Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-06-02FILED TOWN OF ITHACA TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk JUNE 21 19921 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board !'met in regular session on Tuesday, June 2, 1992, in Town Hall, 1,126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Vice - Chairman Robert Kenerson,gVirginia Langhans, James Baker, Herbert Finch, Candace Cornell, William Lesser, Stephen Smith, Nelson Roth I(Town Attorney), Chad Eiken (Planner 1), Floyd Forman (Town Planner). ALSO PRESENT: Leon Zaharis, John Yengo, Kathryn Wolf John Novarr Dave Herrick, Dave Auble, John Whitcomb, Andy Mavian, Richard Berggren, Shannon Albanese, Attorney Jonathan Albanese, John Gutenbergerij, John Majeroni, John Murray, Bonnie Van Amburg, Nancy Krook, Krys Cail, Don Sweezy, Attorney Shirley Egan, Attorney Les Reizes, Carl Sgrecci, (name not legible), E. Hoffmann. IL Vice - Chairman Kenerson declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :30 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 26, 1992, and May 28, 1992, 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' Clerks of the City of Ithaca, Village of Cayuga Heights-and the Town of Lansing, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Resident Engineer of the NYS Department of Transportation, and' upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on May 18, 199291 AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Vice - Chairman Kenerson closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE /RETAIL COMPLEX TO CONSIST OF 201000 + /— SQ. FT. OF RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE, AND RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING 51000 + /— SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL USES, WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 6- 40 -3 -9, 3.6 +/- ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED AT 930 DANBY ROAD, INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS DISTRICT. JMS ITHACA REALTY, INC., OWNER /APPLICANT; TROWBRIDGE AND WOLF ASSOCIATES, AGENT. Kathy Wolf addressed the Board, representing Trowbridge,and Wolf Associates, and stated that they prepared the site design for the project as well as the environmental assessment; T. -G. Miller Engineers did the drainage and utilities studies which were reviewed by Town Engineer Dan Walker. A map was displayed. The site is 3.68 • • Planning Board -2- June 2, 1992 I acres on Route 96B and, travelling south, is at the existing traffic control light at the entrance to NCR. NCR, travelling north, is near the City of Ithaca and IthacalCollege. The area is zoned industrial and does require a 50 -foot setback where it is located adjacent to a residential district. This occurs on the north, boundry. Ms. Wolf indicated that this is the!50 -foot setback line and noted that they are maintaining approximately twice that much along that property line. /No other setbacks are required in the industrial zone, but they have attempted to maintain reasonable setbacks all the way around. There is an existing 5,000 square foot building on the site being used by the NCR as a sales office. The intent is to construct an additional 20,000 square feet of primarily one -story structures and create a neighborhood shopping center. To accomplish that, they attempted to create a number of smaller buildings that would be clustered around the central parking area instead of one long single building. The intent fis to have it fit better into the neighborhood. The architectural character that is envisioned is Greek Revival. Architectural plans have not been done at this time, but will be done when specific tenants are secured and they would be subject to review by the 'Town staff. The primary access to the project is at the existing traffic light at NCR. The applicant has obtained a 40 -foot right -of -way across NCR property which allows ingress and egress on this right -of -way, so traffic will stop at the stop light, enter, circulate through the project and exit at the light. There _is an existing entrance at this location to the project; this will be maintained as an entrance only for southbound traffic. Traffic coming from ,downtown can make a right hand turn into the project, however, all traffic will have to exit out the NCR road. There will be a stop sign located at the' intersection of the access road and the NCR road; all, traffic would have traffic control. The project has been reviewed by the City of Ithaca Fire Department and revisions made as requested by Brian Wilbur. They also met with Bernie Carpenter; of Ithaca Transit and they have a bus that they hope will arrive this fall that would service the project. The intent is that the bus would enter the project with an allocated location for the bus stop;ljthe bus would then exit NCR and carry on up to Ithaca College. If the bus does not come this fall, they will reserve the location for he bus stop and the intent would be to reserve that opportunity for when it is 'available. 85 parking spaces are proposed for construction in this first phase and,in addition, 33 additional spaces have been allocated in this `area [indicating on map]. The applicant is interested in and needs to provide parking to serve the project, but he does not want to build the additional parking if it is not going to be used. Approval is being sought for the 85 spaces with the understanding that if the demand should occur, the 33 additional spaces can be built. Ms. Wolf stated that in response to some comments at the last meeting when they had also provided additional evergreen screening around additional parking, that would be installed at the time that parking is constructed. Peak use traffic on the proje'ct. is estimated as 145 cars in and out of the project. This has been[ checked against the Traffic Engineers Manual and their chart relating to a,shopping center under 100,000 square feet; this center is 25,000 square feet. They have estimated 145 cars, or 290 trips for both ways combined`. 100,000 square feet • • C7 Planning Board -3- of development will give your about twice that suggests they are somewhere in the ballpark. June 2, 1992 many cars, so it Floyd Forman asked Ms.'; Wolf if this were 290 trips in the peak of use. Ms. Wolf responded, yes, the P.M. peak 'hour. Candace Cornell asked Ms'''' Wolf what the traffic pattern is for the rest of the parked cars. Ms Wolf responded that this is a standard two -way, travel routes it is designed for easy traffic movement. Candace Cornell also commented on safeguard in regard to the Ithaca College crossing of"I students, and wondered if Ms. Wolf considered the light there good enough in terms of walking down. Ms. Wolf replied that Mr. Novarr is constructing a sidewalk in front of his project, adding that Mr. Novarr cannot make NCR put a sidewalk there. Candace Cornell noted that, if a restaurant were in the complex, more cars would be parked for a longer amount of time, and asked if the complex would be able to'i accommodate the, parking. Ms. Wolf responded that, depending on the restaurant, of course, the high use time might be when some of the other businesses, might be shutdown, adding that it would have to be evaluated. Candace Cornell noted that, if NCR increases their employment back to normal, their traffic 'would be coming and going at the same time as the complex. Ms. Wolf replied: :that businesses in the complex would probably have staggeredlhours. John Novarr also stated that NCR has their own parking lots that Ithaca College is now renting, but if NCR starts to operate like they did fifteen years ago, they will need to use the parking they have, adding that a chunk of the parking lots is not at the entrance of the complex. Candace Cornell also inquired about the light fixtures, stating that some light fixtures use solar, energy. Ms. Wolf stated that solar energy might be an alternative. Mr. Novarr also stated that NYSEG has all kinds of programs, including educational ones by which they teach the public to save; money by using different kinds of lighting. Leon Zaharis, 1398 Mecklenburg Road, spoke from the floor and wanted to know if tire penetrators would be put in the opposite direction to maintain a one -way entrance. Ms. Wolf stated that it is the intent of the intersection design to discourage people from coming out. Ms. Wolf described the' landscaping, noting that existing trees would be used and other forms of landscaping would be used to camouflage the cars from the roadway. Ms. Wolf recalled that other comments which had been made by the Board dealt with loading docks'. Four locations for loading docks were indicated on the plans. There are concrete pads with wood Planning Board -4- June 2, 1992 • fenced enclosures for both garbage and recycleable materials and these have been located adjacent to each of the buildings on the upper terrace, and the lower part has been provided with dumpsters with fence enclosures and 'would service two buildings. Also, the lights surround the parking lot; a couple in the central island; the access road is lit and also additional lighting for additional parking if and when that parking is actually installed. Ms. Wolf referred to 11,a letter, from the County Planning Department dated May 26, 1992, suggesting that sidewalks, crosswalks, a bus stop, pay phone, and lighting for the bus stop be located as indicated on a map they attached to the letter. Ms. Wolf stated that the bus stop should be located on the access road, but the difficulty with this location is that it cannot be handicapped accessible. The grade exceeds handicapped accessibility,, the location was moved to the central island which is ',flatter. This was approved by Bernie Carpenter of Ithaca Transit. There will be crosswalks where there are stop signs. A pay phone will possibly be placed under the covered walkway. The second item basically says that the vehicle trip calculations are acceptable, but a more accurate calculation would be lower than suggested because of figures based on 100,00 square feet. The third item is for estimated demand for water at 1600 GPD and estimated wastewater is 2500 GPD. T.G. Miller has done calculations and the estimated water and wastewater figure would be 2500, so this has been corrected. The fourth item of concern by the County is that the project although not located in a Unique Natural Area that • information should not be used as a means to determine whether threatened or endangered species exist on the project site. Ms. Wolf stated that no unique natural, areas are abutting the property and the existing vegetation is old field growth. The fifth item noted by the County is the stormwater drainage plans which were not complete at the time. Town Engineer Walker has reviewed them and when all final engineering and architectural plans are done tenants have to be secured. The sixth item indicated that the applicant does not anticipate that the water table is within 1' -2' of the surface. Ms. Wolf stated that the existing building has a full basement and does not have a water problem. Candace Cornell inquireld about the controlled timing of the traffic light. Mr. Novarr will check with the State concerning the timing of the light. David Auble of Coddingiton Road spoke from the floor and stated that he has property south of this property. Mr. Auble stated that he received a letter from the'Town Attorney dated June 25, 1991, that .states there are severe dif''ficulties with sewer lines servicing Ithaca College and South Hill and that there is also some concern about the water tank capacity in this area. Town Engineer Walker 'stated there are still capacity considerations on the Danby Road, adding that part of the problem has • been alleviated by some maintenance and planning for other maintenance in the area. ;The principal peak flows were due to residential usage. The proposed retail /office complex is not going Planning Board -5- June 2, 1992 to overstress the system. Additional plans are being made to upgrade • older water lines. David Auble addressed Board members Candace Cornell and Stephen Smith concerning the mapping of the land and the issues of steep slopes. i Candace Cornell replied that the steep slopes are not a significant factor. David Auble was also concerned about the drainage. Mr. Walker stated that northwest of the developed drainage there is an existing channel that ranges from 5% to 20% and is very stable because it is located on bedrock. The overall impact'';,of drainage on this project will be minimal. Eva Hoffmann, 4 Sugarbush Lane, spoke from the floor and stated that she is very pleased to see this 'kind of development in the Town. She feels we need small shopping areas. John Novarr stated the project looks like it is two - staged, but he hoped to do it in one, however, everything is on hold for now. Mr. Walker stated that the project looks like it has two major components, drainage and erosion, adding that he would like to see all the major earthwork and drainage done as one. Stephen Smith asked how this meets the guidelines for landscaping. Town Planner Forman answered that a lot of the existing landscaping is being kept. Ms. Wolf responded that the plans were reviewed with the regulations in mind,'adding that they delivered the landscaping plan to Planner George Frantz and he said the landscaping was great. Stephen Smith asked Mr.` Forman about certain classes of tenants who would not be allowed. Mr.' Forman responded that what John has done, and he has not heard 'from him in the last few weeks, is run a few things by him, some of 1, which, like gas stations, are not acceptable or bars. John Yengo of 1147 Danby Road spoke from the floor and stated that he liked the tone of the ','Planning Department. He wanted to know if a special district was 'being planned for this complex. Floyd Forman explained to Mr. Yengo that this is zoned industrial. There appearing to be no 'further discussion or comments from the Board, Vice - Chairman Kenerson asked if anyone were prepared to make a motion. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Baker: WHEREAS: • i Planning Board -6- June 2, 1992 1. This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the • proposed construction of an office /retail complex to consist of 20,000 + /- sq. ft. of retail and office space, and renovation of an existing 5,000 + /- sq. ft. building for office and retail uses, with associated parking and landscaping improvements, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 40 -3 -9, 3.6 +/- acres total, located at 930 Danby Road, Industrial Products District, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has been legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review, and 3. The Planning Board, at a' „Public Hearing held on June 2, 1992, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I and supplemental information prepared by the applicant, Part II prepared,by Town planning staff, a site plan entitled "South Hill Retail /office Complex ", dated April 21, 1992, revised through May 26, 1992, °prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance for the proposed subdivision and consolidation, as proposed$ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: • That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above - described action and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. i Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by William Lesser,,,. seconded by Candace Cornell: I WHEREAS. 1. This action is the Consideration of Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction o an office /retail complex to consist of 20,000 + /- sq, ft. of retail and office space, and renovation of an existing 5,000 + /- sq. ft, building for office and retail uses, with associated parking and landscaping improvements, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6- 40 -3 -9, 3.6 +/- acres total, located at 930 Danby Road, Industrial Products District, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning • Board, acting as Lead IAgency in,environmental review, has, on June 2, 1992, made a negative determination of significance, and • • r] Planning Board -700% June 2, 1992 39 The Planning Board, at a, Public Hearing held on June 2, 1992, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part I and supplemental information prepared by the applicant, Part II prepared °by Town planning staff, a site plan entitled "South Hill Retail /Office Complex ", dated April 21, 1992, revised through May 26, 1992, prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects, and 4. The Tompkins County Department of Planning, in a letter dated May 26, 1992 stated that the project, as proposed, would have no deleterious effects upon State, County, or intercommunity facilities, and 5. The applicant has unilaterally agreed at the time of the submission of the application for site plan approval to limit the permitted type of, retail businesses and, in view of the ambiguous nature of the prior non- conforming uses of the property, the Planning Board's approval is conditioned upon that unilateral agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca iPlanning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminaryiand Final Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials _presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the ''proposed construction of a retail /office complex, with associated 'parking and landscaping improvements, as shown on the site' plan entitled "South Hill Retail /Office Complex ", dated April 21,1 1992, revised through May 26, 1992, prepared by Trowbridge and Wolf, Landscape Architects, conditioned upon the following. a. Submission of two (2;) copies of the herein- approved site plan showing the items noted, as being required on the Final Site Plan Checklist,' and approval of said plan by the Town Engineer, and b. Submission of a deed Town Attorney showing easement across lands or other document acceptable to the the proposed 40- foot -wide access owned by NCR Corp. as being dedicated in perpetuity to the' owner 6- 40 -3 -9, and c. Submission of proof of Parcel No. 6- 40- 3 -91by the to the Town Attorneys, and of „Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ownership applicant of Town of Ithaca Tax in a form acceptable • Planning Board June 2, 1992 1 • • d. The Planning Board reserves the right to require that additional parking' spaces and associated lighting and landscaping be provided in the event that the proposed 85 spaces prove to be insufficient, and e. No more than 25,000', 'sq. ft. of gross leasable space be permitted on said parcel, and f. Gasoline pumps are not permitted ,on the parcel, nor are enterprises such as ',bars that 'derive 50% or more of their gross revenues fromithe sale of alcoholic beverages, and g. Approval by the Town Engineer of the final construction plans and specifications for earthwork, drainage improvements, water supply improvements and sewer improvements, prior to the l' issuance of any building permits, and h. i. Phased construction will be acceptable only of the phasing plans, by the Town Engineer Planner, and The final architectural renderings being conforming to the sketch plans presented at 1992 Planning Board4meeting. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. upon approval and the Town substantially the June 2, Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Vice - Chairman Kenerson declared the matter of the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 'construction of the Novarr office /retail complex on Danby Road duly closed. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATIiON OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 19 -1 -2, 8.67 + /- ACRES, OF WHICH 2.29 + /- ACRES ARE WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS, LOCATED AT THE 1100 BLOCK OF EAST SHORE DRIVE, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, INTO TWO LOTS EACH COMPRISED OF 1.14 + /- and 5.24 + /- ACRES (1.94 + /- AND I, 6.73 + /- TOTAL ACRES, RESPECTIVELY, INCLUDING LAND WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF CAYUGA HEIGHTS). JONATHAN ALBANESE, OWNER /APPLICANT. G Vice- Chairman Kenerson 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. Mr. Albanese addressed Ithe Board stating that he has • approximately an eight and !three- quarter acre lot and wishes to subdivide off a 2 acre lot to 'sell for a'single family residence that will be placed on it. Drawings were submitted to the Board. Planning Board' -9- • Vice- Chairman Kenerson read the 1992, from the Village of Cayuga request for a Zoning Determination on the Village of Cayuga Heights, eas of Ithaca and west of Tyler Road in t has been reviewed and presented t the Village Planning Board atlltheir M The division of the land entitled, "Proposed Subdivision 10, 1992, is acceptable to'i the Planning Board." June 2, 1992 following letter, dated May 22, Heights to Mr. Albanese: "Your the division of your land in t of East Shore Drive in the Town he Village of Cayuga Heights, o the Board of Trustees acting as ay 18, 1992 meeting. as indicated on the sketch map of Lands of Albanese", dated April Zoning Officer and the Village Vice - Chairman Kenerson jnoted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone present wished to speak.' Eva Hoffmann reported on' the Environmental Review Committee's review of the proposal. [Environmental Review Committee Report attached hereto as Exhibit #11' John Whitcomb, Chair of the Town Conservation Advisory Council, seconded most of what Ms. Hoffmann recommended, adding that the Town of Ithaca is currently considering legislation to create Environmental Protection Overlay Districts (EPOD's) on steep slopes. Unfortunately, that legislation has not! been passed yet, but some things recommended are. all land uses to be located on soils in or • upon the proposed EPOD's or structures that can be established or maintained without causing ',,adverse environmental impacts, including severe erosion, mass soil movement, significant destabilization of slopes or water pollution during or after construction and, secondly, the proposed EPOD recommends that when clearing trees that a minimum of clearing trees or conversion to other vegetation is permitted for approved construction and landscaping for vegetation that is removed other than for approved construction,',' should be replaced with other non - evasive vegetation that is equally effective in retarding erosion and preserving the natural environment. EPOD's do not prohibit construction on steep slopes and some of these slopes on this parcel are in excess of 35% which is an extremely steep slope. Mr. Whitcomb also wondered why in the application subdivision check list one of the requirements was waived,, namely that natural features within and immediately adjacent to the proposed subdivision, including drainage channels, bodies of water,) wooded areas, and other significant features be mapped and identified on the subdivision application. Since the Town has a limited amount of jurisdiction and say so at this point as to how development can proceed on slopes such as this, he would ask the Town Planning Board to use whatever powers of persuasion that it has to encourage the proper siting of any future building on this parcel so'as to minimize any kind of environmental damage that might occur. Dave Auble of Coddington `Road spoke from the floor and stated that his daughter lives immediately below this property and he is familiar with the site and he thinks it sounds extreme for Mrs. Hoffmann to be concerned about this site after endorsing a 25,000 11 1 • Planning Board -10- June 2, 1992 square -foot shopping center on a site that has 20% grades, and the • same for John Whitcomb to be involved with this much concern on that site. Mr. Auble stated thathe did not see any of the neighbors here showing any concern about the subdivision and he also is familiar with the neighbors in the? area because of visiting his daughter regularly and he knew there is no concern from the neighbors, so he would highly endorse this subdivision. Candace Cornell stated she has concerns about this area since it is part of the Unique Natural) Area and thinks the Unique Natural Areas do not have any protection within the County, but they were described as Unique Natural Areas. First of all, the map that was supplied is inaccurate because the railroad bed it is talking about is across the road and the grades go up from 35% to vertical in this area and it is very, very steep and the revised draft resolution corrected some of her concerns which were about the original resolution. It says the CAC jiwas going to have a botanist do a survey of this area and it really should be the developer who does the survey. Robert Wesley did do the survey of this area. He was one of the botanists hired by the EMC and he said it was a fluke, but the computer system threw out a number of the species even though there are other properties, so there may be only five listed here, but there could be thirty that they found, so it really needs to have a full botanical survey done since these are scarce plans. Ms. Cornell also stated that she has pa lot of concerns about the erosion problems. This joint swap isiigoing all the way up to the railroad already and she has checked the trees, and some of the trees were 80 years old and they have been cut down already and this is a very unique oak forested area and there are some very scarce wildflowers, but the main importance of this area is that it is a massive oak community, so botanically and ecologically it has a very significant importance. Ms. Cornell stated that she would like to recommend that the Board put off any decisions on this area until we can get Robert Wesley, who is very busy at the moment, to do a complete botanical survey paid for by the owner of the ;property since the information the Board has is not complete.,, Also, Mr. Wesley should give us a much more detailed idea of the ecological i mportance•of this area but, in general, she thought it is a bad idea to start developing the UNA's. The County spent a lot of money to define these DNA's and they did it for a certain reason. Also, there is the question about the sewer right -of -way plus there are other questions, such as where they are going to site the house. Jonathan Albanese responded that he will not consent to any conditions that the Board or Mrs. Hoffmann would like to see placed on the property. He would not consent to a walkway being put through his land. He does not know much about this Unique Natural Area study; he does not know what right the Town would have to not approve a subdivision that is allowed by law under the current zoning law based on just a study, so his 'request of the Board is to take a vote regardless of what the Uniquel'Natural Area is. • Candace Cornell responded that 'the Unique Natural Area does affect the way the SEQR form is filled out. • Planning Board -11- June 2, 1992 Floyd Forman asked botanist look at the approach the site. Mr. has not been approved SEQR before the clock c Mr. Albanese if he objected to having a site. Mr. Albanese stated he preferred no one Forman explained to Mr. Albanese that SEQR at this point, so more information is needed by an start running. A MOTION to table this agenda item for two weeks was addressed to the Board by Vice - Chairman Kenerson, and seconded by Candace Cornell. There being no further discussion, Vice - Chairman Kenerson called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell, Lesser. Nay - None. The matter of the Albanese subdivision was declared to be adjourned for two weeks. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED LANDSCAPE AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS TO EAST HILL PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO.6 -62 -2- 1.1211 6 -62 -2 -1.22, AND 6- 62 -2 -12, 12.4 + /- ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED AT JUDD FALLS ROAD AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD, BUSINESS DISTRICT C. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER /APPLICANT; JOHN MAJERONI, AGENT. • John Majeroni addressed the Board concerning the landscape and traffic improvements they would like to make at the East Hill Plaza. There are three goals: 1.1 to improve the external appearance of the Plaza; 2.) to organize the traffic flow to the Plaza from the garage to the parking lots for a more pleasant exchange; 3.) to try, to the extent that they can, to adapt the existing shopping center a little bit more to the desires of the Town and the neighbors. Mr. Majeroni stated that the program makes several changes with all services starting up in the northwest corner and working around. The entrance landscaping along Ellis Hollow Road would be beefed up. The existing pavement area is really too wide so new curbing would be put in and landscaping materials planted and the sidewalk would be extended out to Judd Falls Road. There is a new landscape island with a more modern, better quality signs installed. Additionally, right now, the landscape island shown is going to attract parking spaces; those would be eliminated to reduce some of the confusion at the entrance and also to provide a hassle -free way for people to get in the drive and loop around the exterior plaza which is the main traffic circulation. There are two planters installed by the building; these are sort of an Ithaca College -like look; sort of bench height; wide where the concrete serves both as a retaining wall for a raised planter as well as a bench. The additional landscape traffic island helps identify the southern drive route around the Plaza and also landscaping° the traffic island that extends in a • north -south direction helps departmentalize the parking. There are some landscape improvements that are planned for the southeast corner of the building as well. The Ellis Hollow entrance presently is just about as wide as the entrance the entire way up. The new entrance is i Planning Board -12- June 2, 1992 • better organized and can provide separated entrance and exit, organized left -hand turning lane out - parcel from the Plaza. The of the existing pavement removed topsoil and landscape. The are handicapped parking areas, a better right -hand exit lane and a and there is a provision for an into the future development of the pavement will then be narrower; some and, again, will be replaced with as at the end of the parking areas are Mr. Majeroni stated thatp,the project is a bit unusual in that this is going to be part of another project. Cornell wants to make sure that it meets the traffic requirements that will be generated. The traffic study which was submitted to the Town assumes two things. One of them was whatlis seen as the natural development of the Plaza, which would be�!' a 13,000 plus square foot addition. Mr. Majeroni stated that he wanted to emphasize that there are no plans or intent of this addition. The other is the development of the out - parcel. Looking at the out - parcel it was assumed, in another use of the traffic study, a sit down, high turnover restaurant. That is the kind of restaurant like Denny';s or Perkins, something like that, and that would be the highest kind of traffic use that the Traffic Report covers. If the use were proposed for higher than that, such as a McDonald's or Burger King, then he thought an additional traffic study would have to be obtained. It is important to Cornell that, if the Board approves a resolution, the:Board approves it to the level of traffic generated by the traffic report which reports 890 trips. ® Mr. Majeroni stated that the second issue is parking. Currently there are 556 parking spaces in the parking lot which exceeds the number required by zoning for the existing uses. In doing these landscaping improvements, the amount of parking is reduced to 503 spaces. what Cornell may ask the Board is that a variance be granted for the Plaza such that future requests for approval would consider the parking lot as if it still had 556 spaces so that Cornell is not penalized for .giving up 53 spaces to install landscaping. Mr. Majeroni noted that in the Travers Traffic Study they compare the traffic requirements that are required by Town of Ithaca Zoning with those required by two other organizations, one of them being the Institute of Traffic Engineers and the other the Urban Land Institute. On page 6 of" the traffic study, Travers believes that the appropriate number�,of spaces that should be required is 490 spaces, when zoning requires 611. There would be 503 spaces left after the improvements which still exceeds what the Engineer's recommendation is for the parking that is required. The third consideration which has been talked about with the Town staff, having been working with them for several months now, is that when the Andree Petroleum site plan was approved, this Board required that Mr. Andree install a speed bump to separate his parcel from the Plaza and their request would be that that be changed from a speed bump to a stop sign. The fourth thing Mr.. Majeroni pointed out was that one of the tenants in the Plaza, the P &C, thinks they have • in their lease prudent changes to the parking lot. Planning Board ® Vice- Chairman their reaction or Kenerson ^opened comment. June 2, 1992 the discussion to the public for Mrs. Nancy Krook who resides on Pine Tree Road felt she is an endangered species - -to get 11 the mail out of her mailbox makes her endangered. Mrs. Krook is representing the neighborhood, of which she is secretary, and theylare concerned about the shopping center. It was originally a farm and rezoned for a neighborhood convenience center. The parking is now used by,Cornell employees who take the bus to work. The people who use the shopping center have a hard time parking. The traffic routing in the shopping center needs to be corrected because a friend of hers was almost killed last year by a runaway car. The movement of automobiles must be corrected. A high density restaurant which would be built on the grassy knoll that separates the shopping center from the Ellis Hollow neighborhood and from a country, rural atmosphere of Ellis Hollow, she thought it was the conscientiousness of all'of the neighbors, that prevented a high - density restaurant that would bring in even more traffic from Dryden and Slaterville and from other places when there is no road system to accommodate it. John Majeroni addressed Mrs. Krook about her concern relating to a high- density restaurant. He explained that this was used as an example in the Traffic Study. 1 Virginia Langhans asked about the road that goes from Ellis ® Hollow Road into the Best Western and Cornell Credit Union, stating that cars go quite fast where "everyone is crossing, and wondered if there can be any way to divert this traffic flow. There is a concern about the stop sign located by the P &C. A lengthy discussion ensued concerning improving the internal situation on the landscaping, roadways for entering /exiting the shopping center,° and also the clarifying of the study done by Travers Associates concerning any high volume of traffic due to a restaurant. There appearing to be nolI'further discussion or comments from the e' Board or the public, Vic' Chairman Kenerson asked if an were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Virginia Langhans, seconded by Herbert Finch: RESOLVED, by the Town of 'Ithaca Planning Board that the Public Hearing in the matter of the proposed landscape and traffic improvements at the East HilliPlaza Shopping Center be and hereby is adjourned to the July 7, 1992 Planning Board meeting, to allow time for the developer to prepare more information. l There being no further discussion, the Vice Chair called for a vote. ® Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell, Lesser. Nay - None. • Planning Board -14- June 2, 1992 The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. rVice Chairman Kenerson declared the East Hill Plaza improvements matter duly adjourned. PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD REGARDING A PROPOSED LOCAL LAW ENTITLED "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS." Floyd Forman, Town Planner, and Town Attorney John Barney addressed the matter of the above -noted proposed local law. [See Exhibit #2 attached hereto.] MOTION by William Lesser,l! seconded by James Baker. RESOLVED, that the 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 Regarding Procedures and Regulations Relating to the Board of Appeals, as proposed. There being no further discussion, the Vice - Chairman called for a vote. Aye - Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, •Finch, Cornell, Lesser. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF, ALTERNATIVE SKETCH PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 24- 3 -3.2, 105.07 + /- ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED BACKLOT OF 1201 -1251 TRUMANSBURG ROAD (NYS ROUTE 96), RESIDENCE DISTRICTS R -15; AND R- 3'0,INTO AS MANY AS 110 LOTS. CAYUGA CLIFFS DEVELOPMENT CORP., OWNER /APPLICANT; T. G. MILLER ASSOCIATES, AGENT. Don Sweezy of T.G. Miller Engineers addressed the Board concerning Cayuga Cliffs. ITwo sketches were 'displayed to the Board showing the main access to be�Route 96, and the emergency access as Route 89. 110 lots in R -15 and R -30 are proposed. if Floyd Forman, Town Planner, flatest land and the R -15 zoning slopes. noted that the R -30 zoning is in the is in the land with the steepest Don Sweezy explained sketch #2 foot band width and the yellow crosspat crosspatching is 1 %. This sketch is a Don Sweezy explained sketch #3 density is still 110 lots with, perhaps as a slope study based on 100 Ching is 15% and the orange flipflop of the first sketch. which includes a parkway. The a small multi -story area. The driveways would run into the parkway. Don Sweezy stated that his proposal is not for a highway, but for a parkway. Parkways were,an idea that were very hot ideas in . Planning Board -15- June 2, 1992 this country back in the l�120s and 130s. New York City and Washington, DC have a large number of these parkways. The Blue Ridge Parkway that follows the Appalachian, Chain and the Skyline Drive which is the northern extension of it, he looked to those as models for how we can build a road to get from down here to up here [indicating]. It would be a road that would be two lanes wide; two lanes with grass shoulders.; It would be a road that would have a design speed of 45 mph and a maximum speed between 40 and 45 mph. it would be controlled access;'' it would.not have homes along it that would be impacted by the traffic; it would have a wider right -of -way, 160 ft. instead of just 60 ft. There would also be a bike trail that parallels it, so it would provide not only a route for automobiles but also bicycles and pedestrians between it and the Hospital area. Trucks would not be alloweda Automobiles and buses would have access. Route 96 could continue to be the main roadway and carry the bulk of the heavy traffic. Krys Cail, 3110 DuBois Road, stated that she preferred site plan #2, but her main concerns were Cass Park, the environment and slope concerns. Floyd Forman, Town Planner, suggested that the alternative sketch plans be put on the agenda in one month. Vice- Chairman Kenerson closed the discussion of the Cayuga Cliffs project. • REPORT OF THE TOWN PLANNER r Mr. Forman had nothing to report. IJ NON- AGENDA ITEM Candace Cornell addressed the Board stating that Karl Niklas, Chair of the Town Codes and Ordinances Committee, asked her to nominate herself to be the Planning Board representative to the Codes and Ordinances Committee, noting that she already does the work anyway. Stephen Smith seconded. Vice - Chairman Kenerson 'called for a vote. The vote was unanimous. ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion, Vice - Chairman Kenerson declared the June 2, 1992, meeting of the Town of Ithaca'Planning Board duly adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Wilma J. Hornback,'Recording Secretary, • Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. � T �n MEMO 0 To: Town of Ithaca Planning Board, From: Eva Hoffmann, Chairperson, Town of Ithaca Environmental Review Committee, June 2,1992 Subject: ERC Review of Albanese Subdivision, 1;100 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 6- 19 -1 -2. 1, Candace Cornell, Phillip Zarriello and I met at Ms. Cornell 's home at 4:30 p.m., Monday, June 1, 1992, to discuss the environmental aspects of this subdivision proposal. We had all walked over and looked at the property, each of us covering a slightly different area. Chad Eiken accompanied me on my tour of the land. After our discussion of this case we came up with;the following points to consider: 1. The single most important fact about this property is that it appears to be located in the IT -29 Unique Natural Area ( Renwick Slope) as classified and described by the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council. The significance of the site is listed as "Botanical; rare ,plants reported for site" Under "Threats to site" the TCEMC form lists: "Continued building of houses. Clearing for views, roads, gardens." The site features a beautiful small ravine, and is described as having "High Esthetic Qualities ". In general, just the fact that the county has surveyed and listed the area where this parcel is located as a Unique Natural Area is enough to indicate that this is a very special area that deserves your verycareful review and consideration before you allow any subdivision and development there. The reason we say the parcel appears to be in the UNA is that there are some discrepancies between the information given in the map and text from TCEMC that Chad Eiken provided the ERC with: a. The text describes the location of the IT -29 UNA as being "Along the east shore of Cayuga Lake, on both sides of Route 34 between Willow Point and McKinney's Point." On the geological survey map provided, Willow Point is shown to be where the stream located just south of the Albanese parcel flows into Cayuga Lake, and McKinney's Point is in Lansing, a distance north of the parcel's northern boundary. However, the lines drawn on the same inap indicating the IT -29 area do not ,coincide with the above desur liption. Whichever description one uses, the Albanese parcel is clearly located within the IT -29 UNA, b. The parcel number used in the application; 6- 19 -1 -2, is the Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel number. The TCEMC form contains a long list of "Parcel Numbers" for properties in the IT -29 area, but 6- 19 -1 -2 is not one of them. It is unclear to us whether this means that the parcel, is not in the 1T -29 UNA, or that a different parcel numbering system was used by the TCEMC. It has also been brought to our attention that there have been some problems with the computer system used by the TCEMC, and that'some of the information about this parcel may have been lost. We hope that the correct information about these things can be gotten from the Tompkins County Planning office, and urge you to delay any decision about this parcel until its Unique Natural Area status is clarified. 2. Only five scarce plants are listed in the IT', 29 UNA, but there may be more on the site because there is EXHIBIT # 1 a possibility, as mentioned earlier, that some of the data has been lost due to computer problems. We • recommend that a plant survey be done by a professional familiar with the local flora to determine the exact status of the scarce plant situation. Such a survey should be done before any decision is reached on the subdivision proposal, and should be paid by the developer rather than by the Town. Robert Wesley, a local botanist, familiar with this parcel of land, the UNA studies and local flora and fauna, also has recommended that the Planning Board request a botanical survey of this parcel, 3. We request that the Planning Board consider recommending legislation that would make any action in a Unique Natural Area of the Town a Type I Action requiring a Full Environmental Assessment under SEAR. Until such a policy is in place, and if deemed appropriate, a Full Environmental Assessment can always be requested even for an Unlisted Action if the Planning Board feels the Short EAF does not provide enough information. 4. The applicant has indicated on the Development Review Application that this subdivision is not a P hased one, We are aware that the Planning Board can only deal with each application as it comes in. But it is in the nature of planning to try to look into the future and try to consider different ways in which development can occur. The proposed subdivision leaves a 6.73 acre parcel which the applicant may wish to subdivide further in the future, perhaps one subdivision at a time,, We recommend that the Planning Board considers possible negative effects to this special parcel of such a piecemeal approach before making a decision about this proposal. Perhaps conditions could be added if this subdivision is approved, S, A path has already been cleared through the wooded hillside from the existing driveway in the • southwestern corner of the parcel and up the hill to the railroad right -of -way. Construction of a house and possible clearing of trees to open up a view of the lake might involve cutting down many more of the trees on the parcel and result in a drastic impact on the plant and animal life on the parcel, it could also lead to erosion problems on the parcel and below it toward the lake, We recommend that the Planning Board consider erosion plans before and after possible construction on this parcel. Phillip Zarriello viewed this parcel from Stewart Park and feels that unless tree cutting is very minimal such clearing could have a very adverse visual impwt on the hillside, especially as seen from as close by as Stewart Park. We recommend that the Planning Board make as specific limitations on tree cutting as possible, 6. The gorge within this property is truly beautiful. Being a or it carries a stream which is not only gorge Y limited to this property, but comes through other" and runs into Cayuga Lake. And the water in the lake belongs to all of us. To safeguard not only the natural beauty of the gorge but the quality of that water, we ask the Planning Board to consider adding a condition that protects the gorge area from any disturbance if a subdivision approval is granted. • K EXHIBIT # 1 For the ERC, respectfully submitted, r TOWN OF ITHACA • LOCAL LAW NO. _ FOR THE YEAR 1992 I' A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE I' TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDNANCE REGARDING PROCEDURES AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS Be it enacted by the Town Board of, the Town of Ithaca as follows: Section 1. Section 77 of the Zoning Ordinance ;of the Town of Ithaca as re- adopted, amended, and revised, effective February 26, 1968, and subsequently amended, be further amended to read as follows: "SECTION 77. Board of Appeals. Therel'is hereby established a Board of Appeals which shall function in the manner prescribed by law (except as the Town Law is superseded as set forth below). u 1. There shall be five members of th'e Board of Appeals. The members of the Board of Appeals shall be residents of the Town of Ithaca and shall be appointed by the Town Board to serve for terms as prescribed by law. Vacancies occurring in said Board by expiration of term or otherwise shall be filled in the same manner. No person who is a member of the Town Board shall be eligible for membership on the Board of Appeals. 2. The Town Board shall designate the Chairperson of the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall choose its own Vice- Chairperson who shall preside in the absence of the Chairperson. In !Ithe absence of both the chairperson and vice - chairperson, the Board of Appeals shall choose one of its number as acting chairperson. Such chairperson, or the party acting as chairperson in the chairperson's absence, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of witnesses. The Board of Appeals may appoint a secretary who shall take minutes of all its meetings: and keep its records. u 3. The Board of Appeals shall adopt from time to time such rules and regulations as it may deem necessary to carry into effect the provisions of this ordinance and all its resolutions and orders shall be in accordance therewith. 49 Any person aggrieved by any decision of any officer of the Town charged with the enforcement of this ordinance may take an appeal to the Board of Appeals. 50 The Board of Appeals shall, in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and in accordance with the provisions of Town Law Sections 267 et. seq. (except as the same are superseded by the provisions of this Ordinance) hear and determine appeals from any refusals of a building permit or certificate of occupancy by the person designated by the Town Board, or review any order or decision of said person where such order or decision is based upon the requirements of this'ordinance. EXHIBIT # 2 0 to • BoardApp. ll, wp5l l ith llocallaw, , 05115192 10:31 ant 6. The Board of Appeals, on appeal" from the decision or determination of the Town Building Inspector and Zoning Enforcement Officer, shall have the power to grant use and area variances (as the same are defined in Town Law Section 267). (a) AREA VARIANCES. In addition to any other requirements set forth in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeals, in determining whether to grant an area variance shall consider all of the matters 'set forth in Town Law Section 267 -b including specifically the considerations set forth in Section 267 -b 3 (b) and W. (b) USE VARIANCES. If W In addition to any other, requirements set forth in this Ordinance, no use variance shall be granted ',unless the applicant shall show that applicable zoning regulations have caused unnecessary hardship. In order to prove such unnecessary hardship the applicant shall demonstrate to the Board of Appeals that (A) Under applicable zoning regulations the applicant can not obtain a reasonable economic return from the property in question, which • insufficient return imust be established by competent financial evidence; it (B) The alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; (C) The requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and (D) The alleged hardship has not been self - created. (ii) The foregoing criteria l,are intended to supersede, in accordance with Municipal Home Rule Law ('Section 10 1 (ii) d (3), the criteria for granting use variances set forth in Town Law Section 267 -b 2 (b) and in particular the requirement that to obtain (a use variance the applicant must demonstrate that the applicant is deprived of all economic use or benefit from the property. (iii) All other criteria and provisions contained in Town Law Sections 267 et. seq., except the requirement that the applicant demonstrate that the applicant it 2 it EXHIBIT # 2 6 7 BoardApp.11, wp511 ith llocallaw, , 05115192 10: 31'nnm is deprived of all economic use or benefit from property, are applicable to use variances in the Town of Ithaca." G 79 The Board of Appeals shall also hear and decide all matters referred to it or upon which it is required to pass by the terms of this ordinance. In deciding such matters referred to it by the terms of this ordinance and in granting special approval the Board of Appeals shall determine that: (a) The health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of this ordinance shall be promoted, except that as to all public buildings and educational buildings ;wherein the principle use is research, administration, or instruction, the same shall be presumed to exist. (b) The premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, and that such use, except as to public and educational buildings, will fill a neighborhood or community need. 4 (c) The proposed use and the location and design of any structure shall be consistent with the character of the district in; which it is located. • (d) The proposed use shall not .be j detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants. (e) The proposed access and egress for all structures and uses shall be safely designed. (� The general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and Toad upon water and sewerage systems is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community. it 80 In granting variances or special approvals or special permits the Board may impose upon the applicant such reasonable conditions as are directly related to and incidental to the proposed use of the property or the period of time such variance or special approval or permit shall be in effect. Such conditions shall be consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance or local law, and shall be imposed for the purpose of minimizing any adverse impact such variance, approval or permit may have on the neighborhood or community. 90 Where the terms of this Ordinance require a matter to be referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation before action is taken by the Board of Appeals, the Board of Appeals shall not hear the matter It and until the Planning Board has reviewed the �i 3 EXHIBIT # 2 i BoardApp.11, 511 ith llocallaw, , 05/15192 10: 31 ain H'P matter and recommended the action affirmatively. The Planning Board shall act within 60 days of receipt of the application. Failure to act within such time period shall be deemed an affirmative recommendation unless the time to act is extended with the applicant's consent. In the event the Planning Board recommends affirmatively, but with conditions, the approval of the Board of Appeals shall include the Planning Board's conditions, plus any additional conditions the Board of Appeals deems necessary. 10. Unless work has commenced in accordance with the variance-.or special approval given by the Board of Appeals within one year from; the issuance of the building permit authorizing such work, or within eighteen months of the granting of such variance or special approval, whichever is earlier, not only the building permit but the variance or special approval shall expire and the permissible uses and construction on the property shall revert to those in effect prior to the issuance of such special approval or variance. Section 2. If any provision of this law is found invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provisions of this local law which shall remain in full force and effect. i Section 3. This law shall take effect immediately. 2 EXHIBIT # 2 i