. Planning, Board shall hold a public hearing which shall be .heard° ;by the ] LPlanning Board within thirty (30) days of the filing !of the .completed application for the Special Approval with site plan with the Planning Board, and such hearing shall be advertised in a. newspaper of general, circulation in the' Town' of Ithaca at least sfive (5) days-before such-hearing. The Planning Board shall make its determination within thirty (30)- days after the hearing and forward the same to the Chairman or Clerk of the Board of'Appeals. -- T 3. Theo owner and- applicant- -- shall -be -bound --by the-final- 8 ite plan as approved by the Planning Board." 60 Article, IX, former section 46 -a, now renumbered 46 -b, is amended by deleting subdivision 1 and inserting a new subdivision 1 to read as follows: ^'1. After a Residence District R5, Multiple Residence, -may 2 i i 1 I 2L1.JJL4140P9 LL, Lbik, :!r L. 't t LV . JC/CralY n3. Whenever a District is created pursuant to the_ provisions of this Article, the owner shall be bound by the general, site plan as approved and adopted by the Town Board." 5. Article IX is further amended by renumbering former section 46 -a to be 46 -b and adding a new section 46 -a reading as follows: "Section 46 -a. Procedure Related to Special Approvals. In those circumstances where site plan approval by the Planning Board is a ipre- condition to the granting of a Special Approval forba use, the applicant shall proceed as follows: 1. The applicant will submit a site plan which shall show property lines, including metes and bounds, adjacent public streets, topography, size and location of existing or proposed structures, and such other plans and information and any other features deemed reasonably necessary by the Planning Board for adequate study of the proposed plan. 2-. The Planning Board may require such changes in the site plan as are necessary to meet the requirements of this Ordinance and may make any other recommendations which it deems necessary to promote the general health, safety, morals, and *the -general welfare of < the community, The 'Planning Board shall then adopt a resolution recommending, either approval, approval with modifications; or disappr'o!val of the proposed plan. Before Zany such resolution is adopted,. the. Planning, Board shall hold a public hearing which shall be .heard° ;by the ] LPlanning Board within thirty (30) days of the filing !of the .completed application for the Special Approval with site plan with the Planning Board, and such hearing shall be advertised in a. newspaper of general, circulation in the' Town' of Ithaca at least sfive (5) days-before such-hearing. The Planning Board shall make its determination within thirty (30)- days after the hearing and forward the same to the Chairman or Clerk of the Board of'Appeals. -- T 3. Theo owner and- applicant- -- shall -be -bound --by the-final- 8 ite plan as approved by the Planning Board." 60 Article, IX, former section 46 -a, now renumbered 46 -b, is amended by deleting subdivision 1 and inserting a new subdivision 1 to read as follows: ^'1. After a Residence District R5, Multiple Residence, -may 2 41L iAGi�l.11 IL 71 lUiJUdA4 LO • Businessy - Light Industrial or Industrial District, or any other Special Land Use District, has been established by the Town Board and whenever a specified development or Changes in thellgeneral plan are proposed, or whenever a site plan is required by.any other provision of this Ordinance, a site plan for the proposed use must be submitted and approved by the Planning Board before a building permit may be issued. If the original site plan submitted in connection with the initial creation of the District or the granting of the Special Approval was of sufficient detail and containedisufficient information as to constitute, in the Planning toard's discretion, a final site plan, such original site'iplan shall suffice* otherwise, the applicant shall submit a detailed site plan (hereinafter referred -to - -- as 'final site plan') in accordance with this Ordinance. This final site plan shall show property lines, including metes and bounds, adjacent public streets, topography, including existing and proposed contours, size and location of structuresIl, area and location of parking, off - street loading and access drives, proposed signs and lighting, proposed •landscaping and any other features deemed reasonably necessary by the Planning Board for adequate study of the proposed plan." 7.. Article IX, former section 46 -a, now.renumbered 46 -b, is ..further amended by amending subdivision 4, opening paragraph; sec6ndtosentence, by adding thereto the following after the words • "site plan - approval ": nand shall. hold .a public hearing on said application for " .- modification of the site-plan--and shall make its decision on. i .same within J. time limats set forth with respect to an original site!iplan application. ". P so Article IX is further amended by adding' a new section 46 -c reading as, follows: nSection 46 -c General Considerations The Planning Board's review of a general, preliminary, or final site] plan shall include as appropriate, but shall not be limited to, the following considerations: - — - - - 1.- Adequacy;: arrangement,— and- l- ocat-i-on -of vehicular- -- - access and circulation, including intersections, road . j widths, pavement 'surfaces, off - street parking and loading areas, and traffic controls. 2. Adequacy,. arrangement, and location of pedestrian IF and bicycle traffic access and circulation, control of intersections with vehicular traffic, and appropriate 3 i i + d r n provisions for handicapped persons. • 3. Adequacy, location, arrangement, size, design, and general site compatibility of buildings, lighting, signs, open spaces, and outdoor waste disposal facilities. 4. Adequacy, type, and arrangement of trees, shrubs, and other landscaping constituting a visual and /or noise- deterring buffer between the applicant's and adjoining lands, including the retention of existing vegetation of value to the maximum extent possible. 5. In the case of a residential property, and in the case of" other properties where appropriate, the adequacy "and utility of open space for playgrounds and for informal recreation. 69 Protection of adjacent properties and the general public against noise, glare, unsightliness, or other objectionable features. 70 Adequacy of storm "water, drainage, water supply, and sewage disposal facilities. 8: Adequacy of fire .lanes and other emergency provisions. 9. The effect of the ".proposed development ..on environmentally sensitive areas. including; but not limited to wetlands,, floodplains, woodlands, - -_ -steep slopes, and water courses, and :on other open ;space Areas of,importance,:to the.neighborhood.or commun�,ty. 100 Compliance with the. Zoning Ordinance, subdivision regulations, if applicable, and any other applicable laws, rules; requirements, or policies. 90 Article IX is further amended by adding a new section _ 46- dreading as follows: "Section 46 -d. Other Provisions -' - 1.= No building permit shall be _issued for . a_ project__with. an approved final site plan until the applicant has furnished j to the Town Engineer an irrevocable letter of credit in an amount to be '!approved by the Town Engineer. Such letter of credit shall insure that all items on the site plan that may be deemed necessary to provide for., adequate traffic flow, utilities, and other infrastructure items are constructed in ! accordance with the approved final site plan and any other 4 ' .:.... . .. .. .. � ...r– • ^'dlri+'ICR r— pry -_.. _�.r _ _ ___ .A r r y 6� 0 IN • pertinent specifications and requirements. The Planning Board may waive the requirement or may accept other evidence or promise of; completion of required facilities for the site plan if, in its discretion, it determines that there is no need for the letter of credit. - 2. No final certificate of occupancy or certificate of compliance shall be issued until all improvements shown on the final site plan as approved by the Planning Board are installed or until a sufficient performance guarantee, such as a letter of credit, has been provided to the Town for improvements Ilnot yet completed. The sufficiency of such performance guarantee shall be determined by the Town Engineer after consultation with the Building Inspector or- other persons designated by the Planning Board. The Planning Board may waive the requirement for such performance guarantee if, in its discretion, it determines that the guarantee is not needed. 3a Unless work has materially commenced in accordance with the final site plan within one year from the issuance °of the building permit .-authorizing such work, or within eighteen months of the date the Planning Board gave final site plan approval, whichever is earlier, not only the building permit but the site plan approval (both final and preliminary) shall expire and the permissible uses and construction on the property !Ishall revert, to those in effect prior to the granting of !any site, plan 'approval. The Planning Board, upon request li of the applicant;. • and upon a finding. that • the imposition of the time }limits set. forth above would create an 'undue hardship on the applicant, may extend the ti i me limts.•.for %su`ch additional periods as the-Planning-Board may reasonably determine. An •application for such extension shall. be. made no later than .six months ,after. the expiration of the time limits set forth above. For • the ' purposes of this • section, work will not have ymaterially commencedp .unless, at aminimum, (i.) a building permit has been obtained; (ii) construction equipment- and tools consistent• with the size of 'the proposed work have been brought'` to and been used on the site; and (iii) substantial 'excavation (where. excavation is required) or framing or erection (where excavation is not. required) ..has —been started i,and is- being diligently pursued. 5 1 � + •l pertinent specifications and requirements. The Planning Board may waive the requirement or may accept other evidence or promise of; completion of required facilities for the site plan if, in its discretion, it determines that there is no need for the letter of credit. - 2. No final certificate of occupancy or certificate of compliance shall be issued until all improvements shown on the final site plan as approved by the Planning Board are installed or until a sufficient performance guarantee, such as a letter of credit, has been provided to the Town for improvements Ilnot yet completed. The sufficiency of such performance guarantee shall be determined by the Town Engineer after consultation with the Building Inspector or- other persons designated by the Planning Board. The Planning Board may waive the requirement for such performance guarantee if, in its discretion, it determines that the guarantee is not needed. 3a Unless work has materially commenced in accordance with the final site plan within one year from the issuance °of the building permit .-authorizing such work, or within eighteen months of the date the Planning Board gave final site plan approval, whichever is earlier, not only the building permit but the site plan approval (both final and preliminary) shall expire and the permissible uses and construction on the property !Ishall revert, to those in effect prior to the granting of !any site, plan 'approval. The Planning Board, upon request li of the applicant;. • and upon a finding. that • the imposition of the time }limits set. forth above would create an 'undue hardship on the applicant, may extend the ti i me limts.•.for %su`ch additional periods as the-Planning-Board may reasonably determine. An •application for such extension shall. be. made no later than .six months ,after. the expiration of the time limits set forth above. For • the ' purposes of this • section, work will not have ymaterially commencedp .unless, at aminimum, (i.) a building permit has been obtained; (ii) construction equipment- and tools consistent• with the size of 'the proposed work have been brought'` to and been used on the site; and (iii) substantial 'excavation (where. excavation is required) or framing or erection (where excavation is not. required) ..has —been started i,and is- being diligently pursued. 5 • FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date IL /g. /99. EXCERPT From the Minutes of the Planning Board Meeting June 4, 19910 PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED "MINNIE'S BQ, CONSISTING OF THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE TO A RESTAURANT -TYPE OPERATION INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AND PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS, ON A SITE ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF ELMIRA RD. (NYS RTE. 13) APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET SOUTHWEST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH SEVEN -MILE DRIVE, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 33- 2 -7.2, BUSINESS "C" DISTRICT. KEN BALDASSARRE, OWNER /APPLICANT. (ADJOURNED FROM APRIL 16, 1991) Chairperson Griggrov declared the Public Hearing in the above -noted matter duly'opened at 8:20 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. At this point, Mr. Baldassarre distributed to members of the Board copies of material concerning the ventilation system proposed for the chicken barbecue stand. The ventilation system is manufactured by the Sturdi -Bilt Company located in Detroit, Michigan. (Ventilation System material attached hereto as Exhibit #1.) A large map was appended to the bulletin board. Chairperson Grigo.rov noted that the Board was looking for information on the adequacy, reliability, and operational mechanisms of the hood system, particularly with respect to the removal of the odor of smoke and the like, how long it lasts, what kind of cleaning operations are needed, and what kind of maintenance operations are needed to maintain it." Hoyt Benjamin, of the B &W Restaurant Supply, approached the Board and offered that he was open to questions about the ventilation system. Attorney Barney wondered what one would smell after the system is turned on. Mr. Benjamin responded that the system is not a mechanical process for removing an odor, commenting that, in his information, there is not any kind of that equipment being used; generally, it is not available and if it were available it would be extremely expensive. "Attorney Barney asked if one could smell the same odor outside as they would inside. Mr. Benjamin said that that was a pretty fair statement. Mr. Benjamin said that the system contains the emissions as they are coming off the equipment. Mr. Benjamin noted that, typically, this stuff-is designed for the inside of a building to safely conduct the grease -laden air from the inside, remove the grease and ^get the air outside, adding that that is the entire principal of a restaurant exhaust system. Mr. Benjamin stated if that the primary concern of any restaurant exhaust system is that it • be fire safe. Mr. Benjamin said that the baffle filters that come with the hood are designed to quickly accumulate any grease that goes up with the heated air, adding, the grease accumulates on the baffle Planning Board Excerpt (2) June 4, 1991 • filters that rest at an angle in the back of the hood; the air passes through them and little particles of grease are trapped on the filters, and the air moving through the system is always somewhere between 2000 -3000. Mr. Benjamin stated that that temperature is hot enough to keep the grease in a liquid state, in a liquid state it follows the filter back down into the collection trough and into a cup for disposal; this has to be cleaned at regular intervals, depending on what is being cooked and how fast it gets greasy. Mr. Benjamin said that it does not take smoke out per se. Mr. Benjamin stated that he did not know of any restaurant in Ithaca, including the big dining halls at Cornell University, where there is anything other than this type of system; this is what is designed for commercial restaurant use. Mr. Benjamin stated that this system would meet the Town Fire code, Building codes, and Health Dept, codes, adding that it has all the approvals that are necessary from the various State and Federal agencies for this kind of equipment for this kind of application. Mr. Benjamin said that, beyond the very simple principles involved in this, one would be looking for something that is not commercially available, not commercially used, and that the codes are not written for, commenting that the codes are more specific about fire problems than anything. Board Member Bob Kenerson asked about the anticipated height. Mr. Benjamin replied that, to meet the code, it would be 40" over the level of the roof. • Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the charcoal filters were a different system. Mr. Baldassarre responded that he wanted to get the best system available and this is what Mr. Benjamin recommended. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if the drainage system information was in. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz responded that the drainage is shown on the site plan. Mr. Frantz said that the parking lot would be gravel. Mr. Frantz said that he did not see drainage as being any problem as a result of this proposal. Chairperson Grigorov, referring to the landscaping, noted that there are a couple of areas of lawn, a parking area in the back, lighting inside the building. Ms. Langhans wondered where the parking was located that is not to be permitted. Mr. Baldassarre replied that there would be no parking in the front; there will only be parking on the side and in the back. Chairperson Grigorov said that the main difficulties were with the smoke and the odor. Chairperson Grigorov noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there were anyone from the public who had any comments or questions. George Sheldrake, of 713 and 715 Elmira Road approached the Board. Mr. Sheldrake stated that he owns Earlybird Farm, Mr. Sheldrake, directing his comment to Mr. Benjamin, wondered if he knew of any restaurant in Ithaca that has a 30' by 4' charcoal grille. Mr. Benjamin answered, no. Mr. Sheldrake was concerned about the • smoke. Mr. Sheldrake noted that Mr. Baldassarre would have a sprinkler system, and asked what the plans were for water. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that the water will be coming to the • -•• Planning Board Excerpt (3) June 4, 1991 • corner of the property that the subject building sits on; this will be the last property that the end of the watermain will touch in the first phase; the second phase will be in the next summer's (1992) construction season. Mr. Walker said that there will not be water or sewer out there until next summer (1992). Mr. C. Gray, owner of the Grayhaven Motel on Elmira Road, spoke from the floor and stated that he is the guy that will get all the stink from the smoke. Mr. Gray, commenting on the traffic, stated that there are no roads on Elmira Road where there is a turn -in road or a turn -out road. Mr. Gray wondered where Mr. Baldassarre was going to build. Mr. Baldassarre said he plans no expansion, he will be using the existing building. Mr. Gray mentioned a traffic light to control traffic, stating that there are accidents on that road every week. Mr. Gray felt that this proposal should be held up at least a year until the Board finds out what is happening with the 4 -lane highway on Rte. 13, Mr. Frantz responded that there are no plans for any 4 -lane highway; the State plans are for improvements to replace the bridges over the railroad tracks and Buttermilk Creek. Eleanor Sturgeon, of 718 Elmira Road, approached the Board and read aloud the following letter dated 6/4/91. "To The Ithaca Town Board - I am writing this in protest of the food establishment proposed • for my neighborhood. It will cause traffic hazards on an already busy road, cars and probably trucks will park on the road sides. It is already difficult to enter and exit ones own driveway in this neighborhood. Besides the above mentioned problem, there are others variables to consider, such as water and sewer. Sincerely, John Bargher 716 Elmira Road Ithaca, NY" Ms. Sturgeon noted that Mr. Bargher has rented his home at 716 Elmira Road for 17 -20 years. Ms. Sturgeon mentioned the high density in the area where the business is proposed. Ms. Sturgeon wondered if the Health Dept. has looked at the sanitation aspect of the proposal. Ms. Sturgeon stated that there are no parking spaces along Elmira Road, and there is no safe turn -off. Ms. Sturgeon said that the space they speak of as parking space is an old farm area which might, or might not, take the weight of traffic in the changing • seasons of the year. Chairperson Grigorov responded that nothing can happen without the Health Dept. approval. Ms. Sturgeon stated that there is no sewage or water, and the risk of smoke to people who have Planning Board Excerpt (4) June 4, 1991 • allergy problems, such as herself, will affect the neighborhood. Ms. Sturgeon reiterated that the project is moving into a high- density area for a halfway rural area: a high- density residential area. Chairperson Grigorov interjected that it is a commercial zone. Ms. Sturgeon said that it may be a commercial zone, but until just recently it has been wholly residential. It was wholly residential until the Veterinarian moved in; there were only two farm markets in that area, commenting that it is an area that is probably 1/2 mile to 3/4 of a mile long. Ms. Sturgeon offered that there have been a lot of accidents on Elmira Road. Ms. Sturgeon said that she keeps flares in her home for when accidents happen on Elmira Road, commenting that it is a dangerous area. Ms. Sturgeon stated that she felt it is not a safe area for a restaurant, unless a traffic light is installed, and more amenities of the City are offered. Ms. Sturgeon stated that she did not plan on the neighborhood changing, as she liked it the way it was when she purchased her home; now people are buying land with definite plans to change the neighborhood. At this point, Chairperson Grigorov read into the record a letter from Elsie McMillan. "June 4, 1991 TO: Zoning Board Town of Ithaca 40 FROM: Elsie McMillan 812 Elmira Road Ithaca, NY 14850 I learned about the hearing tonight (from a neighbor) too late to change plans and attend. The item of a proposed barbecue stand is the one of particular concern. Although I, myself, would not be likely to be affected by such a business at that location, I wish to show support for my neighbors - and there are several households - who are sure to be affected. I strongly oppose the use of the stand for a barbecue business unless the odor, smoke, and traffic caused by it is kept to a level satisfactory to the close residents. After all, they were there first! If permission is granted, with restrictions, I hope provisions for enforcement of the restrictions will also be provided for. To be sure, the area is zoned for business, but there are many business uses for the site that would not be opposed by those living nearby. Business zone or no, I believe the right of the residents to an environment at least as wholesome and pleasant as it has been for the past twenty or thirty years should not be jeopardized for the first business proposal that comes along. The owner of the barbecue business will not be living there. Many long -time residents will. Those are thoughts I would have expressed in person had I been able • to attend the hearing tonight. Elsie McMillan" • Planning Board Excerpt (5) June 4, 1991 • At this point, George Sheldrake read into the record the following letter. "Mr. and Mrs. Dane Cruz 713 Elmira Rd. Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 277 -0880 June 2, 1991 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. Due to a previous, engagement my husband and I are unable to attend tonights meeting to discuss the proposal of a barbeque drive -in near our home on Elmira Rd. We live within 200 feet of the proposed site and feel that we must state our position. A cooking establishment, of any sort, this near to our home would be most bothersome. The smoke created by cooking would be in direct line with our open windows and porch. My 85 year old father lives with us and my concern entends to his health and comfort. It is impossible to believe that this establishment could be accomplished without continual disruption and discomfort to our home. It is therefore our request that that the proposal be denied. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. • Sincerely, Helen Littleton- Cruz" Robert Miller, of 823 Elmira Road, spoke from the floor and stated that he just heard about the proposal the other day, and questioned the fact that, if this is a business zone, it does allow the proposed operation. Chairperson Grigorov answered, yes, a restaurant would be legal and no variances would be necessary. Harley Steffy appeared before the Board and stated that he was representing Sybil Phillips, a homeowner on Elmira Road who is a stone's throw away from the proposed project. Mr. Steffy stated that Sybil is allergic to smoke, and this would be an extreme hardship on her. Mr. Steffy, referring to grease, wondered what percentage of it the filtering system removed from the air. Mr. Benjamin replied that he did not have it on the tip of his finger, but it is certainly not 100 %, but probably it would be 50% to 60 %. Mr. Steffy wondered how far the prevailing winds would drift the remaining grease. Mr. Benjamin responded that he did not know. Mr. Steffy felt that it would be at least the distance that a stone could be thrown. Mr. Benjamin stated that Mr. Steffy's concerns about the smoke, grease and the odor, are best understood by looking at other establishments that have fairly sizable cooking areas and look-to see what comes out of their exhausts. Mr. Benjamin stated that the NFPA Fire Codes have to be followed when being involved with restaurants. Mr. Steffy said • that he thought any restaurant is a fire hazard. Mr. Steffy stated Planning Board Excerpt (6) June 4, 1991 • that he felt the proposed project would cause undue hardship on all the people that reside in that area. Town Planner Floyd Forman, directing his question to Mr. Baldassarre, asked Mr. Baldassarre to go over traffic numbers that he expected to generate being open on weekends. Mr. Baldassarre responded that he predicts the average person would pick up 2,3, or 4 chicken halves. Mr. Forman noted that there could be an average of 300 people, and most of those people would come in between 12 :00 noon to 2:00 P.M. Mr. Forman wondered, picking a peak hour of 12:00 noon to 1 :00 P.M., how much traffic would the applicant expect to generate in that peak hour. Mr. Baldassarre responded that he could not honestly say; he did not know. Mr. Forman, pointing to the map, said that people would be driving down "here ", turning across traffic and into the chicken stand for lunch, then heading back out "here ", again cutting across traffic, then back down to the State Park. Mr. Baldassarre said that not everyone would be going to the Park. Mr. Forman said that he understood that, but part of the draw in the summertime would be that the stand would be open on Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Forman said that when trip generation is figured, the number is doubled, so when the number is 300 people that would be 600 trips; meaning one trip in and one trip out. Mr. Forman wondered if he was being fair in stating that much of the business would take place between 11 :00 A.M. - 12:00 noon and 5 :00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M. Mr. Baldassarre said that is right. Mr. Forman wondered if a tractor trailer could pull into the stand, swing around, and pull back out. • Mr. Baldassarre indicated on the map how the tractor trailer could maneuver. Assistant Town Planner said that the amount of traffic added to Elmira Road probably may not be a lot, the problem is in the turns. Mr. Forman stated that Othat was the point he was trying to make. Mr. Forman said that it wasn't so much the traffic numbers that were at all disturbing, it was just the cutting across traffic that raised an issue that should be dealt with by the Board. Dooley Kiefer, member of the Conservation Advisory Council, stated that the sight distance at that location is not very good, commenting that she felt that a business that generates less traffic might be appropriate for that site, and not a business that generates lots of traffic. Ms. Kiefer wondered if the Planning Board had it in their discretion to deny certain types of business in a commercial zone. Chairperson Grigorov responded with, not arbitrarily, no. There appearing to be no one else from the public who wished to speak to this matter, Chairperson Grigorov closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Virginia Langhans asked Mr. Baldassarre what he is going to do about water. Mr. Baldassarre responded that he would have a 1000 gallon underground water tank and have water delivered to the site. Ms. Langhans wondered if that would be enough water for a sprinkler system. Mr. Baldassarre answered, yes, there would be enough • pressure. Dan Walker said that the Town Zoning Officer Andrew Frost would be looking at that from a fire standpoint. • Planning Board Excerpt (7) June 4, 1991 • Chairperson Grigorov stated that the problems facing the Board are the odors and the traffic. Mr. Baldassarre said that he would be open Friday, although not every Friday, probably just July and August. The applicant noted that he would be open Saturday and Sunday and holidays. The applicant said he would not operate the stand during the week. Mr. Baldassarre stated that he had originally asked for 85 -90 days out of the year. William Lesser wondered if the Town planners could give the Board some idea of the traffic impact, especially on the weekends. Mr. Lesser said that he felt the traffic pattern during the week was somewhat predictable, but the weekend traffic should be researched. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz said that he does not have any weekend traffic data for Elmira Road, but during the weekday the average daily volume is in the range of 13,000 to 14,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Frantz said that the weekend traffic is probably higher than the average road simply because of the presence of the State Parks. Ms. Langhans said that Elmira Road is one of the entrances into the City of Ithaca. Town Engineer Dan Walker said that one aspect of traffic is that right now there is Earlybird Farms, the Veterinarian, and the three motels which are all within about a mile, plus the Eddydale Farm Market which is about 1/2 mile down, plus a fair amount of traffic that comes out of Seven Mile Drive, the Town Highway Garage is on Seven Mile Drive, the County Highway Garage is on Bostwick Road, and • any County traffic that is going south would take that road, adding that there is a significant traffic problem there right now. Mr. Walker said that it is a "congested" problem and the Town Highway Department usually responds, if there is anyone there, to assist with traffic control immediately. Mr. Walker noted that the amount of traffic the proposed establishment might generate is probably comparable to what happens at the farm markets during the Spring busy season. Mr. Walker mentioned the Veterinarian's Office in that there have been traffic problems there because there is very poor sight distance from the driveway right across the street. Mr. Walker said that the proposed establishment may increase the problem by 100, but there would have to be a pretty in -depth study really to determine how much worse this makes the problem. Mr. Kenerson mentioned Stellar Stereo, Mr. Walker responded that they are fairly low volume. Mr. Walker stated that he is concerned about traffic in that area because the Town enters and exits Seven Mile Drive with slow moving vehicles in that area, especially in the summertime, adding that the Town has been talking with the State to solve that problem. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that he checked the sight distance regarding the proposed chicken stand and noted that the shortest sight distance is to the south, toward Elmira, and it was somewhere between 400' to 5001. Chairperson Grigorov wondered what was considered okay for the 50 mph speed limit. Mr. Frantz responded that it is within the range. Mr. Frantz reported that the • sight distance to the north is 1000' or more. Board Member William Lesser wondered if, this matter aside, it is possible, if the Board .agrees, to ask that some kind of traffic study be done, because this Planning Board Excerpt (8) June 4, 1991 • sort of request is coming up more and more frequently, and there is not a lot of traffic!'information to work from in making a judgement.. A voice wondered what kind of traffic study. Mr. Lesser responded, for one thing, weekend traffic is being discussed. Ms. Sturgeon said that Saturday traffic is horrendous, and Sunday, from about 11:00 a.m. until the State Parks close is also horrendous. Mr. Frantz, answering Mr. Lesser's comment about a traffic study, stated that one option the Board has is to make a Positive Determination of Environmental Significance based on potential adverse impacts of traffic, then direct the applicant to look into a potential impact of traffic, including what the traffic volumes are, by the hour, on the weekends, and what would be the lefthand turns into the site, along with the righthand turns, then come back to the Board with that information. Board' Member Stephen Smith stated that that would be rather difficult. Mr. Frantz also mentioned adding any other potentially large impacts. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the other problem, of course, is the odor. At this point, Chairperson Grigorov referred to Mr. Frantz's Planning Board meeting notes -- 6/4/91 on Minnie's BQ, which are attached hereto as Exhibit #20 Chairperson Grigorov wondered - when the winds are prevailing winds, does that mean the direction the wind is blowing. Mr. Frantz replied, yes. • Mr. Lesser wondered if anyone was familiar with an operation such It as the one proposed here looks like with fans, commenting that everyone is familiar ° with McDonald's and Mano's type operation. Chairperson Grigorov° stated that the proposed stand will be open on one side. Mr. Lesser stated that it was hard for• him to envision what an open barbecue pit would be like, and if it would be a major problem or no problem';at all with the smoke. Mr. Lesser wondered if there was anything in the area at all like the proposed stand. Mr. Baldassarre replied, no, there are other barbecue pits around, but none that look like the proposed one; the others are all open, adding that his stand would be closed on three sides. Mr. Frantz, commenting on the odor problem, stated that it happens in all restaurants; on a warm day especially, one can be driving down Spencer Road which is directly behind Elmira Road, and smell the odors from the restaurants along Elmira Road. Mr. Frantz stated that odors are very common in areas where there are restaurants, and, frankly, he did not know how one can eliminate odors. Mr. Lesser stated that he didi not think the odor can be eliminated, but it is just hard to visualize because most restaurants do not have a 30 -foot charcoal pit. Mr. Baldassarre said that he would not always be using a 30 -foot charcoal pit, he would start out with a 20 -foot charcoal pit. Virginia Langhans offered that the problem is that even though the site is zoned commercial, a restaurant is being constructed in a • residential area. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Baldassarre how much of a savings he envisions by using the existing structure. Mr. Smith asked Mr. Baldassarre how valuable the structure was to him, because Planning Board Excerpt • it seems like a fair amount of Smith wondered if it would Mr. Baldassarre stated that he (9) June 4, 1991 work would have to be done to it. Mr. be better to put a new structure there. did not think so. Stephen Smith mentioned strip development. Mr. Lesser stated that he is hesitant to support something when there is potential of a traffic matter, which '!he, personally, has no real knowledge of, except for the personal experience of driving through there sometimes on summer weekends. Mr. Lesser said that he is reluctant to commit the community, and certainly the people who use that road and live there, to something like the proposed use that may be appropriate and it may not, he really,did not know. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the problem is that it is a legal use for this area so that makes it a little bit different than if it were something that needed a variance. Board Member Judith Aronson, commenting on the suggestion Mr. Frantz made, asked if we could have a Positive Determination rather than a Negative one, because most of what has been addressed falls within the environmental area, whether it is traffic, odors, or safety. Mr. Lesser wondered about a traffic study, and if it would necessarily be revealing,- and to put the applicant to the delay and expense of a fairly thorough traffic study for summer weekends, would the Board likely be,in a position where they would be able to make a substantially better decision at that point than they could have. Ms. Langhans noted 'that the Board would have to wait for the summer weekend. Mr. Frantz stated that the Board would be in a positon, based on the information available in the traffic study to: Number One, identify whether or not there are any problems from the development, then if there are no problems identified in a more detailed traffic study, then fine, go ahead and approve the project based on that additional knowledge that the Board has, adding, on the other hand, if the report study does identify problems then the Board has something to refer to in mandating mitigating measures to the applicant. A voice wondered how many measures could possibly be mandated. Mr. Frantz responded, lefthand turn lanes and stuff like that. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if there were any mitigating measures for the traffic. Mr. Frantz responded, yes, there are a number of design measures that could be incorporated any time, if needed. Chairperson Grigorov said she did not mean anything on the road, but wondered if there was anything the applicant could do on his site. Ms. Langhans stated that a traffic lane would still have to be crossed. Town Engineer Dan Walker stated that he thought a traffic study would show something that is already pretty much common knowledge among the State Transportation Planners, that, regarding the capacity of Elmira Road as a major thoroughfare and as a local road, those two uses are in conflict just based on existing usage there now, i.e., the existing turning movements. Mr. Walker said that at least a three lane road would probably be a suggestion from the State Traffic Engineers to mitigate existing problems on the road now with the existingiicommercial and motel uses in that area, along • with the turning movements, adding that just Seven Mile Drive alone, and Five Mile Drive farther down the line, are both problem intersections. Mr. Walker said that one design the State was trying Planning Board Excerpt (10) June 4, 1991 to push through involves a four -lane bridge and a four -lane roadway, . but there is a major funding problem, and that is why there is not a four -lane road there now. Mr. Walker offered that at one point the State was planning on the roadway construction all the way out to Shady Corners, but that project has been pulled back. Mr. Walker stated that a traffic study would show what is already known. Virginia Langhans agreed with Mr. Walker. Mr. Lesser wondered, from a traffic study, would it be possible, looking at those numbers, to substantiate a problem. Mr. Lesser wondered if there was a significant problem there at this time. Mr. Walker responded with, yes, one is going to see a problem with turning movements off that, and that could be proven by the problems with turning movements onto the existing facilities that are on the other side of the road now. Chairperson Grigor,ov wondered if there was a way to prove there is not a problem. Mr. Walker said that a traffic study can be done and prove that no one has any trouble turning and the traffic does not back up, and there are never any accidents, but a study like that would be questioned. Mr. Walker stated that in his professional opinion there is a traffic problem out there. Mr. Lesser, directing his question to Mr. Walker, wondered if, in his professional opinion, would this proposal,° as the Board understands it, exacerbate that problem notably? Mr.;yWalker responded that Mr. Lesser's question was very subjective. Mr. Walker replied that, if there are existing traffic problems out there, it could be shown how traffic backs up, how people go around on the shoulders, and the evidence of the • shoulders breaking down. Mr. Walker stated that he has observed, informally, that a study would come up with an answer that there is a traffic problem with additional turning movements out there; it is creating additional 'traffic congestion problems there. Mr. Walker noted that it is a 50 ,,mph zone, but everbody drives 65 mph. Chairperson Grigorov wondered if traffic would prevent someone from putting a business on Elmira Road. Mr. Walker responded that the traffic is why someone would want to put a business there. Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that what Mr. Baldassarre is proposing is probably the most intensive use, adding, in order to make a go of the business he is going to have to sell an awful lot of chicken. Mr. Forman cited a car dealership, for example, where a few people are coming in and buying a large object, but Mr. Baldassarre has to sell an awful lot of small !'inexpensive items in order to survive, and they are doing it rather quickly to come in and out. Mr. Forman offered that it is the numberilof people that have to make those movements in and out of traffic; it's one thing again, a car dealership or a large object where a few people are going to come in, and if ten cars are sold a week the ildealership is probably doing okay, but Mr. Baldassarre, as he put it, has to sell 500 -700 chickens per day on a weekend in order to make a go of it, so there are a large number of people making those turning movements. Mr. Lesser noted that any sales are concentrated within just a small portion of those days. • Alfred Eddy, ofiEddydale Farm Market, offered car will purchase 20 chickens. Mr. Eddy commented traffic on Elmira Road is Sunday morning. Mr. Eddy that sometimes one that the least commented that no • • Planning Board Excerpt (11) June 4, 1991 one has made the Seven Mile Drive turn as much as he has in the last 25 years; he goes home,that way. Virginia Langhansp stated that it sounds as though it is going to be difficult. Mr. Lesser stated that it sounds to him that some traffic information is needed, but he did not know if the applicant wants to go to that trouble and expense. Chairperson Grigorov stated that she does not wait the Board to just use that as a cop -out. Mr. Lesser said that is 1,not a cop -out if the. Board asks for it. Chairperson Grigorov pstated that it should really be considered whether it is worthwhile. Judith Aronson wondered if it was being suggested, in the absence of a Positive Determination, that the Board really has no alternative. Chairperson Grigorov responded, no, she was not suggesting that. Robert Kenerson stated that it did not sound as though things were going any place. Mr. Kenersonil MOVED that the application be denied. Chairperson Grigorovi stated there really has to be some good grounds. Attorney Barney stated that if it is going to be denied SEQR does not have to be dealt with. Mr. Kenerson stated that, even though it complies, itljis not, apparently, going to be a satisfactory use, such as: safetiy use, disturbance in the neighborhood; we have said it all. Chairper "son Grigorov stated that it has to be very specific because this is a legal use. Mr. Kenerson stated, yes, it is a legal use, but the way the legal use that is being applied here is with the increas''ed traffic loads and the impact on traffic, and the impact on the neighborhood from odors and grease, etc. Attorney Barney summarized what was said, indicating as follows: first, upon the finding that the traffic turning moments here of this particular use which would involve a considerable amount of traffic to sell the volume" of the product that is being sought here would create a significant traffic hazard on Route 13, and second, that the use of the fans doves not eliminate the odors and the odors would constitute a significant deleterious impact on the people in the surrounding vicinity, and third, that it is not really possible to design a site here that would accommodate the turning movements of JI the cars in such a way that it could.be done safely. Attorney Barney lisuggested that these could be findings, and if the Board approved of them the Board would be suggesting or moving a denial of the site plan approval. Mr. Kenerson agreed with Attorney Barney. Chairperson Grigorov noted that there had been a motion made, and wondered if anyone wanted to second the motion. Judith Aronson SECONDED the motion. Mr. Lesser wondered if the Board was • for making a finding with no specific data. that he thought the Town Engineer had vulnerable on the traffic Attorney Barney stated indicated that there is a • • Planning Board Excerpt (12) June 4, 1991 significant problem there already, and there has also been testimony from a number of people in the audience. Stephen Smith wondered if the absence of water and sewer would have any bearing on this? Attorney Barney stated that that would be another finding and probably should be included because, at present, there is no public water and public sewer. Chairperson Grigorov asked if there was any further discussion. Chairperson Grigorov asked for those in favor of denying approval. Chairperson Grigorov asked that all those in favor of denying approval do so and signify aloud by saying Aye. Chairperson Grigorov ilnoted that no one opposed and there were no abstentions. Chairperson Grigorov stated that the motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Baldassarre asked if he would receive a copy of the denial in the mail. Chairperson Grigorov answered, yes. Stephen Smith apologized for the matter taking so long. The following resolution was adopted by the Planning Board. RESOLVED, that, in the matter of the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed "Minnie's BQ", consisting of the conversion of an existing structure to a restaurant -type operation including if il landscaping and parking lot improvements, on a site on the southeast side of Elmira Road (NYS Rte. 13) approximately 250 feet southwest of its intersection with Seven Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 33- 2 -7.2, Business if "C" District, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board deny and hereby does deny the requested site Plan Approval upon the following findings: 1. 2. 3. 4. that the 600 -plus daily traffic turning movements required to sell the volume ofIproduct needed, according to the applicant, to make the operation feasible would involve a considerable amount of traffic and would increase dramatically an already hazardous and over - burdened situation on NYS 13 at the proposed site; that using the fans proposed would not eliminate the odors, and those odors would constitute a significant deleterious impact on the people in to surrounding vicinity; that it is not 'really possible to design a site that would accommodate the turning movements of the cars in such a way that they could be done safelty without significantly altering the highway itself which cannot be done without the State designing and agreeing to such alterations, and that, at present; there is neither public water nor public sewer available. (Roll call vote: Aye - Aronson, Baker, Kenerson, Langhans, Lesser, Smith, Grigorov. Nay - None.) Chairperson Grigorov declared the matter of the Consideration of Site Plan Approval forliithe proposed "Minnie's BQ", duly closed at 9 :39 p.m. • • Planning -Board Excerpt Mary S(I Bryant ,,//Reco Town of Ithaca Plann 7/12/91 (13) g Secretary, Board. June 4, 1991 0 t F I Fill �tr ` Iy I.i I l4 ( :. x,.I . . 1 8400 PURI ,1 F%0* ■ U R�� D ' I '. b� • ' %od &rvice 'VENTILATION PRODS �Cyl'S it AN AVE.; • DETROIT, MICH. 48238.1159 a 1- 33.883 -9737'a i- 800 - 821 -2895 T a! B & W SUPPLY 510 Third St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273 -5300 I 0 APPROVAL SHEET 21 � 1 WMAL DATA 1 IN WIDTH I 0 T W At T a! B & W SUPPLY 510 Third St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273 -5300 I 0 APPROVAL SHEET 21 � 1 WMAL DATA 1 IN WIDTH 0 T W At }r N '2 4" 1®' DELUXE# 13' 16'' a'. T a! B & W SUPPLY 510 Third St. Ithaca, NY 14850 (607) 273 -5300 I 0 APPROVAL SHEET +tl SPECIFICAT� NS '' s, t•Abw •,� i'i -1. , a,. t! ❑ t rrn. +! 11F1. li'' Ll d98$B Sk'*Ik !l�AINLE8',B s7EBL Whor• chows: Stu di -8� 1 canopy constructed o all 18 gauge I It lteej; outside Joints cont nuous externally he larc wel(�ed ancr oli "shed: AI exposedsur- ace ! �liget' ;type 302 stilnless� steep. #41 0l) �1: Beck+gl t er specially fabrlcated;ll to hi I Fecle ylebsd extractor type f!lters, and pitched o c tome plate grease drain with, enclosed; +I+(1 QQt t + ! 11 'tl 1. i O! ( r .' II h + 1' 1 I I t ti t 1; Fe v`b A to Rleas stee (coved grease cup of less t any ga� on aliacity:,124" high 'flatltopt. + trl I. a" .t 1• 1r t. -rI I I tl r S ! , x ` ,� ll 11 11 d s�gri �t' �giitFagainIj Bfi ;6 - 8ft.9 high col, fit Includes a full complement of -201 I��tt x +1 1'. I 1 all 11 I ; , I. I I II. 1 i. S 11 I 1 x !.+ d mad� n heav dut' all stainless stee) dlo -act n; baffle ty e; 11L1L13ted grease F •' �1"1t� ZilF.t. 6Y 1rIiY' Provlsjons for,optlonal d op ce lin "' 6' others; Rational Sanita= ex' ,aci t na hanger satraps: 11, . 1 I gg_� y `off' �oirtdetinn lisEed.!' Built to OPA Bulletin #96 and'1iirreli 66 A requirements. II dtl +. y., ;•,iu 11.'1 +p '• 1 fi+ li r I 1 .,I, "trii•:' 1s8{lFl�lljllil. i. D98Q SE S nALVANItED eTE!Lt Sturdl -Bllt canopy nstructel of a11;18 gauge galvanized r: .S. v i� t u: t I, r t+ +, PY, 111 Wilt 1 d r t F ,1!I" i t See '�'f1 outside joints '.contlnuou5 external hejjart wg� ed and polished. Ajllexposed ;: + tl + ii +Yl 1+' 1 x il!+ tf 111 +,1i -1 j 1 '+ +" 1 " y Back' utter spec ally fab- ei<t r nterlorlI'sur1taces supplied with a wh to eqx oatl'n 1 Y F 1 a+ , !! 9+ 11 +�h' 1 1 ', I 1. i/ i y 2 1 11 1 i f I, 1•• It F �t •+ to acolve tease extractor t e, filters and pcXe, to c roma�R ated grease drain w t` 1 ! i,x FUiI r 9. t •le A.x 6r h r 1 yp ! 1 r F f it .•1 +F'i +. A• + l x. I y I (1 t 11 F ! ;' k $r able to nlessIsteel: tbved ;grease cilb of Ha �2; ga� on.:capacI .,,1 24.. gh ., i! Ilitn„ x�yii tl u,t tigi I1 11- 11 " F I il; +,rlI JIy x,r..u,i iAil- `E. E ;C (dean to f,.Eig�itlagalnstt an 8 ft:6 8 .9 t� Iel r�g. (n iudes aul l com �ement y, �F1, 1. I !, i rte +. •n I-I yyW x S , x n I •'Yu 6i tPY •A r 1 p Arintf 1 F;,Fi, 'atF:tn :, "'o /FF{ppLi.J j tle'1{�I8vy, duly„ al I stein esslsteel; duo -ac on; Ple tyel'� Isted greasel`extiactora 11 iF 5 i 11 ii,i t .. $ , l I .� , " •t. t 1+ I n I 1 r 1: r t + '1'u .1 : J 'I P 1 s o o tional dro ce Ing �y a leers: llatlonal Sanlfatlon Founda ;E �BUI�roy�s on f p p + , t to 'N PA Bulletin p96 an d Curren tBOCA 'rec�Il reme nts:' i 111 •' ] e 11 w a a� i i f !� 1 @ 11 6 = 1 dill b'! i VAPOR PqO NT }00 watt, UL/ NSF, and CSA ApproveFl incandescent flreguar�:c A t.' 1 F I t I, i iv f�x a 4i � F avy dut' aluminum Junction box mounted oi� 4pq rlor o hood an rema coa a i cIea lme glass globe Without wire guard inountel fit lood, Wot_prewlred to I iIiJ w ;,y „'tfi. ,-.. ,...,w. -• kn n'sv .. 9q.. ,�,..�....P,,,...F,..!}....... �1J1p � �1�F t il>l�) �. opy 1 ght ng heel plaitic.l 1 nctlonpbox t,1, ..alt �.+ i•t ri4ri ��, t�!1�1� 21 � 1 WMAL DATA 1 IN WIDTH 0 T W At }r N '2 4" 1®' 2' 13' 16'' ,3 n 42 .r.� �o 24 2d 22 " 19 18 4 200 Z• Za" ie� hl Ii .'1 i I +tl SPECIFICAT� NS '' s, t•Abw •,� i'i -1. , a,. t! ❑ t rrn. +! 11F1. li'' Ll d98$B Sk'*Ik !l�AINLE8',B s7EBL Whor• chows: Stu di -8� 1 canopy constructed o all 18 gauge I It lteej; outside Joints cont nuous externally he larc wel(�ed ancr oli "shed: AI exposedsur- ace ! �liget' ;type 302 stilnless� steep. #41 0l) �1: Beck+gl t er specially fabrlcated;ll to hi I Fecle ylebsd extractor type f!lters, and pitched o c tome plate grease drain with, enclosed; +I+(1 QQt t + ! 11 'tl 1. i O! ( r .' II h + 1' 1 I I t ti t 1; Fe v`b A to Rleas stee (coved grease cup of less t any ga� on aliacity:,124" high 'flatltopt. + trl I. a" .t 1• 1r t. -rI I I tl r S ! , x ` ,� ll 11 11 d s�gri �t' �giitFagainIj Bfi ;6 - 8ft.9 high col, fit Includes a full complement of -201 I��tt x +1 1'. I 1 all 11 I ; , I. I I II. 1 i. S 11 I 1 x !.+ d mad� n heav dut' all stainless stee) dlo -act n; baffle ty e; 11L1L13ted grease F •' �1"1t� ZilF.t. 6Y 1rIiY' Provlsjons for,optlonal d op ce lin "' 6' others; Rational Sanita= ex' ,aci t na hanger satraps: 11, . 1 I gg_� y `off' �oirtdetinn lisEed.!' Built to OPA Bulletin #96 and'1iirreli 66 A requirements. II dtl +. y., ;•,iu 11.'1 +p '• 1 fi+ li r I 1 .,I, "trii•:' 1s8{lFl�lljllil. i. D98Q SE S nALVANItED eTE!Lt Sturdl -Bllt canopy nstructel of a11;18 gauge galvanized r: .S. v i� t u: t I, r t+ +, PY, 111 Wilt 1 d r t F ,1!I" i t See '�'f1 outside joints '.contlnuou5 external hejjart wg� ed and polished. Ajllexposed ;: + tl + ii +Yl 1+' 1 x il!+ tf 111 +,1i -1 j 1 '+ +" 1 " y Back' utter spec ally fab- ei<t r nterlorlI'sur1taces supplied with a wh to eqx oatl'n 1 Y F 1 a+ , !! 9+ 11 +�h' 1 1 ', I 1. i/ i y 2 1 11 1 i f I, 1•• It F �t •+ to acolve tease extractor t e, filters and pcXe, to c roma�R ated grease drain w t` 1 ! i,x FUiI r 9. t •le A.x 6r h r 1 yp ! 1 r F f it .•1 +F'i +. A• + l x. I y I (1 t 11 F ! ;' k $r able to nlessIsteel: tbved ;grease cilb of Ha �2; ga� on.:capacI .,,1 24.. gh ., i! Ilitn„ x�yii tl u,t tigi I1 11- 11 " F I il; +,rlI JIy x,r..u,i iAil- `E. E ;C (dean to f,.Eig�itlagalnstt an 8 ft:6 8 .9 t� Iel r�g. (n iudes aul l com �ement y, �F1, 1. I !, i rte +. •n I-I yyW x S , x n I •'Yu 6i tPY •A r 1 p Arintf 1 F;,Fi, 'atF:tn :, "'o /FF{ppLi.J j tle'1{�I8vy, duly„ al I stein esslsteel; duo -ac on; Ple tyel'� Isted greasel`extiactora 11 iF 5 i 11 ii,i t .. $ , l I .� , " •t. t 1+ I n I 1 r 1: r t + '1'u .1 : J 'I P 1 s o o tional dro ce Ing �y a leers: llatlonal Sanlfatlon Founda ;E �BUI�roy�s on f p p + , t to 'N PA Bulletin p96 an d Curren tBOCA 'rec�Il reme nts:' i 111 •' ] e 11 w a a� i i f !� 1 @ 11 6 = 1 dill b'! i VAPOR PqO NT }00 watt, UL/ NSF, and CSA ApproveFl incandescent flreguar�:c A t.' 1 F I t I, i iv f�x a 4i � F avy dut' aluminum Junction box mounted oi� 4pq rlor o hood an rema coa a i cIea lme glass globe Without wire guard inountel fit lood, Wot_prewlred to I iIiJ w ;,y „'tfi. ,-.. ,...,w. -• kn n'sv .. 9q.. ,�,..�....P,,,...F,..!}....... �1J1p � �1�F t il>l�) �. opy 1 ght ng heel plaitic.l 1 nctlonpbox t,1, ..alt �.+ i•t ri4ri ��, t�!1�1� 4 I , P ,Itfit � 1 ti I. I It Pit ,i. s 01p. r; ails r 'i. �R .,a i j. i t. 'Fro• - !A•`!. . a ,rl; t r 'i. �R .,a ,I Grease -laden air is dl awi the air passes' I ro, h 1 designed twin gaff les,�ruc compressions, : ex sic grease, heavier t 'ali air, �Uickly on the pat es. wh �ipless run . off ' l� o co grease =free air has �assc file exhaust duct. FIRE GUAM) G 4 4l0 i. - Ilitll 119 , . r',. .t Action 1 , • �IEAVY UA(�E, up coi�oding alurnintim constrl�C Ion. I Ili •" 1, • SELF.Dg410,4fl'� l aiici CIOt1 dripping 1+ i r ,I y t • EASJ� SOAl( �l, s )layed or washe d d with an Soa�) of f l i pk cleaning • UNDERWRITE pporatory tested afua listed is • MEETS �� L re 'i4�1 a fjs of rt1la tonal j�re PIpl= e' 1;[j ,ssociatioal bu�lelln #96 ';(�OVIDES POSITIVE , FLAME AIER CONST UCT ON, Et_PS PREVENT' ' KITC IEN -IFES FROM ENTERING UC[WORK AND BEYOND, er, y exhaust lans. As ie aerodynamically o air into a series of essure changes. The ai'i settles safely and sC races assure rapid, LIJ s. Meanwhile, the he :it er and up through Action l V.IOAFFLE CONS- I- RIJE;:II()H SE 11 U. pI1- E(-' ;Il)i- EXI- IAUSpI Alli. lNU I'S 0[il'ACA=S iE TO CAI10f'Y fW.. SUPPLY 510 Third St. aca, HY 14850 , 273 -5 00 CLASSIFICATION BY UNDERWRITERS LABORA10t11E5, INC. AS 10 r ONLY AFTER EXPOSURE TO GREASE,I_ADW A111 L A j. ,I Grease -laden air is dl awi the air passes' I ro, h 1 designed twin gaff les,�ruc compressions, : ex sic grease, heavier t 'ali air, �Uickly on the pat es. wh �ipless run . off ' l� o co grease =free air has �assc file exhaust duct. FIRE GUAM) G 4 4l0 i. - Ilitll 119 , . r',. .t Action 1 , • �IEAVY UA(�E, up coi�oding alurnintim constrl�C Ion. I Ili •" 1, • SELF.Dg410,4fl'� l aiici CIOt1 dripping 1+ i r ,I y t • EASJ� SOAl( �l, s )layed or washe d d with an Soa�) of f l i pk cleaning • UNDERWRITE pporatory tested afua listed is • MEETS �� L re 'i4�1 a fjs of rt1la tonal j�re PIpl= e' 1;[j ,ssociatioal bu�lelln #96 ';(�OVIDES POSITIVE , FLAME AIER CONST UCT ON, Et_PS PREVENT' ' KITC IEN -IFES FROM ENTERING UC[WORK AND BEYOND, er, y exhaust lans. As ie aerodynamically o air into a series of essure changes. The ai'i settles safely and sC races assure rapid, LIJ s. Meanwhile, the he :it er and up through Action l V.IOAFFLE CONS- I- RIJE;:II()H SE 11 U. pI1- E(-' ;Il)i- EXI- IAUSpI Alli. lNU I'S 0[il'ACA=S iE TO CAI10f'Y fW.. SUPPLY 510 Third St. aca, HY 14850 , 273 -5 00 CLASSIFICATION BY UNDERWRITERS LABORA10t11E5, INC. AS 10 r ONLY AFTER EXPOSURE TO GREASE,I_ADW A111 L A 4 _1.., ,, rj`�:;1 ;li •j` i r: •fir., ;,� rift ;• >,i , •, il•' :I Grease -laden air is drawn jplo jl file air passes jta oilggIit jlle sit designed twin baf�le sltuclure �c compressions, expansions afi grease, heavier jhan " , separ, qquickly on the ba (les, w�lei a sm dripless run off Into colleclioll grease -free air has passerl throe the exhaust duct. FIRE GUARD GREJ �j. MSF 11f1E0 !,! EC O JOMICA 1 I +.f )1 ., • SELF D lA1ryI�JG ; If !r.c II a ,f44 ,;, IL Y SOA vv rlildsoaYur • HEAVY GUdGFI 11 Action 1 JVJlDFS POSITIVE •FLAME IA :1111E0 CONS -ERUC T ON, Ir ;['S �?HEVENT' KITCIEN S : FROM ENTEpp.ING -it I , LWOPK AND BEYOND. �Jvaliized steel Ig gaivallized ;tI I�ERWRl�EF 'S +rlj�oja�oiy jested Gild lisied 1 i :ETS ALL rec',tIii�e�i�dii�s of �tonal fire roltl doff flssc�cl�tiion iejin #96 p' OPERATION ll�le ,l Y exhaust falls. As rl. le a (ilodynamically is 1 IQ air jldo a series of ilii�ss Ire changes. The s aiirsellles safely and ii-k + 11on 2 I TWI j A C NS- I�IAIJC -f l(A-1 CAI �`=QS O I ?FiC( II'1 TAT tt; � �X11AUS f A111, S Cl Il ALVANIZED Sl�li M AC - ' �) A N, GRE -ASE I f ly CrA r aces assure rapid, �J e ))s. Meanwhile, the tiller and 6p 1hrough SIFICATION BY UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES, IIIC. AS 10 Y AFTER EXPOSURE TO GREASE LADEN AIR C , All 0 I The Type ACRU -D ant:� tfeen designed espec�al Incorporate an altimlrrliil weathertight comparllj E The Type VCR Lip -bias boillmn ppinning to krei VCH Is U.L. approved lc illators are AMCA ceillf When s ecifying VCR The Type VCR Is ails I a VVhen specifying VCR v VENT TUDE Ifl ,n . .. .— ... -.. ...._._. i Eli, Drive . ... ! .. .._ �.__.. r _ • he J,i;LAI LI . ._f � ... 8 '•& HIV SUlal'I_Y 510 T {1ird si. r 1 Ithaca, NY 1x850 � (607) 273- 53 0 ROOF VENTILATOR ilb -blast roof y6htilators are available in either direct or Bell drive. These ventilators have to w tlere li is necessary to eject fuhies up al d away frciir� the building. .These units f1 �ncne , non - overloading centrifugal wheel. Th mo 8 and 'drives are enclosed In a cool!ed y alrttubes from an area free of conla`niria do 11 ies. nillator Is designed for COMMERCIAL KITCH A�" _�CA -•10 S and features a one piece lase leakage. The VCR Is belt drive only and has tit alma lea fires as jhe ACRU -B. The Illon up to 300 0F. Type VCR Is available In sizes 1211 hibl1g`h 4490 belt cj�lve only. These ven- t alr and sound. fills S' Ubstltutt3 V In the catalog number for R ( xarli', a 12QV2B 'I IIr1 I . 'II I : 66111 I as a 'square base wall mount unit in sizes 12 tllioll It 345 drive only. nil tliflls add "W" to model number (Example 120V2C Wj. - T -- B ----- ...._...._.. Sr .. 1i _" . \ --,- X11- _ —I_ -- I_.- ^r C C l �h 4 C � � q ease Ter l`mi'naior dialn of,.lhe VCR !� absorb grease from commercial l`on. See page 60 iormalion. f ACRU -D DIMENSIONAL. DATA DATA -- - - - - -- -- ACRU -B APP "x. Ship "d. Size Shpg.Wt. hpg.Wt. r_�.. D G T -Slj. :S wt. 70 .. -A 11 7 ] I ..._.. - 5: (9 -- 2 lit - 20 90 - 21 661 .. 7. 1142 .... _. .. _ .18 _ .. �8 ..... ..- 28--- 100 _13.112_ - -2 - -_ h1t8_ 7= 1 2 17-13/16 30 120 _13112 1 2 - 8 _ 20 _18_ _ 2 20 67 IB 2� {51 38- 18 :t118 2 20- 60_ 66_ 150 19 -718 35 18 20 -511 -� 2 - 24 _17_3116_ 30. 18 24 {13116 -_ -_ 9 - 2 2N. -- -- 72 - _ _ _135_,_17-'13/16_ 24_ - 38- - 5116 f(0 - —24 -' -- -87 150 -718_ 18 35. 18 20 29518 _ 2 24 90 165 _19 19.318_ 11111 18 38-t;1F 2- 2 _90 180 - 22.718_ ({• 18 1 - - - -23 -- -102 - d, lid, ACRU -BIVCR DIMEWS10 AL DATA 1, ACRU -B VCR Shpg.Wt. hpg.Wt. Size A B C 17 t3 Ti Leaa_s Mtr Less Mir - - - 2Q 711 6.5118 2 18_ 30_ NA_ 100 15-1/16 25-'18 120 17-13/16 30 18 24.1 1 2 _ 20 `55 61 135 17_13116 3(�- IB 2� {51 6 8 2 20- 60_ 66_ 150 19 -718 35 18 20 -511 -� 2 - 24 _ 70 77_ 165 19 -318 IB 29 51 _ _ 2 24_ 75_ 83 180 22.718 _35• q8. 18 38 51 _ 2 2 ^24_ _ ILL - - - _ -- _90 �95 22.718- ({• 18 1 - 2 100 d, lid, ! 210 25 -112_ -I-; 45- IB .!. 3 -51 _ _ _ - 3 _24 _ 30 220 225- 25 -112 it- . /8 51 5 3 _200 220 - 242 - - 245 - 27.11116 - 49. -- /8 rL 5 TI _ 16 -318 3 _30_ 30 240 - -_264_ 270_ 28- 1116_ 18 37.31( _ 18tl - _3_ __..36 -- -_ -260_ 286, 300 33 -7116 _d0:. 5 /8 J -11 - _1 2U 3 36- 300 336 5 18 4 4.71) 22 3 4z 365 - 374 330. 33.11116 35.15116 6 18 4&51d_ _ -318_ 3 42 _ 380- 420 365 6 18 6.4.1116 _2__d 3 _ 48 _ 402 37.7_116 445 42 -7_116 78. 18 1;1:71 tj _'27 28 -7/8 3 54 _440_ 500_ _484 490 44 -3_116 78- 18 86 -11 8 32-7/8 _ 54 - _556- 'sizes 121d Iiilii _3 _650 -7_15 VCR is available In 490 �elt Drive only. rs%'i+ -y44r The type Acnu -p, A� fl� LI p loot Ventilators are available as Underwi tars' Labo ai He loot models. When listed 'models 111 \ / are requ�recJ, a .ecl y (ta Acl`106 or ACRtieU. ` Y •• I t I 1 - r' : I:: II di I. I I , I I I The +ype VC oo Vehtlialois afe UL Isted for the removal of smoke alit, ordase lado t vaprirs. tYZII-1W, 762) 1135331 keel Nalionai hre pr Iecllon Standard MFPA 96. nmco ofen cooly Cc!!Ta n"1°rn �iOlson arp Iced ei ad bn to Pq �naifiil I 6labdar.Jfgit) aild I r°iro 8601101 l'iou" all i.' TFi9 soon rating ca� r t 3001 1 esl Sol, is La cli of 5 lee! 1 301. 9 -'1 I i ,I I � � I I•, r I cerli Les that the ACRU -D, ACRU -BIVCR sown, o befit the AMCA Seal. The ratings shown are has - accorrlynce with AMCA Standard 210 land AMCA 4. imply with the requlremrints of the AMCA Certified l rli Iri; t'ii.11 fir own ere oblalned In accordance with AMCA Slan Num ier 2A. Loudness values Iri cones at a;hl .IIr f re ca i:iilated In accordance with AMCA Slandard I I 1, ,I I � � I I•, r I cerli Les that the ACRU -D, ACRU -BIVCR sown, o befit the AMCA Seal. The ratings shown are has - accorrlynce with AMCA Standard 210 land AMCA 4. imply with the requlremrints of the AMCA Certified l rli Iri; t'ii.11 fir own ere oblalned In accordance with AMCA Slan Num ier 2A. Loudness values Iri cones at a;hl .IIr f re ca i:iilated In accordance with AMCA Slandard I J TOWN OF ITHACA 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1747 TO: Planning Board members FROH: George R. Frantz, Acting Town Planner DATE: May 30, 1991 RE: Planning Board meeting -- 6/4/91 A few items regarding the meeting agenda: Cornell University Tennis Facility, Priscilla Noetzel- Wilson of Cornell University will present the University's plan for a tennis center on Pine Tree Road north of the Equitation Center. This will be a sketch plan review intended to afford the Planning Board an opportunity to. review the project and comment on it. At this time Cornell has no set timetable for bringing the proposed'' facility to the Town for Special- Approval and construction. However because of the interest generated by the proposal over the past several months, the University feels it is appropriate to present it to the Planning Board now for informal review. Minnie's- g The applicants have returned to the Planning Board with additional information regarding the ventilation system and a revised. site plan as requested by ;`the Planning Board -on April 16. I have also; spoken with Hoyt Benjamin of B &W Supply, vendor of the ventilating equipment, regarding its capabilities. The exhaust system proposed, as I related to you at the April 16 meeting, is expected to address the potential problem of smoke. However it is not expected to be effective in °eliminating potential cooking odors from the exhaust. There are a couple of factors which may reduce the potential for any adverse impacts on the surrounding properties due to odors. The first one is that the exhaust from the pit will be directed upward into the atmosphere by, the fans of the exhaust system. Also, because of the orientation of the site and Elmira Road, the prevailing northwest winds can be expected to disperse the exhaust in the direction of the barn and undeveloped area to the southeast of the site.(see aerial photo in packet) Hasbrouck Apartments. The Zoning Board of Appeals on Wednesday, May 22 granted Cornell University the variances related to the proposed expansion of /,