HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-04-02•
•
0
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
April 2,199
FILED
TOWN OF .I.T�HAACAA��
Date-- �L.�+L'=
Clerk
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, April 2, 1996, in
Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson,
Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), JoAnn Cornish
(Planner), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering), George Frantz (Assistant
Town Planner), John Barney, (Attorney for the Town).
ALSO PRESENT: Josephine Richards, Paul Richards, C. Bordoni, Jim Bordoni, Allan Lentini,
Jim Pung, Theodore J. Weeden, Jr., Bill Szabo, Scott Whitham, David
Norcross, David Herrick, B.C. Andersen, S. Savoca.
Chairperson Cornell declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m. and accepted, for
the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings
in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 25, 1996, and March 27, 1996, 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
Town of Ithaca and the City of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning,
upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or
agents, as appropriate, on March 29, 1996. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto
attached as Exhibit #1)
Chairperson Cornell 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 Cornell closed this segment of
the meeting.
Chairperson Cornell stated we have anew minutes secretary, and introduced Debby
Kelley to the members of the Board.
Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that this is an attempt to get all minutes,
from all the boards standardized in one format, and have one person transcribing them all.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO.
26 -3 -16, 0.8 +/- ACRES IN SIZE, INTO TWO LOTS, 0.445 +/- ACRES AND 0.354 +/- ACRES
IN SIZE RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED AT 120 -122 BUNDY ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R-
• Planning Board Minutes 2
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
April 2, 1996
15. MAYFRED S. HIRSHFELD, OWNER; THEODORE J. WEEDEN, JR., ESQ., AGENT.
Chairperson Cornell read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and
published and as noted above.
Theodore J. Weeden, Jr. addressed the Board and stated that he would be representing
Mayfred Hirshfeld for this proposal. Mr. Weeden stated that there would be no environmental
impact because of this project. Mr. Weeded stated that the intent is to subdivide this land back
into the size it was originally. Mr. Weeden stated that because of construction to the home and
improvements made to that home, the lot line needed to be moved over. Mr. Weeden stated
that the preliminary studies indicate there will be no environmental impacts.
Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated this is a two lot subdivision, and that staff
had prepared part two of the Environmental Assessment Form, and the lot appears to be
consistent with other lots in the neighborhood. Mr. Kanter stated that there is really no
environmental concern, but one of the conditions in the approval should be to consider a
variance for the width of Parcel B. Mr. Kanter stated that the Environmental Review indicated
no significant impact, so the staff is recommending a negative determination of environmental
is significance.
Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any environmental concerns regarding this
proposal from anyone in the public or from the Planning Board. There being no comments or
concerns, Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion regarding the
environmental significance of this proposal.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality
Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full
Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Wilcox, Kenerson, Bell.
NAY - None.
• The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Planning Board Minutes 3 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
El
Chairperson Cornell declared the Public Hearing for the proposed two -lot subdivision of
the Mayfred Hirshfeld Property duly opened, and asked if anyone from the public wished to
speak.
Mr. Weeden stated that this proposal is essentially splitting a piece of property into two,
and the original intent was to divide the property along the original boundary lines. Mr.
Weeden stated that after the surveyor went out to look at the property and the house, it
appeared that the side boundary would not be in compliance with the zoning laws, and
therefore, the property was drawn up with parcel B slightly less wide at the front of the parcel
than property A. Mr. Weeden stated, as a result, this would need a variance from the Zoning
Board of Appeals. Mr. Weeden stated that the parcel is approximately 7 1/2 feet short of the
required 100 -foot width at the 50 -foot setback. The parcel A is improved by a house, and
parcel B is not improved at this point.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the R -15 Zoning District has a requirement of a
minimum width of 100 feet at the 50 -foot setback line, and the intent of that was to prevent
irregular- shaped lots as much as possible. Mr. Kanter stated that the lots meet all the other R-
15 requirements, the 15,000 square foot minimum lot size is met, and the other depth and width
at street line is met. Staff has included in the proposed resolution a condition that would
indicate that a variance would have to be obtained for that width dimension, prior to signing of
the plat. Mr. Kanter stated that the only other thing he noticed while looking at the plat, is in the
back of parcels A & B there is a sewer line shown and is labeled "approximate location of
sanitary sewer ", and there is an indication that there is a 25 foot easement on record. To
formalize the plat itself, staff is recommending that the actual easement location and width be
illustrated in the survey on the plat prior to being signed by the Planning Board Chair.
Attorney for the Town John Barney asked where the easement is located in reference to
the existing pipes, because you might be asking surveyors to do something they can not do.
Director of Engineering Daniel Walker stated the center line is where the center line pipe
is, but that sewer should be very easy to locate. The important thing is to show the easement
on the drawing to show the proximity from the house to the sewer line. Mr. Walker stated
showing that line on the parcel map assists in locating a building lot and assists the Building
Inspector in knowing exactly what limits he has to maintain the building.
Chairperson Cornell asked if any one else would like to speak from the public or if Board
Members had any comments.
Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if the subdivision line was moved so that a width of
100 feet was kept on parcel B, would it create a variance on parcel A.
Mr. Weeden responded, yes, on the side lot. It needs a minimum of 15 feet, it would
definitely be within that. Right now it is 18 feet the way it. has been drawn, and it was decided
Planning Board Minutes 4 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
•
the front lot would be the easiest to mitigate.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that there is a railroad -tie wall and some sort of
garden in the back yard of this property, which looks like they want it to remain.
Mr. Weeden stated right, that is their intention.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated there are no problems with this proposal. Ms.
Hoffmann stated that it is such a small difference in the size of the setback line, and it does not
create any odd shaped parcels.
Chairperson Cornell asked if there are any more comments from the public on the
hearing. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone
would like to make a motion regarding the proposed site.
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Herbert Finch:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver
will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the
policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for
the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26 -3 -16, 0.8 +/- acres in size,
into two lots, 0.445 +/- acres and 0.354 +/- acres, located at 120 -122 Bundy Road, as
shown on a survey entitled "Survey Map No. 122 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, N.Y.," prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C., Engineers and Surveyors and dated
December 29, 1995, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions:
a. revision
of the
subdivision plat to
show the limits
and location of the 20 foot wide
sanitary
sewer
easement on both
Parcels A and
B, and
b. obtaining any required variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals, and
C. both a. and b. above to be done prior to signing of the plat by the Chair of the
Planning Board, and
d. submission for signature by the Chair of the Planning Board of an original or
. Planning Board Minutes 5 April 2, 1996
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
mylar copy and four (4) paper copies of the plat, as required to be revised above,
with required Surveyor's Certification, prior to filing with the Tompkins County
Clerk's office.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAY - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
(NOTE: Complete resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit #2.)
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of the
Hirshfeld two -lot subdivision at 120 -122 Bundy Road duly closed at 7:55 p.m.
I TA 111111111 110
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Fred Wilcox:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of January
91 19962 by and hereby are approved with the following changes:
That on Page 1, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, by removing the word "Acting" from the words
"Chairperson Cornell"
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYE - Cornell, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAY - None.
ABSTAIN - Hoffmann.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 19, 1996
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Herbert Finch:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of March
191 19967 by and hereby are approved with the following changes:
• That on Page 15, Paragraph 1, which reads: "Board Member Hoffmann stated that when
she was talking about having a jogging trail along the road inside the project, she was not
Planning Board Minutes 6 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
•
thinking of a sidewalk, but a grassy edge, which could be used by anyone."
This was changed to read: "Board Member Hoffmann stated that when she was talking
about having a jogging trail along the road inside the project, she was not thinking necessarily
of a sidewalk, but something like a grassy edge, which could be used by anyone."
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAY - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE
PROPOSED CONVERSION OF BLDG. NO. 14 IN THE CORNELL UNIVERSITY PLEASANT
GROVE APARTMENTS COMPLEX FOR THE CAMPUS LIFE MAINTENANCE SHOPS TO
SERVE STUDENT HOUSING UNITS, TO CONSIST OF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES,
LUNCH /MEETING ROOM, AND CARPENTER, ELECTRICAL, PAINT, LOCK, GLASS, AND
PIPE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SHOPS AND PARKING FOR UP TO 18 VEHICLES; AND
CONVERSION OF BLDG. NO. 1, BLDG. NO. 2, AND BLDG. NO. 12 INTO TEMPORARY
OFFICES FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS DURING THE COURSE OF RENOVATIONS TO
SIBLEY AND TJADEN HALLS. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX
PARCELS NO. 67 -1 -1.1 AND 67- 1.3.2, MR MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT, CORNELL
UNIVERSITY, OWNER; SCOTT WHITHAM, AGENT,
Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:00 p.m. and read
aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings and posted and published and as noted above.
Scott Whitham, Representative from Cornell University, stated the letter of March 26,
1996, to Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, listed the changes Cornell University made
since the last meeting as recommended by the Board and Town staff. Looking at what the
stipulations were for Final Site Approval:
A) Acceptance by the Zoning Board of Appeals on March 13, 1996;
B) Agreement that there be no outdoor storage of materials or supplies used in the operation of
the maintenance facility;
C) Agreement that all fabrication or repair work done on site as part of the operations of the
maintenance facility occur entirely within the building,
•D) Agreement that use of Building Nos. 1 2, and 12 for temporary graduate student offices be
terminated on or before January 1, 1999;
Planning Board Minutes 7 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
E) The dating of each drawing as part of final submission;
F) The submission of elevation drawings for Building No. 14, showing all new doors proposed
for the building;
G) Revision of the planting plan to locate the plantings along the west side of Building Nos. 14
and 12, to just along the west side of Building No. 14, and the addition of evergreen trees to
supplement the proposed buffer planting for Building No. 14,
H) Agreement to add stabilizing vegetation to the east side of the road near the proposed
parking, in collaboration with and by the direction of representatives of Cornell Plantations;
1) Submittal of a full survey of the proposed parking area and adjacent slope, certified and
sealed by a licensed surveyor.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated, for the record, the drawing entitled
"Parking /Site Detailed Plan for Pleasant Grove Apartments" is dated 3/19/96.
Board Member Wilcox stated his copy does not show it was done by a licensed surveyor
• or does not show a seal.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated the original is in the files in the Planning
Department. Mr. Frantz referred to the resolution from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and
indicated that they did grant a variance on March 13, 1996. The Zoning Board of Appeals had
a number of conditions; one, that the variance be subject to the same conditions as proposed
by the Planning Board on March 5, 1996 in the Preliminary Site Plan Approval Resolution,
including the non - residential units which are being converted to temporary offices, be converted
to residential units by January 1, 1999. The Zoning Board of Appeals did have one concern,
and asked that some attention be given to the possible need for a caution or a stop sign at the
entrance drive, where it affects the Pleasant Grove Road, as well as the possibility of signage
along Pleasant Grove Road to warn motorists of the presence of this driveway.
Chairperson Cornell asked what signs were being considered, and if a sign saying trucks
is a possibility on Pleasant Grove Road.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz illustrated what an intersection warning sign designating
an intersection ahead might look like, according to the manual of Uniform Traffic Control
Devices. Mr. Frantz stated that Ms. Cornish went out and checked, and there is already a stop
sign at the end of the entrance drive. There are no intersection warning signs either coming
out of Forest Home on Pleasant Grove Road, nor are there any coming from the Cayuga
Heights direction. However, there are a number of warning signs in that area, such as, curve
is warning sign, pedestrian crossing signs, and a small sign for an entrance to the Observatory.
The manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices says that warning signs are used to warn traffic
S Planning Board Minutes 8
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
April 2, 1996
of significant intersections ahead. They should be used where the intersection is not visible to
approaching traffic for sufficient distances. Mr. Frantz stated that, in this case the intersection
is visible from both directions. The manual also goes on to recommend that they are usually
unnecessary in residential or business districts. Mr. Frantz stated that he thought Pleasant
Grove Road qualifies in that category. The road is owned by the County and it would be up to
them to determine the need for signs.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the County had a concern about the sight distances in their
past comments.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the County Planning Department originally had a
concern over sight distance in their General Municiple Law review letter that the Planning
Board received for the March 5, 1996 meeting. Mr. Frantz stated that after the County
characterized the situation as poor sight distance to the North of the driveway, he had already
measured it and found that it was adequate from the standards used by the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Mr Frantz stated that he
went out again and measured it actually according to the methodology described in the
(AASHTO) manual, and sight distance is adequate in both directions.
•Attorney Barney stated the concern was the traffic coming up the hill on Pleasant Grove
Road, which would not necessarily observe cars making a turn into the development, and would
not be able to stop rapidly.
Chairperson Cornell stated this problem is compounded in bad weather, this is one of
the hills that cars have a hard time getting up.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated in that case, the cars going up the hill from Forest
Home Drive have a sight distance in a range of 500 feet plus. People can see a vehicle
stopped at the end of the driveway ready to pull out.
Chairperson Cornell stated since the area is right next to a lot of housing, families and
students, it seems the Board should consider requiring a sign of caution. Ms. Cornell stated
that she always considered going up the hill toward that site a difficult drive.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated one thing he had checked, because it is very
uncomfortable for a driver who is going up hill to turn left into that driveway because of the
curve, however, one could pull into that curve enough to see far enough north along Pleasant
Grove Road to make that left turn into the driveway.
Chairperson Cornell declared the Public Hearing in the matter of Final Site Plan
Approval for Pleasant Grove Apartment complex for Cornell University to be duly opened, and
asked if there were any members of the public that wished to speak.
• Planning Board Minutes 9 April 2, 1996
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
Mr. Whitham stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals was interested in whether there
was any signage at all. They were unaware at the time if there was any. They wanted Cornell
University to investigate, and going out to the site there are all those signs that Mr. Frantz
referred to, and the signage for Fortes Observatory, but we thought that was sufficient, unless
the staff or the board thinks otherwise.
Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that there is a lot of signage there.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board does not want a lot of signage pollution, but a
sign saying trucks might be helpful. They may be only there certain times of the day, but they
are exiting and entering in a concentration.
trucks.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that these are pick -up trucks. Not any large
Chairperson Cornell asked if trucks were used for delivery of supplies.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated not often.
.Board Member Hoffmann stated that she travels quite often on that road, and could see
how it would be very difficult for someone who is not familiar with the area to realize that there
is an Observatory, but did not remember where the sign for the Observatory was.
Mr. Whitham stated it is located on the slope heading north, and is a blue sign on the
right side.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated he travels that road quite often, and it seems to be
particularly bad in the direction going up hill, it is a very difficult area to drive around because of
the combination of the steep hill and curve. Mr. Bell stated that there is no natural place for a
sign on that road, and the sign would actually be distracting to drivers. Mr. Bell stated that it
would make it less safe to have a sign especially in that direction, but that he would have no
problem with one in the other direction.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated he does not have a concern with the signs.
Board Member Wilcox stated he thinks there is enough signage there now.
Board Member Robert Kenerson stated he has no concerns with the signs.
Chairperson Cornell stated maybe some signs could be combined.
• Director of Planning Kanter stated there is a second letter dated March 8, 1996, from the
County Planning Department, which acknowledges the results from the sight distance studies,
• Planning Board Minutes 10
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
April 2, 1996
and basically said thank you for sending the findings in response to the earlier concerns of
apparent sight distance to the north on Pleasant Grove Road. The County Planning
Department appreciates being kept informed of the Town's decisions. Mr. Kanter stated that
the County acknowledged the fact that we looked into it further.
Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board was supplied with copies of photos with
colored cones showing where the parking lot is outlined, and where they plan to install railroad
ties. (Copy of above mentioned photos are hereto attached as Exhibit #3).
Board Member Hoffmann stated, while looking at "Parking /Site Plan Details" which
shows the layout of the parking spaces, that the contour lines do not interfere with the parking
line, and asked if that was because the contour lines had been moved or the parking lines had
been moved.
Mr. Whitham stated the survey showed the contour lines were not correctly shown in the
first drawings, the new survey shows the correct contours. The parking itself stays the same as
was originally proposed.
Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any further comments regarding Final Site Plan
Approval for Pleasant Grove Apartments by Cornell University. No one spoke. Chairperson
Cornell asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion regarding approval of the proposed site
plan.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Gregory Bell:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
conversion of Bldg. No. 14 in the Cornell University Pleasant Grove Apartments complex
for the Campus Life maintenance shops to serve student housing units, to consist of
administrative offices, lunch /meeting room, and carpenter, electrical, paint, lock, glass
and pipe maintenance and repair shops and parking for up to 18 vehicles; and
conversion of Bldgs. No. 1, No. 2, and No. 12 into temporary offices for graduate
students during the course of renovations to Sibley and Tjaden Halls, as shown on the
design drawings entitled "Location Plan, Pleasant Grove Apartments ", "SP -1 Site Plan,
Pleasant Grove Apartments ", "Parking /Site Plan & Details, Pleasant Grove Apartments ",
and "Planting Plan, Pleasant Grove Apartments ", each dated March 19, 1996; and
"Pleasant Grove Apartments Building # 14 Renovations ", dated March 20, 1996)
prepared by Cornell University Planning, Design and Construction, and other application
materials, subject to the following conditions:
• a. that there be no outdoor storage of any materials or supplies used in the
operations of either the maintenance facility or the housekeeping facilities;
•
Planning Board Minutes
APPROVED
11
APRIL 16, 1996
April 2, 1996
b. that all fabrication or repair work done onsite as part of the operations of the
maintenance or housekeeping facilities occur entirely within the buildings;
C. that use of Building Nos. 1, 2 and 12 for temporary graduate student offices be
terminated on or before January 1, 1999;
d. submission for review and approval by the Town Planner of the details regarding
the number and size of native viburnum plants proposed to be planted along the
east side of the parking area prior to installation of said plantings,
e. submission of an original or mylar copy of all final site plan drawings to be
retained by the Town of Ithaca.
f. all plantings and vegetation to be installed by September 30, 1996, or prior to the
issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy for Building 14, whichever is
earlier.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the landscaping has to be completed along the gorge by a
certain date.
was.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Whitham what the time frame for completing all the planting
Mr. Whitham stated that the plantings could be done by August 15, 1996, they will be
done this year.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the students would be using that parking lot.
Mr. Whitham stated no. Mr. Whitham stated that the time frame for the plantings would
be by August 15, 1996.
Attorney Barney stated the date is fine,
development is the Certificate of Occupancy.
but the only handle that the Town has on the
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated the completion of the landscaping both along the
parking lot and to the west of Building 14 could be tied to the Certificate of Occupancy for
Building 14.
Jim Pung, Cornell University, stated that Cornell University anticipates occupancy of
Buildings 1, 2, and 12, by May 1, 1996. Mr. Pung stated that the parking has nothing to do with
Buildings 1, 2, and 12, the parking is used for the maintenance shop use in building 14 only,
and the occupancy for that would have to go through the Building Permit process, and we
would like to have this done by the end of this summer.
Planning Board Minutes 12 April 2, 1996
S
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
Chairperson Cornell asked if it was acceptable to tie the plantings to the occupancy of
Building 14.
Attorney Barney responded yes, and suspected that the planting will be completed by
September 30, 1996 or prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for building 14.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAY - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Final Site
Plan Approval for Pleasant Grove Apartments for Cornell University duly closed at 8:30 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
1. Walkable /Bikeable Communities Conference
• Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated staff received a flyer in the mail from Lois
Chapman, employee of Cooperative Extension and the Local Roads Program at Cornell, and
her area of specialization is bicycle and pedestrian transportation. She is trying to get the word
out about the work shop, which is really for both professional and lay planners at the local level
interested in developing more walkable and bikeable communities. It is at the Sheraton's Four
Points Hotel in Ithaca.
Chairperson Cornell stated there is an $89.00 registration fee.
Director of Planning Kanter asked if any member of the Board was interested in
attending to let him know.
or not.
Chairperson Cornell stated she would like to go.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she was interested, but not sure whether she could go
It was agreed that a registration would be sent in for one Board Member, and that
perhaps one member could go one day, and another could go the second day.
2. Past Meetings
•
Chairperson Cornell stated that she and Starr Hays have gone over some recent tapes
• Planning Board Minutes 13 April 2, 1996
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
from past meetings, and it is extremely important that the minutes be accurate and easy to do.
Ms. Cornell stated that there are many things to do to help facilitate this process, and it would
be desirable for the Board to have a discussion about how we can conduct meetings, but there
are a number of other subjects that need to be considered. Ms. Cornell stated that she thought
it could be beneficial to the Board to have an extra meeting, and have it be a planning meeting
on issues that have been brought up in the past. Chairperson Cornell suggested April 23,
1996, as a possible date, and asked if this was acceptable to the Board.
1996.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that he will be out of town on the April 23, and 24,
Board Member Gregory Bell stated he could probably attend.
Board Member Robert Kenerson stated no.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he maybe out of town the day before, and is not
eager for another meeting on the April 23, 1996.
Chairperson Cornell stated there are some issues the Board really needs to discuss.
• Board Member Finch asked if the regularly scheduled meeting agendas are full of
projects or if this meeting that is being requested could be incorporated into a regular meeting.
Chairperson Cornell indicated that such a discussion could be incorporated into a
regular meeting, but that it would probably be more productive to have a special working
session.
Director of Planning Kanter stated the next few meetings will be full.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the Board was interested in having a work session meeting.
The Board was interested in an extra meeting, and tentatively scheduled one for
Tuesday, May 28, 1996.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR
THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE EAST HILL PLAZA P &C FOOD MARKET LOCATED
ON JUDD FALLS ROAD IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA. THE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES
EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING STORE BY 8,970 +/- SQUARE FEET AND THE
CONVERSION OF 580 + /- SQUARE FEET OF AN EXISTING ENTRANCE WAY INTO OFFICE
SPACE. EXPANSION AND CONVERSION WILL FACILITATE RENOVATING THE FLOOR
LAYOUT AND RESULT IN THE ELIMINATION OF A 29 SPACE PARKING LOT. THE
PROJECT ALSO INVOLVES THE WIDENING OF AN EXISTING CONCRETE SIDEWALK,
ADJUSTING THE CENTERLINE OF THE EAST HILL PLAZA ENTRANCE ROAD OFF OF
I: I
Planning Board Minutes 14 April 2,
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
1996
JUDD FALLS ROAD, CURB REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, AND RELOCATING A WATER
MAIN. SAID FACILITY IS LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 62 -2- 1.1211
CORNER OF JUDD FALLS ROAD AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD, BUSINESS DISTRICT "C".
CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY, APPLICANT; DAVID
HERRICK, T.G. MILLER, P.C., ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, AGENT.
Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:40 p.m. and read
aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Dave Herrick, of T.G. Miller, stated we are converting an existing area that is used for
parking that is already paved on the western edge of the building along Judd Falls Road into
additional floor space for P &C. At the entrance itself, we are looking at converting some of the
existing entrance way and breezeway into permanent office space. In addition, because of
previous issues with Cornell, the 1992 landscape plan has been incorporated into this
application. I know in other projects it has always been a concern as to when that 1992
landscape plan was going to be implemented, and it has been tagged to this project as
proposed to coordinate construction to occur simultaneously with the expansion of the building.
The landscape plan is one that was presented by Cornell in 1992, and there has been two
®changes to the lengths of two of the proposed islands, in order to accommodate the need for
parking. That is the only change which was made to the 1992 plan. We will have some
landscaping beautification taking place in conjunction with this building expansion project.
Pointing at Sheet 3 of 3, the "Landscape Plan ", Mr. Herrick stated that within the center of the
existing parking lot we are proposing two long landscaped islands, and in order to
accommodate the required parking spaces, after the P &C expansion eliminates 29 existing
spaces, we need to reduce the length of those islands by approximately 36 feet, which is
equivalent to 4 parking spaces per island, thereby increasing the number of parking spaces by
eight, which is the deficit that we are left with after the P &C expansion project. We have
outlined, on Sheet 3 of 3, where the 1992 landscape islands were proposed and we are
showing where they would be constructed, if approved, to eliminate our eight space deficit.
believe the landscape plan is intact as it was in 1992 including the planting schedules, species,
and the inter - arrangement within the landscaped islands.
Chairperson Cornell asked Planner Cornish if there were any environmental concerns.
Planner Cornish stated that the Environmental Review Committee was concerned with
the visual impact on the people traveling on Judd Falls Road, as well as the visual impact of the
facade from the parking lot, but assumes that will be addressed as the meeting continues.
Chairperson Cornell asked if Ms. Cornish felt that there are significant impacts, enough
to require an in -depth study or something that can be handled with the Environmental
® Assessment.
Planning Board Minutes 15 April 2, 1996
0 APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
Planner Cornish stated that with some design modifications, it could be handled.
Board Member Wilcox stated in the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I, Item
#8, which reads "Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use
restrictions", the rear yard setback is mentioned. Mr. Wilcox stated that he thought it should
mention that the signage as proposed may require a variance. Andrew Frost, Director of
Building and Zoning, has proposed an opinion for a variance of the sixth sign.
Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion of environmental
determination.
MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality
Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full
Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she does not feel comfortable with the building impacts,
as it is proposed, without any modifications.
Chairperson Cornell asked if Ms. Hoffmann felt that it could be resolved with design
modifications.
Board Member Hoffmann responded yes.
Board Member Bell stated he agreed with Ms. Hoffmann, and will raise some issues later
in the meeting.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote
AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAY - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Cornell declared the Public Hearing for the proposed P &C Expansion
Project duly opened, and if anyone from the public wished to speak.
David Norcross, Vice President of Real Estate for P &C, stated that P &C is looking
® Planning Board Minutes 16 April 2, 1996
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
forward to improving their facility on Judd Falls Road. P &C has been a tenant since 1972. The
last time a major renovation was done was in 1984 or 1985, when the facility was expanded
and remodeled. This proposal contemplates adding around 9,000 square feet of additional
space. The principal reason for doing that is to substantially enhance the perishable aspects of
the store presentation. Specific areas would include produce, bakery, and deli. Right now, by
current supermarket standards, P &C is inadequate to serve the needs of our customers, so
making this improvement will give the customers, East Hill Plaza, and the Town of Ithaca the
very best supermarket we can. Mr. Norcross stated that he would like to start this project in the
Spring, as early in the year as possible, in order to complete it throughout the summer months
while the students are gone, and have it fresh and ready to go in late August or early
September, when the students return. Mr. Norcross stated that he is willing to work with the
Planning Board on any concerns that are raised tonight, and looks forward to having a
successful completion of this project.
Mr. Herrick stated that some of the site issues that the building brings up is an existing
water main that services the back side of the Plaza that would need to be relocated. There is
ample room to make that happen and still maintain necessary separation distances from the
sanitary sewer main. Mr. Herrick stated that they had discussed the elimination of the 29
parking spaces. The zone between the proposed building face and Judd Falls Road, as
presented tonight on this site plan, is proposed to remain as asphalt. The Fire Chief, Brian
Wilbur, was notified about the plan and asked him the criteria of fire access for that portion of
the building, to see first if it was necessary for the Fire Department to have it maintained as a
paved section, or if they would fight any fire in the building from a different angle.
Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Herrick to point out where the existing fire exits are and
any new ones would be.
Mr. Herrick stated, referring to "Site Plan ", Sheet 2 of 3, the areas are along the west
face of the existing building, and as this new building is extended, will be left with approximately
a 30 feet portion of asphalt pavement which is there now. The question addressed to Chief
Wilbur was whether that access would be of any benefit for fire fighting or whether it should be
named as a fire zone. The initial feed back from the Fire Department was verbal, that it could
be eliminated. The Fire Department did not feel that area would benefit them for fighting fires
because there will be no doors or windows on this face, so there will be no access or reason to
pull a vehicle up to that end of the building. Any roof access that they would need would come
from the front of the store or back of the store. Mr. Herrick stated that P &C is in a position to
talk about some of the aesthetic issues along Judd Falls Road, and subsequently in the final
phase of the site plan, and come back with some improvements in this area. Right now the
face of the building is entirely blocked, it does have some setbacks that were provided to break
up the view. It is textured block, with some pilaster intended to improve the aesthetic quality.
Those things will have to be incorporated in this face, so we are comfortable and happy with
the product. That is the issue of fire access. We have already talked about the proposed
landscape improvements. Mr. Herrick stated that for discussion tonight we want to feel
Planning Board Minutes 17 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
u
comfortable that the reduction in the length of those two landscaped mediums are acceptable.
Again, we are gaining eight spaces, so that we can come in compliance with the parking
requirement. Regarding the elevations, I would ask Dave Norcross at the appropriate time to
comment on those. The signage, we have six signs shown on the elevations. Five, we
understand, are permitted, and we probably will work to reduce those numbers to the permitted
amount to modify the elevations.
Planner Cornish stated that in discussions with the applicants there was talk about the
side and front being broken up with some "planters in addition to the landscaping. The parking
seems to be adequate. Shortening the islands does not seem to make a huge change in that
plan and would probably be acceptable to bring the parking into compliance. The back lot has
not been included in the parking count. It is used for parking, and is part of the plan that was
not in the approved site plan, so it is in essence, parking and parking is more than adequate
here. Ms. Cornish stated that another issue was signage off of Ellis Hollow Road. It was not
clear on the site plan whether there was intended to be a sign in the landscape island, although
the way it was drawn, it appeared that there is a sign proposed, and that was an issue that the
Board should discuss. There are some issues with the increased width of the sidewalk in front
of the P &C entrance, that will then decrease the driving lanes to 11 feet. There is some
questions whether that is adequate in width to provide safe access of pedestrians. It seems
fairly narrow now. By decreasing it to 11 feet, you will be narrowing it down to a point of
concern. The traffic islands that were proposed in the original site plan are adequate, and in
fact, we strongly encourage the islands to remain where they are indicated.
Attorney Barney asked if an entry way projects out other than that sidewalk. Currently,
or if this was going to be newly constructed space.
Mr. Herrick stated that there is some text indicating the existing entrance within that
crossed hatched portion, which is the entrance way into the present store.
Attorney Barney asked if there is a projection out from the side of the building for the
existing entrance.
Mr. Herrick stated yes, that is a canopy area.
Attorney Barney asked if that is proposed to be converted into an office.
Mr. Herrick stated yes.
Attorney Barney asked if additional space was being pushed out onto the sidewalk for
another entrance way.
• Mr. Herrick stated no. The breezeway, and what is labeled as the existing entrance,
would be converted into co- heated space for office use. The new entrance will be to the east of
Planning Board Minutes 18 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
the current location. We are not extending the structure any farther out into the parking area
than it is presently. What we are trying to improve is a difficult sidewalk condition where there
is about 2 1/2 feet of sidewalk from the existing entrance way, and it is difficult to walk on.
Board
Member Bell
stated
the covered canopy
is very helpful
in dealing
with the bad
weather, and
asked where
would
you be stacking the
shopping carts
would be
kept.
Mr. Herrick stated that the canopy will exist under this plan, and will be extending out to
the face of the curb that is shown on the Elevational Drawings. The plan is to move the
shopping carts inside the store. The stacking of shopping carts area, would be converted into
heated space, moving the carts to inside the heated store.
Chairperson Cornell asked if the drive in front of the building is that sub - standard space.
Planner Cornish stated that she looked at architectural graphics standards, 11 feet was
used, but going to the site and observing and driving in that area it feels tight and that is at it's
current width. To cut it down an additional foot, would cause some concerns.
Director of Engineering Walker stated the two 11 foot lanes are fine for the right way
•configuration, but the problem we have here is you have a curb area where people stop and
buses stop. A third lane is needed as a shoulder for them to pull over. In fact this is not just for
P &C. Further down in front of the Credit Union, there is a bus stop. You have to cross the
opposing double line to pass buses or cars stopped along there, so if you look just right to the
proposed planter there is a wide area where vehicles could pull off, that type of configuration
should exist across the whole face of the plaza.
Board Member Bell stated it is more than just those areas. It is also in front of the pizza
store, video store, etc.., but there are cars that pull up to stop all along the front of the building.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that there is a third lane on a portion of that.
Board Member Finch stated that he was delighted to see this configuration for a wider
walkway because he uses the store regularly. Mr. Finch thought the entrance to the existing
P &C is one of the most inconvenient stores. It is not an inviting entrance way. If this improves
it in any way he would be happy. Mr. Finch thought with the narrowing of the drive might
discourage people from stopping there. It should not be a stopping area, and it also makes a
shorter dash from the parking lot to the store which might not help either, but crossing from the
parking lot to the store is an awkward aspect of getting there as well. Mr. Finch stated that he
was delighted to see a narrower street that encourages slower traffic.
•Chairperson Cornell stated, personally, she feels that when some one is mobility
impaired, it really helps that cars can pull up some place to get in and load your things very
briefly and easily.
• Planning Board Minutes 19 April 2, 1996
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
Board Member Finch stated he does not have any objections to a loading area, but that
is not the place for a loading area either.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that there should a third lane at least eight -foot
wide. The whole roadway should be shifted to the south by ten feet by taking out another bay
of parking.
Mr. Herrick stated, looking at Sheet 3 of 3, based on the proposal of 1992, he thought
one of the efforts of this landscaping plan was to provide a dedicated bus pull off area which is
the indentation in front of Rite -Aid, and that would be the formal bus stop location for the plaza
eliminating anything in front of Credit Union and eliminating stops in front of P &C. Two things
that makes it nice, a dedicated place for buses to pull off so that both through -way traffic could
continue, but it also eliminates that occasional standing of vehicles along what the fire
department would like to keep as emergency access. They would like to keep this area, across
the entire front of East Hill Plaza, free of standing vehicles, buses excluded. So the fire
department has asked that there be more diligence in keeping standing vehicles away from the
building. I thought this plan was tailored in this way to accommodate that request, but I may be
wrong. We do have ample room for a bus pull off. I think that if we do make space available
•along the frontage, it will be abused with standing vehicles. By eliminating the potential for
people to pull up front, we will be improving the traffic flow situation there.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she does her shopping at this location, and she often
sees people waiting with their groceries in a cart for a car to pull up, so they could unload the
groceries and get in the car and go. Once in awhile you see someone standing there waiting
for a taxi, and they stop right outside the P &C entrance. If that road was narrower, that is
where the problems are going to be. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she did not think that people
were going to walk over to the area pointed out for buses, wait for taxis, or private cars to pick
them up. Ms. Hoffmann stated that they need to do something to clear that up.
Mr. Herrick stated that they will have a conflict between the desire to pull up there, and
the need to keep that free for emergency fire access, which it is actually dedicated for around
that building.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if Mr. Herrick had considered creating another area
closer to Judd Falls Road where there could be a door from P &C where one could go out if one
wants to be able to pull a car up to the curb and load groceries in.
Mr. Herrick stated that is a good point, and that one aspect of widening the sidewalk is it
will permit people to take carts beyond the current entrance to the west, to the area where we
•do have the right turn lane out of the Plaza, so there might be some use of that right turn lane
area towards the entrance for that purpose.
Planning Board Minutes 20 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
Board Member Bell stated that 2 1/2 feet is pretty ridiculous, but that 5 feet is not much
less ridiculous. Five feet is hardly any room to put a shopping cart while waiting for a taxi, bus,
or anything else. Mr. Bell felt that the Plaza that is there now is feeling very cramped and kind
of stingy on use of space. Mr. Bell thought this plan does provide for marginal improvement,
but much better. Mr. Bell stated that the entire traffic line movement should be shifted to the
south at least 10 feet, and that the traffic island at the entrance which is a right angle access to
Judd Falls Road, but it immediately takes a turn, so you not only have a narrow space to drive
in, but you have a turn in the middle of it. It is a funnel, it is pushing traffic down into a smaller
space, and creating a turn. It is a whole series of things to contribute to this being an unfriendly
space and plan.
Chairperson Cornell asked about the expanse of stark brick wall to the west, and if the
fire department said they do not need that area for a fire lane. The Board members have talked
about essentially putting it to grass and having it as a landscape feature. Chairperson Cornell
asked if there was any way that you could have an exit there incorporated with landscaping, but
also have an exit where cars could pull up and stand to pick up people.
Mr. Norcross stated that he believes that the difference in grades and elevations as you
move to the west in that area will make it difficult to create a handicap ramp coming off the
•sidewalk down to the pavement would make a pick up area there difficult. It would also be next
to impossible to create an exit point there that would be convenient for customers that have
already checked out. They would have to take their carts entirely across the store again to exit
at another door. It does create security problems, and that would be a very difficult feature to
incorporate at that point.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that there is no topography on this map, so it
makes it unclear that there is a 3 - 4 foot drop from the entrance. If you look at the ramp going
up it is a good 2 foot step up to the current entrance, then it drops off as you get closer to Judd
Falls Road. The other thing is I would not recommend being any closer to that intersection with
any pedestrian traffic that intends to get into the traffic lanes. The sidewalk that exists now
comes down, as it gets past the narrow spot, then there is an existing 5 foot asphalt walk that
goes to the curb line, and that allows people to move either way onto Judd Falls Road. The
configuration of that entrance is there because when the County reconfigured Judd Falls Road,
this is matched to the entrance of Ide's Bowling. They eliminated 5 or 6 driveway cuts and cut it
down to four opposing cuts which makes a much safer situation on Judd Falls Road itself, and
the normal, better direction for pick up is more towards that bus pull off area and to the right of
the door when you are looking at the front of the building than closer to the road.
Board Member Bell stated that, for a proposal which takes into account Mr. Walker's
comments about not putting pedestrian traffic down near Judd Falls Road, and also
Chairperson Cornell's concern about making better access for mobility impaired pedestrians,
• since the area on Judd Falls end is totally brand new, and it is parking lot now, the actual
location of the western wall could be located pretty much any place to meet P &C's needs. Mr.
Planning Board Minutes 21 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
•
Bell suggested that a solution could be to move the whole traffic centerline to the south, and
move the whole facade of the entrance back to the north and that would eliminate about 2,500
square feet in the front, but stick that same 2,500 square feet on the west ward end of the
building because that is apparently flexible space. Mr. Bell made reference to whether it is
going to be landscape verses black top. It is not even used space, so just relocate this space
to the western end. That will allow the facade to be moved back, and will allow either more
generous driving lanes, or it might allow some covered space, and it allows some of the
functions to be pushed back into the main bulk of the building.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would be worried about bringing the building
even closer to the road.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that they are limited on what they can do with the
building because of the sanitary sewer that is there because it is only five foot off the corner of
the building.
Board Member Bell stated maybe they could relocate the sanitary sewer and water line
further to the left. Moving the whole western wall westward 10 feet or whatever they need, and
then moving the south side back up into the bulk of the building, so you can add extra space
which is now being proposed to be part of the building, add it to the parking and sidewalks, and
then push the functions they were going to have for new office and new entrance way back into
the building, and the space behind that is squeezed further to the west. This space is premium
space in terms of congestion, but this space to the west is totally non premium space.
Chairperson Cornell asked what the Environmental Review Committee's concerns were.
Planner Cornish stated basically, their concern is with the visual impact and the
proximity of this expanded portion of the P &C to Judd Falls Road, because you are going to be
having 130 +/- foot long solid masonry wall that would be within 30 feet of Judd Falls Road.
Pictures were taken of the current wall, so just picture that 30 feet closer to the road which
makes it much larger visually. There is some concerns that bringing the wall any closer is
going to just keep increasing the visual massiveness of the wall. This will be the closest
building to the road.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she likes the idea of changing the entry. It is the space
that would be lost by pushing the entry in, the way Mr. Bell proposed, could be added
somewhere else, or maybe the square footage could be eliminated. Ms. Hoffmann stated that
she would not like to see the building any closer to the road, because she thinks it is already
too close to the road with the massiveness of it.
Board Member Bell stated that the blank facade is an issue. Concerning the closeness
• to the road, that does not bother him at all. Mr. Bell stated that the wall could easily be
redesigned with some ways to break it up.
Planning Board Minutes 22 April 2, 1996
.
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
•
Planner Cornish stated that from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., she tried to take measurements of
that road, but could not do it because of the flow of traffic in and out.
Board Member Wilcox
that is made available to us l:
available in front of the store.
design it all we want to make
going to change the situation
problem in a different way.
stated, looking at Sheet 3 of 3, that we are going to use the space
ecause that is human nature. People use the space that is made
If we make a third lane, people are going to park there. We can
space, and people are going to come in and fill it up, and we are
by removing parking space, we are going to have the same
Director of Engineering Walker stated that people will take advantage of the space. The
ring road in the configuration of this plaza, if it was not immediately off the main entrance,
would not be a critical issue. People are going to stop at that curb line and people have to
move around them. I can not recommend we provide more space there to get the fast moving
traffic from that main entrance away from the building.
Chairperson Cornell stated this is only the preliminary phase of this project, and the
Board's only here to identify the problems, not to redesign the building. Ms. Cornell stated that
she felt very strongly about the traffic congestion and for the people who are not mobility
impaired, but are still too frail to push shopping carts. People will choose to shop at places that
will fit their needs.
Board Member Hoffmann stated, when the pavement is clean it is ok, but in the winter it
hard to push a loaded shopping cart through the snow. The plan that is called PR -1 shows a
plan of the entrance including four columns to hold up the canopy. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the
columns coincide with the columns that are there now, or are they pushed further out to the
south.
Mr. Herrick stated they are probably within a foot of the current column locations.
Board Member Hoffmann stated it seems to me it would be very useful to know how
much further they come out because that makes a difference if you have it with special
alterations.
Mr. Herrick stated that the intention was to bring the sidewalk out an additional 2 1/2
feet, so there may be the full 5 -foot wide walkway from the face of the existing columns. These
new columns would be within that sidewalk area, but they are set, and it can be seen from the
dimension on the bottom of the elevational drawing, that there is a clear 5 -foot distance
between the wall of the new entrance and the face of the column line, so that a 5 -foot wide
access way can be maintained. In addition, to go from the face of the proposed building out to
the curb line is a total width of 8 feet, so the inside face of those new columns are roughly 3
feet from the face of the proposed curb.
Planning Board Minutes 23 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
L
Chairperson Cornell stated, as Board Member Hoffmann pointed out earlier in the
meeting, there is an indication on the drawing that the building is longer than what is presented
here.
Mr.
Herrick stated
what you are looking
at is
the angle of the building.
If you look at the
store from
the front, you
can see how the west
wall
extends to the northwest
direction.
Chairperson Cornell asked do you have the drawing that does not have the cut, but the
full view.
Mr. Herrick stated the front only, the facade.
Chairperson Cornell asked how much of the building was cut out.
Mr. Herrick stated looking at PR -1, and I think what you are looking at in this break line
is the point where there is the corner of the building. As you face this building from the south
you are looking at this horizontal portion of this long leg. That is the extension you are seeing
in this perspective. There are a couple lines, where there are some arrows that run to the
existing building face. Looking at sheet 3 of 3, the existing building runs to the corner where
the heavy line is, this correlates to the faint line on PR -1 which says existing building. There is
a short extension of new building, roughly 30 or 40 feet further to the west. Then you look at
the horizontal extension of this long westwardly wall on the rest of the drawing.
Chairperson Cornell asked how much of the footage is missing in the break line.
Board Member Bell stated the angles of the west facade being referring to do not appear
to be that long on there, and that it would be better if the plans had some more dimensional
lines on them so that the Board would not have to guess.
Chairperson Cornell stated one of the issues is the structure of the building, that is why it
is important to see the full impact of how long the building is.
Mr. Norcross stated, what is shown on that drawing is, in fact, the entire front elevations
of the buildings. There are no break lines in it. What is out there to scale in the drawing PR -1
is a full scale, 1/8 inch equals a foot, of the entire front of the building, so what you see there is
the entire front elevation.
Chairperson Cornell asked what that white line on PR -1 represents.
Mr. Herrick stated that he did not know, but if it would help to embellish that by adding
actual dimensions, that is certainly something that can be done.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that these maps are of two different stores.
• Planning Board Minutes 24 April 2, 1996
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
Board Member Wilcox stated PR -1 is produced by Almy and Associates which the others
are produced by T.G. Millers, so that may describe the discrepancies.
Chairperson Cornell stated the Board needs accurate plans.
Board Member Bell stated that the entrance elevations on PR -1 does not correspond to
sheets 2 of 3, and that PR -1 shows the elevations with a gable roof that is centered on the
entrance area where sheet 2 of 3 shows a box labeled "proposed new entrance" which is on the
right hand part of that drawing and the left hand half proposed new office space, but in the PR -
1 drawing shows windows there and shows the entrance doors in the center of the space that is
not shown in sheet 2 of 3.
Board Member Hoffmann stated, looking at sheet 3 of 3. If you were to draw a vertical
line parallel to the existing building lines, you would see the two faces that you see here in
drawing PR -1. Then you would see the part closest to Judd Falls Road in both of the drawings,
coming up to the corner where there is a break in the facade to the south compared to the
facade to the west. This piece is somewhat smaller to Judd Falls Road than the ones to the
east of it. This part is shown somewhat larger compared to that one, and that indicates to me
that part of the drawing is missing.
• Mr. Herrick stated they will have to contact the people who drew that and clarify that
dimensional information for the Board.
Board Member Bell stated he had a recommendation on matching these drawings PR -1
and Sheet 2 of 3, "Site Plan ", to have these drawings done at the same scale.
Attorney Barney stated that to give any kind of approval the Board needs consistent
drawings, and suggested adjourning this to another meeting. Mr. Barney indicated that from
the discussions there are the concerns about the front of the building, and asked whether the
Board as a body wants to give a little guidance to what it might or might not find acceptable with
respect to the entry way and design of the narrowness of the roads.
Chairperson Cornell asked the board to give a brief description of any additional
information they felt was needed.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to have them try to reconfigure the
entrance way, in ways that were proposed, so that there is more space for traffic to go by
without endangering pedestrians. The look from the road of this addition is quite solid. The
building is closer to the road than anything else around there. Ms. Hoffmann asked why the
height of the addition needed to be the same as the height as it exists. The ceilings are very
high in the store, Ms. Hoffmann did not know what the need for all that space was because
there are no displays or case where food is kept. It seems like wasted space, and she would
like to see it lowered in order for it not to be so imposing, if that was possible. Ms. Hoffmann
• Planning Board Minutes 25 April 2, 1996
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
also indicated that she would like to see plantings of different kinds that would involve the
southern wall of the new addition as well as the existing wall, and the part along Judd Falls
Road. Ms. Hoffmann thought the ideas of having, what is now an asphalt area, be turned into
planting would be very nice, especially to try to counteract the effects of having the building that
close to the road.
Board Member Finch stated the entrances needed to be made as useful as possible.
Mr. Finch indicated that he is not concerned about the building being that close to the road.
The main thing to be concerned about is the people exiting and entering into the Plaza.
Board Member Kenerson stated as long as the proposal complies with zoning, he feels
the Board has to leave it to the applicant to determine what is best for their business.
Attorney Barney stated with the site plan review, the Board has some concerns about the
traffic, and the applicant needs to hear how the majority of the Board feels about whether one
of the roads should be 11 feet or not.
Board Member Wilcox stated that the appearance of that stark wall on the east side, can
be broken up with windows, architectural features, plantings, or something. He is also
• concerned that the plantings in the parking lots get done.
Board Member Bell stated that a number of people have mentioned that the western wall
is too imposing because it is only 30 feet from Judd Falls Road. Mr. Bell indicated that this is
not correct, in fact it is not being proposed for 30 feet from Judd Falls Road, but it is being
proposed for 45 feet from Judd Falls Road. It is 30 feet from the inner edge of the planting
strip, 40 feet from the inner edge of the sidewalks, and depending on the width of the sidewalk,
more like 45 feet from the actual road. Mr. Bell indicated that the extra 15 feet does reduce the
imposing nature of it, but there are other ways that have been discussed to reduce it. It could
be broken up with pilasters. Mr. Bell stated that he does not think windows fit into their interior
plan, but dirt sloping up the wall, so there is not much distance from the roof to the dirt. Mr. Bell
stated that his concerns are getting drawings at the same scale, and an attempt to be able to
move the facade of the entrance further to the north to provide more driving space, a more
generous sidewalk, and more space inside their canopy.
Chairperson Cornell stated her concerns are that it is a very congested parking lot, and
the proposal will make it more difficult. Basically as everyone else has already said, the facade
front of the building you need to increase the width of the lanes to make it easier for traffic.
Mr. Herrick stated that he appreciated the individual comments that will help in reshaping
this. A question for the board to think about, if there is a conflict with the desire of the fire
•department mandated access around that building, which is a local law, that there is maintained
a clear zone. If, by moving the entrance back to the north and creating 8 feet of standing
space, there is a problem with that local law and the fire department, how will that effect the
0 Planning Board Minutes 26 April 2, 1996
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
Board's opinion.
Chairperson Cornell stated the concerns for safety are primary.
Planner Cornish stated that in her conversation with Brian Wilbur of the Fire Department,
he stated their number one concern was the fire lane being clear because when they had to
respond to any situation there had been cars blocking the fire lane on an ongoing basis.
Mr. Herrick stated that there may be conflict in the desire for ease of mobility and
access, but also the wishes of the fire department and the local law. The second point would
be the landscape plan that was presented in 1992, incorporated concerns about traffic mobility
on the layouts of these islands. If that 1992 plan was adopted and acceptable to the Board
then, is there now a new concern that is not acceptable in terms of looping of traffic patterns.
The third point would be the proposed bus pull off area, and is that a concept that is still valid.
Director of Engineering Walker stated if you look at the plan that was approved, there
are a number of things that have happened. First, the configuration of P &C is changing, and
the entrance configuration changed slightly between the approval and the county building the
road. The only area of concern is directly in front of the building. The general traffic pattern to
•the south of the lot with the ring road configuration and those islands directing traffic from criss-
crossing across the parking lot, is not a problem. Mr. Walker indicated that the only area of
concern is the entrance in the north side of the parking lot at the P &C entrance.
Board Member Bell stated he has a concern about the 1992 plan on the very edge of the
parking lot, and it says a 2 foot grass berm typical, which he does not think that berm is there
currently, and assumes they are going to build it. If they do build this berm and if they do these
2 L- shaped green islands, why not in the end of the middle rows put a couple trees also. Mr.
Bell stated that he thinks there would be a problem with snow removal, and all of a sudden you
are putting three east -west obstacles on the three different parking rows then you are putting a
berm at the end, then where will the snow go.
Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to refresh her memory on the 1992 plan
and may also benefit of Board Members that were not here then, just to explain part of the 1992
plan that the traffic to the entrance of this Plaza from Judd Falls Road over to the eastern end
and hotel, was not meant to go straight across along the facade of the shopping center, but it
was meant to go south between the plantings that go parallel to Judd Falls Road and then
across the south of those plantings, but north of the gas station and the green areas there, then
turn up north again. Whether that is a realistically workable way of rerouting the traffic there or
not.
•Chairperson Cornell duly closed the Public Hearing of the Proposed P &C Expansion at
10:02 p.m., and adjourned to May 7, 1996 pending the availability of plans.
• Planning Board Minutes
APPROVED
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS.
u
•
27
APRIL 16, 1996
April 2, 1996
Director of Planning Kanter stated, referring to the Pleasant Grove Apartments project
resolution, in conditions la and 1 b, the housekeeping facility that was in the original proposal,
but has been subsequently been taken out. We ask the Board for formal amendment to
conditions 1 a and 1 b of the Resolution eliminate reference to the housekeeping facility.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Fred Wilcox:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
conversion of Bldg. No. 14 in the Cornell University Pleasant Grove Apartments complex
for the Campus Life maintenance shops to serve student housing units, to consist of
administrative offices, lunch /meeting room, and carpenter, electrical, paint, lock, glass
and pipe maintenance and repair shops and parking for up to 18 vehicles; and
conversion of Bldgs. No. 1, No. 2, and No. 12 into temporary offices for graduate
students during the course of renovations to Sibley and Tjaden Halls, as shown on the
design drawings entitled "Location Plan, Pleasant Grove Apartments" "SP -1 Site Plan,
Pleasant Grove Apartments ", "Parking /Site Plan & Details, Pleasant Grove Apartments ",
and "Planting Plan, Pleasant Grove Apartments ", each dated March 19, 1996; and
"Pleasant Grove Apartments Building # 14 Renovations ", dated March 20, 19967
prepared by Cornell University Planning, Design and Construction, and other application
materials, subject to the following conditions:
a. that there be no outdoor storage of any materials or supplies used in the
operations of the maintenance facility;
b. that all fabrication or repair work done onsite as part of the operations of the
maintenance facility occur entirely within the buildings;
C. that use of
Building Nos.
1, 2 and
12
for temporary graduate student offices be
terminated
on or before
January 1,
1999;
d. submission for review and approval by the Town Planner of the details regarding
the number and size of native viburnum plants proposed to be planted along the
east side of the parking area prior to installation of said plantings,
A
f.
submission of an original or mylar copy of all final site plan drawings to be
retained by the Town of Ithaca.
all plantings and vegetation to be installed by September 30, 1996, or prior to the
Planning Board Minutes 28 April 2, 1996
•
APPROVED: APRIL 16, 1996
issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy for Building 14, whichever is
earlier.
•
There be no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote.
AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
NAY - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
(NOTE: The complete resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit #4.)
Chairperson Cornell stated she and Board Member Hoffmann will be coming up with a
plan for an extra meeting on May 28, 1996, and if anyone has any topic or ideas they want to
discuss, please contact her.
r 1]I1• zTk9
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Cornell declared the April 2, 1996, Meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 :07 p.m.
DRAFTED: 4 /4 /96.dask
Prepared by:
k eborah A. Kelley,
Keyboard Specialist /Minutes Recorder
Respectfully submitted,
Starr Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
1
Mary Bry t,
Administrative Secretary.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION. SEQR FINAL
Hirshfeld Subdivision
120 422 Bundy Road
Tax Parcel No. 26 -346
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board, April 2, 1996
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch:
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26 -3 -16, 0.8 +/- acres in size,
into two lots, 0.445 +/- acres and 0.354 +/- acres, located at 120 -122 Bundy Road,
Residence District R -15. Mayfred S. Hirshfeld, Owner; Theodore J. Weeden, Jr., Esq.,
Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to
Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board on April 2, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II
prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey Map No. 122 Bundy
Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y.," prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C.,
Engineers and Surveyors and dated December 29, 1995, and other application
materials, and
4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality
Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full
Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required.
Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Wilcox, Kenerson, Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
1 a
Starr Hays, Recording, Secretary, Mary/tryaKAdminiqdtive Secretary.
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
4/3/96.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Hirshfeld Subdivision FINAL
120 -122 Bundy Road
Tax Parcel No. 26 -346
• Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board, April 2, 1996
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Herbert Finch:
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26 -3 -16, 0.8 +/- acres in size,
into two lots, 0.445 +/- acres and 0.354 +/- acres, located at 120 -122 Bundy Road,
Residence District R -15. Mayfred S. Hirshfeld, Owner; Theodore J. Weeden, Jr., Esq.,
Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on
April 2, 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after
having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form
Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff,
and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 2, 1996, has reviewed and
accepted as adequate a survey entitled "Survey Map No. 122 Bundy Road, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y.," prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C., Engineers and
Surveyors and dated December 29, 1995, and other application materials;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for
the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26 -3 -16, 0.8 +/- acres in
size, into two lots, 0.445 +/- acres and 0.354 +/- acres, located at 120 -122 Bundy
Road, as shown on a survey entitled "Survey Map No. 122 Bundy Road, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, N.Y.," prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C., Engineers and
Surveyors and dated December 29, 1995, and other application materials, subject to the
following conditions:
a. revision of the subdivision plat to show the limits and location of the 20 foot
wide sanitary sewer easement on both Parcels A and B, and
• b, obtaining any required variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals, and
.M
•
•
•
Hirshfeld Subdivision
120 -122 Bundy Road
Tax Parcel No. 26 -346
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval
Planning Board, April 2, 1996
-Page 2-
C. both a. and b. above to be done prior to signing of the plat by the Chair of The
Planning Board, and
d, submission for signature by the Chair of the Planning Board of an original or
mylar copy and four (4) paper copies of the plat, as required to be revised
above, with required Surveyor's Certification, prior to filing with the Tompkins
County Clerk's office.
Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Starr Hays, Recording gecretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
a zsi
M ry Adminis ative Secretary.
4/3/96.
(Rl e: Q \St=rt Resols \t inhtld.Fin)
ARTICLE VI
/zz -8 k -fir xi
OPisJ V0 C. 1760z Mp
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT REQUIREMENTS
✓ = ITEM SUBMITTED
W WAIVED
N/A = NOT APPLICABLE
COND = CONDITIONAL OF APPROVAL
Section 36, Preliminary Plat Checklist.
1. A preliminary plat with the following information must be
filed in the Office of the Town Engineer at least ten (10)
days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which
preliminary approval is requested.
A/ Four dark -line prints of improvement plans and information,
if improvements are required.
�i Four dark -line prints of the proposed plat.
✓ Fully completed Environmental Assessment Forms, with
comments from the Town.Engineer or Town Planner indicating
whether the proposed subdivision is a Type I, Type II, or
• Unlisted action and indicating a recommendation for negative
or positive declaration of environmental impacts.
✓ General layout; including lot lines with dimensions; block
and lot numbers; highway and alley linesy with 60 -foot wide
highway rights -of -way; areas to be reserved for use in
common by residents of the subdivision; sites for
nonresidential, nonpublic uses; easements for utilities
drainage, preservation of scenic views, or other purposes;
and building setback lines, with dimensions.
General layout of the proposed highways, blocks, and lots
within the proposed subdivision. Tentative highway names.
Key map, when more than one sheet is required to present
plat.
hl Contour intervals, to USGS datum, of not more than two feet
when the slope `is less than four percent and not more than
five feet when the slope is greater than four percent.
V Cultural features within and immediately adjacent to the
proposed subdivision, including platted lots, highway
improvements, bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines,
power transmission lines, other significant structures,
•parks, wetlands critical environmental areas, and other
/ significant features.
Date of Plat.
Preliminary & Final subdivision Plat Requirements -2-
Direction of flow of all water courses, calculation of
drainage area above point of entry for each water course
entering or abutting the tract.
Location and description of all section line corners and
government survey monuments in or near the subdivision, to
at least one of which the subdivision shall be referenced by
true courses and distances.
C Location, name, and dimensions of each existing highway and
alley and each utility, drainage, or similar easement
within, abutting, or in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed subdivision.
Map Scale (1" =50' or 1" =100') and north point.
✓ Name of planner, architect, engineer, land surveyor,
landscape architect, or other person who prepared the sketch
plat or preliminary plat.
✓ Name of subdivision, which shall not duplicate the name of
any other subdivision in the county.
Name of Town, County, and State.
✓ Name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s)
Name(s) and address(es) of the subdivider(s), if the
subdividers) is(are) not the owner(s).
I� Names and addresses of owners of all parcels abutting-the
proposed subdivision.
4L Names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed
subdivision.
il
r,M
Natural features within and immediately adjacent to the
proposed subdivision, including drainage channels, bodies of
water, wooded areas, and other significant features.
Identification of areas subject to flooding as indicated on
HUD Flood Boundary Maps, Wetlands Maps.
Restrictive covenants, if any.
Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property,
1" =1000' or 111= 20001
.
Width at building line of lots located on a curve or having
non - parallel side lines, when required by the Planning
Board.
Border lines bounding the sheet, one -inch from the left edge
and one -half inch from each of the other edges; all
information, including all plat lines, lettering,
signatures, and seals, shall be within the border lines..
CJ
•
•
Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements
Section 37. Form of Final Plat.
�. A final plat.with the following
the Office of the Town Engineer
to the Planning. Board meeting at
requested.
-3-
information must be filed in
at least ten (10) days prior
which final approval is
VOII' Four dark -line prints of the proposed plat.
✓ Fully completed Environmental Assessment Forms, with
comments from the Town Engineer or Town Planner indicating
whether the proposed subdivision is a Type I, Type II, or
Unlisted action and indicating a recommendation for negative
or positive declaration of environmental impacts.
Highway and alley boundary or right -of -way lines, showing
bi. -Oundary, right -of -way or easement width and any other
information needed for locating such lines, purposes of
easements.
Al Highway center lines, showing angles of deflection, angles
of intersection, radii, lengths of tangents and arcs, and
degree of curvature, with basis of curve data. Lengths and
distances shall be to the nearest one - hundredth foot.
Angles shall abe to the nearest half minute.
Highway names.
Key map, when more than one sheet -is required to present
plat.
Accurate locations and descriptions of all subdivision
monuments.
Accurate outlines and descriptions of any areas to be
dedicated or reserved for public use or acquisition, with
the purposes indicated thereon, any areas to be reserved by
deed covenant for common uses of all property owners in the
subdivision.
�. Border lines bounding the sheet, one -inch from the left edge
and one -half inch from each of the other edges; all
information, including all plat lines, lettering,
signatures, and seals, shall be within the border lines.
y�/ Building setback lines with dimensions.
Date of Plat.
y1 Exact boundary lines of the tract, indicated by a heavy
line, giving dimensions to the nearest one - hundredth foot,
angles to the nearest one -half minute, and at least one
• bearing; the traverse shall be balanced and closed with an
error of closure not to exceed one to two thousand; the type
of closure shall be noted.
Location and description of all section line corners and.
government survey monuments in or near the subdivision, to
at least one of which the subdivision shall be referenced by
true courses and distances.
Preliminary & Final' Subdivision Plat Requirements
C
-4-
Location, name, and dimensions of each existing highway and
alley and each utility, drainage, or similar easement
within, abutting, or in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed subdivision.
Location of the property by legal description, including
areas in acres or square feet. Source of title, including
deed record book and page numbers.
Name and address of all owners of the property and name and
address of all persons who have an interest in the property,
such as easements or rights -of -way.
Lot lines, fully dimensioned, with lengths to the nearest
one - hundredth foot and angles or bearings to the nearest
one -half minute.
✓ Map Scale (1" =50' or 1" =100') and north point.
Mortgagor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by
the mortgagor(s) if any, to the effect that he consents to
the plat and the dedications and restrictions shown on or
referred to on the plat.
Name of subdivision, which shall not duplicate the name of
any other subdivision in the country.
✓ Name of Town, County, and State.
✓ Name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s).
Name(s) and address(es) of the.subdivider(s), if the
subdivider(s) is (are) not the owner(s).
Name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer
who prepared the topographic information. Date of survey.
✓ Name and seal of registered and surveyor who made the
boundary survey: Date of the survey.
I✓ Names and addresses of owners of all parcels abutting the
proposed subdivision.
Names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed
subdivision.
✓ Owner's certificate: a certificate signed by the owner(s) to
the effect the he /they owns the land, that he has caused the
land to be surveyed and divided, and that he makes the
dedications indicated on the plat.
NIX Certification signed by the chairman or other designated
official or agent of the Planning Board to the effect that
the plat was given preliminary approval by the Planning
Board,
AReference on the plat to any separate instruments, including
restrictive covenants, which directly affect the land in the
subdivision.
0
•
Preliminary & Final subdivision Plat Requirements
-5-
Surveyor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by a
• registered land surveyor to the effect that (1) the plat
represents a survey made by him, (2) the plat is a correct
representation of all exterior boundaries of the land
surveyed and the subdivision of it, (3) all monuments
indicated on the plat actually exist and their location,
size and material are correctly shown, and (4) the
requirements of these regulations and New York State laws
relating to subdividing and surveying have been complied
with.
Tax and assessment certificate: a certificate signed by the
county treasurer and other officials as may be appropriate,
to the effect that there are no unpaid taxes due on the land
being subdivided and payable at the time of plat approval
and no unpaid special assessments, and that all outstanding
taxes and special assessments have been paid on all property
dedicated to public use.
The blocks are. numbered consecutively throughout the
subdivision and the lots are numbered consecutively
throughout each block.
agAa The
original or
mylar
copy of
the
plat
to be recorded and
four
dark -line
prints,
on one
or
more
sheets.
Two copies of the County Health Department approval of the
/ water supply and /or sewerage system.
Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property,
1" =1000' or 1"= 20001
.
Width at building line of lots located on a curve or having
non - parallel side lines, when required by the Planning
Board.
•
Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements -6-
Section 38. Improvement Plans and Related Information.
i. Where improvements are required for a proposed subdivision,
the following documents shall be submitted to the Planning
Board.
Detailed construction plans and specifications for water
lines, including locations land descriptions of mains,
valves, hydrants, appurtenances, etc.
Detailed construction plans, profiles, and specifications
for sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities, including
locations and descriptions of pipes, manholes, lift
stations, and other facilities.
A1114 Highway paving plans and specifications.
T The estimated cost of:
a) grading and filling,
b) culverts, swales and other storm drainage facilities,
C) sanitary sewers,
d) water lines, valves, and fire hydrants,
e) paving, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks,
f) any other improvements required by-these regulations.
-1L" The plan and profile of each proposed highway in the
subdivision, with grade indicated,--drawn to a scale of one
inch equals 50 feet horizontal, and one -inch equals 5 feet
vertical, on standard plan and profile sheets. - Profiles
shall show accurately the profile of the highway or alley
along the highway center line and location of the sidewalks,
if any.
Prelimi &Final SD
6/8/95
•
•
•
d+�� �9r �i.D3� 9 c � � � {{rru, m,°< � µi�vi�' 4i! _ � � ' �. •� -�t.
t iZ°. p, f`' e_ e s f�. 7CY,> e r o " "teAr¢E , + �. ♦ i f
tit
f e t."'
2 as ,a �,4Y�y iF s
o •
u' 4 . wnt tjd/'+�,5�, #
a'
�;.'
A pp '._ $,. Cb r •n u'�C s 4 vz .�a • Qe
ry :� � -'* "e "rs � - `N r ex �E'"R. b$�w �'ir `.. � 'r�L � ,�Qry��•.'Q , 'Tf .. � F
17 1
' IllrD.vo `
C� �pg• r
'�.
71 ,B
i
zr
9 Lk
�r� +' �a >: -P W a e v'a�AP•�V, ..KYI \♦ •f . s_�. '.,d K. A^ :.` •�j
� i 4 p`•a '1% ." p. a •�E+: °ba _'. '+'`; •r . _ �Yr`►YM. , ♦�
a o f - .. r c .�, , , •'jJ p ; .r-{,,, Q
LIL
'h 4 y%,r3�W°y° y 39Edy" `,u� , nFs> c ♦ 1 ' . .y, eat • b / 4�
F6 n�., ••$,,^ 1 t*'m a �, . ....°^+'`,.Ay°`µ •j•` 11II��• '1
.,
d� 0 MO o 1� `r oOO_ ..'e `' o .;.fn•` •0 -�Ib
a
q, •, t�
yO /`i A �' Q'CD•.Oa _ _ ,oRrx "a a t' 5 a° y�A �6 -$=r+r _ �.. i 'l..O ,' • !t . •� �; ` . �,:,� L 410.
sd
p° P _ �'s'�. 'eea �: �':J � 't••� •� r 1 I ,.1 X �l� �• �.
'. 1 9
A
1 14
It
�4 , , 4 ba
pro
+.�4 o i r.�. + Q. 411
+�•'' LY '; Z¢i'.E:.�..+f. . �(' yR . 1�Y q• w ;.5 d� - 'YE' ri •.. �-�• C •
.b"A ° '�•o O x "�S n 34ii x � � f 6�C��t- ...'`�• nb A � -'
It
t,IL. CIA
S o Y v. . I a 3a 3,. 6 ' a ♦'� .i 1. r ..
r� ; a K A:, 1 O. da• , y� •J _' •�
\
am OPD h s'` ♦ moo . ' yti '. � �t + p 9 ,� p
AM
1i 41W
I
ILIA
Ad
It
JMM
•p t • (� i,• @ r
A ..tj 0 � � �. tiE I - '3 � R ° p 3 `. .' '. •� i � 1• 1 w i �'Q P� N fis,
"F G .� . 3 • E o •. 1
. � �� � ..z � a ` as �'�P �. •, • � ' •'t O • �O,�YI�� n,a .t �r�,'� � � � b
d. ro
°
f ,Q
" -i .. • e.. � t� '� � .S of + '� ` � } 4 Xrq .� ` � • f
LI
,' .. �.,J 4p, ,4 n .tom +J ••( � ��'_ 0 6' y ♦ • 0.f
g. 6 L n.a= °�� �' 9•i
Oi
LIP
1 . '� y 'ice •�. Q.' ,.Ff'c E �, �` `-; ♦ q#,..
p 49
r :e- `a R °: v. .
LILA
drp ' s �� �,\ .. shit: c . \ , :P • _•o
It
. - z y , yst'
1. LAI
ILI
tits • ` �•
° ,-
�,, O R Z
CK t 1, f It =
It
tL
rd c n F+T
t.
�'��e�,�n o °�c•- � � � ?♦ a 4� ��`'S�}�- ��,o �. ° g'0 n0� ° l� � ° a z`` y 4a°FS[f§t ����� +t c `` r n
ILI
It
ILA
-ns Q *'d�d,E' �d'$ vn ^°rS• a`6 �6 ;" 6;'m' l "'soae tm�
c, r
F _ ° zAo, A.
LI
It
tI
LI g•
0
9
: 8 a
•n
a c .♦ Z
LtL
Aj
p s
• F . a „yam° 0 1 ,k�+g• ♦ • 't 1 }, ft
'Ito .�� n� ��, �. er'n n ti . �?a $ , ♦'.
sO.. -��� >Y Amp° `m "' ao� 0� e q, -�'7 d'Y.� t .���E
LILL
ADOPTED RESOLUTION,
•
Proposed Conversion of Buildings at
Pleasant Grove Apartments
Cornell University
120 Pleasant Grove Road
Final Site Plan Approval
Planning Board, April 2, 1996
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Gregory Bell:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed conversion of Bldg.
No. 14 in the Cornell University Pleasant Grove Apartments complex for the Campus Life
maintenance shops to serve student housing units, to consist of administrative offices, lunch/meeting
room, and carpenter, electrical, paint, lock, glass and pipe maintenance and repair shops and parking
for up to 18 vehicles; and conversion of Bldg. No. 1, Bldg. No. 2, and Bldg. No. 12 into temporary
offices for graduate students during the course of renovations to Sibley and Tjaden Halls. The site is
located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 67 -1 -1.1 and 67- 1 -3.2, MR - Multiple Residence District.
Cornell University, Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval did on March 5, 1996 make a negative
determination of environmental significance, and
3. The Planning Board on March 5, 1996 did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, for
• the proposed project, and
4. The Zoning Board of Appeals on March 13, 1996 did grant a variance to allow the proposed uses for
the above referenced buildings, and
5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 2, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a set of site plan drawings entitled "Location Plan, Pleasant Grove Apartments ", "SP -1 Site
Plan, Pleasant Grove Apartments ", "Parking/Site Plan & Details, Pleasant Grove Apartments, and
"Planting Plan, Pleasant Grove Apartments ", each dated March 19, 1996"; and "Pleasant Grove
Apartments Building # 14 Renovations ", dated March 20, 1996, prepared by Cornell University
Planning, Design and Construction, and other application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed conversion of Bldg.
No. 14 in the Cornell University Pleasant Grove Apartments complex for the Campus Life
maintenance shops.to serve student housing units, to consist of administrative offices, lunch/meeting
room, and carpenter, electrical, paint, lock, glass and pipe maintenance and repair shops and parking
for up to 18 vehicles; ; and conversion of Bldgs. No. 1, No. 2, and No. 12 into temporary offices for
graduate students during the course of renovations to Sibley and Tjaden Halls, as shown on the
design drawings entitled "Location Plan, Pleasant Grove Apartments ", "SP -1 Site Plan, Pleasant
Grove Apartments ", "Parking /Site Plan & Details, Pleasant Grove Apartments ", and "Planting Plan,
• Pleasant Grove Apartments ", each dated March 19, 1996; and "Pleasant Grove Apartments Building
# 14 Renovations ", dated March 20, 1996, prepared by Cornell University Planning, Design and
Construction, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions:
Proposed Conversion of Buildings at Pleasant Grove Apts
Cornell University, 120 Pleasant Grove Road
Final Site Plan Approval
Olanning Board, April 2, 1996
-Page 2-
a. that there be no outdoor storage of any materials or supplies used in the operations of the
maintenance facility;
b, that all fabrication or repair work done onsite as part of the operations of the maintenance
facility occur entirely within the buildings;
C, that use of Building Nos. 1, 2 and 12 for temporary graduate student offices be terminated on
or before January 1, 1999;
d, submission for review and approval by the Town Planner of the details regarding the number
and size of native viburnum plants proposed to be planted along the east side of the parking
area prior to installation of said plantings;
e. submission of an original or mylar copy of all final site plan drawings to be retained by the
Town of Ithaca.
f, all plantings and vegetation to be installed by September 30, 1996, or prior to the issuance of
a permanent certificate of occupancy for Building 14, whichever is earlier.
Wye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
,L%Iay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Starr Hays, • •
Town of :•. •
NL ' Ad'rnlinist %: tive Secretary.
4/3/96.
Files e: C:ISt=\Rcsols %pingror.fin
•
•
•
FINAL SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
= ITEM SUBMITTED
414 = NOT APPLICABLE
�COHD CONDITION OF APPROVAL
1• All items submitted with the preliminary site plan
application with modifications made according to the
approval given by the Town Planning Board.
2. Record of application for and approval status of all
necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal
agencies. Submit copies of all permits or approvals so
granted.
3. / Detailed sizing and final-material specifications of
all required improvements.
-4. ✓ Construction details of all proposed structures, ro -ads,
water /sew -age .faci. itties f and other improvements.
50 ✓ Completed and signed Development Review Application,
Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up
/ Withhclding Form (if required). (Only (1) copy each.)
60 ✓ Payment of additional review fees as needed and
deposited in an escrow account.
7• cow Original or mylar copy of final site plan to be
retained by the Town of Ithaca.
►1r 1s1v /Wlrmi
6/6/95
MB