Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-05-07• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MAY 7, 1996 • FILED TOWN OF ITHACA bate Clerk. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Candace Cornell, Vice Chairperson Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, 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: Carlton H. Baker, Margaret F. Baker, Edward G. Hart, T.J. Fowler, Robert Sweet, Carl Lowe, Richard Fischer, Jim Hilker, Liz Hilker, Bob Miller, Michael Carr, Ruth Walker, Richard Walker, Mary Russell, J.A. Cimmino, Louise Mudrak, Phil Zarriello, Marilynne Sommers, Raymond R. Saatman, Dan Hoffman, Mark Macera, Franklin Crawford, Dewitt T. Baker, Noel Desch, Sue Gillis, David Herrick, Jagat Sharma, David Norcross, Steve Savoca, Tom Niederkorn, Scott Whitham, John Yntema, Ruth Newhall, Virginia Bryant, Bill Farrell, Bill Hilker, Carl Guy, Carolyn Grigorov. 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 April 29, 1996, and May 1, 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 May 3, 1996. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1). l 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 Bill Farrell of Danby stated that he owns property at 665, 667, and 669 Coddington Road. Mr. Farrell asked the Board if the Conservation District was trying to protect the reservoir, then why didn't the Town run sewer out there when they put the walking path in several years ago. Mr. Farrell stated he was trying to ?figure out why the Conservation District is trying to protect the reservoir without putting sewers out there. Chairperson Cornell stated that would be discussed later in the meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 MAY 711996 • APPROVED - MAY 2171996 PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT, TO BE LOCATED GENERALLY BETWEEN CODDINGTON AND SLATERVILLE ROADS AND THE CITY OF ITHACA AND TOWN OF DANBY AND TOWN OF DRYDEN BOUNDARIES; GENERALLY FOLLOWING THE ESTABLISHED R -30 RESIDENCE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND EITHER 200 FEET OR 500 FEET WEST OF THE RIGHT -OF -WAY OF THE SOUTH HILL RECREATION WAY AND RAILROAD GRADE, AS SHOWN ON A MAP ENTITLED "SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY PROPOSED CONSERVATION DISTRICT" (REVISED 4/18/96). Chairperson Cornell read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that the Town has been working on the current proposal for approximately a year and a half now. He also stated that there have been two other public meetings prior to this, one in October 1994, and one in June 1995. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Department has gotten a lot of input from residents and citizens in the area. Mr. Kanter stated there have been a couple of changes since the earlier proposals. One is that frontage lots along Coddington Road, in particular, has been taken out of the proposed Conservation zone which • was to prevent a situation where a lot of existing, developed lots with houses would be made non- conforming with the new lot requirements of the Conservation Zone. That would include along Coddington Road and Slaterville Road where the frontage lots are not included within the Conservation Zone. Mr. Kanter also stated that the regulations that dealt with the things like fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, on properties within the conservation area where taken out of the proposed legislation because many of the regulations already exist on other government levels. The Town felt that it would not be wise to duplicate other regulations. Mr. Kanter stated there are some key points to focus on tonight. One is that the District does not intend to prevent development, but rather to control the way development occurs within the District; reduce density below what could be built now; not to stop development completely, but to provide a balance to property owners in the area to use their property reasonably, but also to provide techniques for controlling development and to protect some of the natural resources within the valley. Mr. Kanter stated that 60% of the land in the Conservation zone area is already publicly owned, much of which is City watershed property. Much of the private land effected, approximately 400 acres, is fairly remote and inaccessible, or has very steep slopes and does not have high potential for development. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Board and the Planning staff are here to answer any questions and obtain public comments on this proposal. Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any comments from the Public. Carlton Baker of 354 Calvert Circle, Kennett Square, PA, stated that he and his brother, Dewitt T. Baker, both own the property at 1400 Slaterville Road. Mr. Baker then introduced his wife, Peg . Baker, who read a prepared statement to the Planning Board in reference to the Six Mile Creek PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 MAY 711996 is APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 Valley proposal. In closing, Mrs. Baker stated that the statement given to the Board was signed by both Carlton and Dewitt Baker. (Statement from Mr. and Mrs. Baker is hereto attached as Exhibit #2). Robert Sweet of 1401 '/2 Slaterville Road, addressed the Board and read from a prepared statement. Mr. Sweet also thanked the Planning Board for their time. (Statement from Mr. Sweet is hereto attached as Exhibit #3). Carl Lowe of 1517 Slaterville Road, addressed the Board and stated: "My comments are a little different. I have about ten acres and about two- thirds of it lies in the proposed Conservation District. Since I kept it in the condition that everyone wants it for 42 years, I have to say I am not opposed to the purpose of the Conservation District. What I disagree with is the disregard for the financial consequences to the land owners. I really cannot see what kind of logic is being used to arrive at the conclusion that there is not going to be a loss in property equity with the proposed changes. I would like to restate my situation, which I explained at one of the earlier hearings. Well I did not pretend to be an expert on land value, and I do know my assessed evaluation was about twice that of prime agricultural land, and I couldn't see adding these restrictions to it would reduce it or improve or even keep the present assessed evaluation as what it is. One of the Planning staff, I do not know which one it was, remarked that I did not know what I was talking about. Somebody checked the •records, and I got an apologetic phone call the following day. Apparently I knew more about it than they thought I did. What they said was they knew this particular property with good reason sloped, really did not have any developmental value, at least if it did have any it was marginal. What they said was that they were going to see if this situation couldn't be improved by talking to the Town Supervisor. Whether they did or not, I do not know, I never heard anything more about it. In fact, if some action was taken, I would probably wouldn't have been here tonight. Summary that was handed out at the last hearing on property owners that own more than seven acres of undeveloped land, you can check on it, I have dubious distinction of having the highest per acre assessment of anybody in the Six Mile Valley, approximately $7,000 per acre or just a couple hundred dollars less. Obviously that is pretty ridiculous. Another distinction is, since I'm in my late 70's, I may be one of the very first to feel the effect of this because of property transfer on what the effect is land evaluation is. Unless something has changed, I stand to lose three ways. First, of course, is reduction in the amount of realized property equity which one usually regards as a form of personal savings, and as a result of the assessed value now rendered partly factious by such changes, I will have paid more than my proportion with share of property taxes. I have checked my tax records, and I see that total property taxes are about, at least my figures, 2.6 % annually of the assessed evaluation. Which means in the last six years, I have paid over $1 000 per acre for each one of those acres that is going into the Conservation District. What I have paid in the previous 37 years, lord knows what the total is. This third loss comes from the business about denying that there is any loss of property value, and continuing the BURSAW assessment value which would result. Anybody that is going to buy that property is hardly going to ignore the tax that goes along with it. So I will stand to lose three ways. Now from day one of this, and it was perfectly obvious to me, that the only •possibility of any type of redress was through the tax roll. At least in theory, tax assessment is a zero sum gain. If an individual's property goes up or down in an assessment, it changes the levy PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 MAY 711996 0 APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 of anybody else in the ;pool. What could be more logical and appropriate than people loosing property value to have their tax assessment lowered and picked up by the community who is going to benefit from this. Obviously, any tax adjustment would only cover a part of the potential loss, but at least it would have a positive effect. Well, no one is going to come around passing out checks for unrealized property equity. I can not see the Town, County, or School District sending back any over payment on taxes. I think instead of pushing this concept of no loss in property that you better find out and help to determine what the actual market value of land is going to be in that Conservation District. Then work towards an assessment value that reflects that value. Thank you." Chairperson Cornell stated that she remembers a number of people were at the last meeting, and wanted to apologize for any misinformation that was passed or any comments that were made to Mr. Lowe. Louise Mudrak of 693 Coddington Road, addressed the Board and stated that she was speaking for her husband and herself: "We own about nine acres which abuts the South Hill Trail and our house fronts on Coddington Road, and a majority of our property would be in the proposed Conservation District. I would like to see the District passed as written. I like the way it goes, and I think it is the right direction. I guess when we purchased the property, it was our primary financial asset. We have a family. We never considered that the right of ownership of the property, we •purchased was total and absolute in the sense of buying an automobile, well that depreciates, but in any other good. I think a lot of people talk about taking and the taking from us. I and my husband feel strongly that taking property ownership bears responsibility to keep the natural systems functioning and alive. I guess that such high densities per acre would have a drastic effect on soil and water and the livelihood of species in the longer -term and in the shorter term. I would like to see this Board push hard and I stated this in writing, for the concept of a differential tax assessment for Conservation lands. I think it is really vital, and I think we all need to pay for. As the gentlemen who just spoke, I think that is a really valid concept. So I would like to see the district passed as written. Thank you." (Also see letter from Mr. and Mrs. Mudrak hereto attached as Exhibit #4). Chairperson Cornell stated that she agrees that is put into a Conservation District or into Easement. Chairperson Cornell stated that thei on schemes of how the Town could change believes that if people do commit their lands for that. that there should be some tax compensation for land an Agricultural District or any form of Conservation *e are many groups in the area that are trying to work our tax structure. Chairperson Cornell stated she preservation, then the tax assessment should reflect Liz Hilker of 255 Burns Road, addressed the Board and stated: "My house sits right in the middle, but not only my land, you mentioned that existing lots on Slaterville Road and Coddington Road were taken off so not to be on a non - conforming use. My house will be, will I get something for that? Because I feel like my home value will go down. We do not have a garage on our home, and eventually some day we would like to put a garage on our home, how much will it cost me to go •through a variance? I am sure it will cost me one and a half times more than anyone else. Louise Mudrak is a friend of mine, but she has nine acres, does this effect her? I do not think so, she has PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 MAY 711996 • APPROVED - MAY 217 1996 seven acres. People across from our home have seventeen acres, it does not effect them. Why not cut it off at Burns Road, or at least give us a break. We have three family members that live all on the same road and it effects all of us. I feel very strongly that it should stop somehow or another and not effect our house. This is our house. We will not be able to add on ever again, probably, without going through a lot of cost. You mentioned that not all the lands is in public ownership, Jonathan Kanter did, well all of our land is, not just a portion of our land and our home. I think I just want to say that because Burns Road sits right in the middle of that.' Cornell stated that the Board had discussed this earlier that it might be fair for the residents of Burns Road to draw another line excluding the existing houses similar to the lines that were drawn for Coddington and Slaterville Roads. Chairperson Cornell stated the Board would address this comment later in the meeting. Dan Hoffman of 607 North Tioga Street, addressed the Board and read a prepared statement from the Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee. Mr. Hoffman also stated that it appears to him that the Recreation Way is the most heavily used and appreciated part of the natural area. Mr. Hoffman stated that the Advisory Committee realized that the boundary on the Coddington Road side at the western end was adjusted slightly in accord with their recommendation at a prior public hearing, and they certainly appreciated that very much. (Statement from The Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee 0 is hereto attached as Exhibit #5) Bill Hilker of 277 Burns Road, addressed the Board and stated: "We are the ones at this point that are impacted probably the most of any one left after some significant changes have been made to the South Hill Conservation or the Six Mile Creek Conservation District. I do want to applaud those who were responsible for softening the impact that much as it has been softened from when it was first proposed. But there is still quite a lot of work that needs to be done. As you heard several people address those issues such as the seven acre lot and the 300 foot frontages. Those are very significant impacts in the area. Applying the same standards to Burns Road that have been applied to Coddington and Route 79 by having an off -set there, would be a very positive step in keeping properties which are there presently from being non - conforming. The District would have no meaningful purpose to them other than to make them non - conforming because they could not do anything but what they are now. There are still several issues though that I would like to address. On page 4, item 7, (Mr. Hilker was referring to "A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING THE SIX MILE CREEK VALLEY CONSERVATION DISTRICT" that was passed out for review by the Board and Public), "no building should be erected to exceed thirty feet in height", and that flies in the face of the previous portion of where it could go the 36 feet, and I do not understand why there is a conflict there? It does not make sense to me, it may need to be re- written or something where there is an understanding for reader of the paper knows what is implied there." Attorney for the Town John Barney stated that this is part of the Town's Zoning Ordinance. • Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Hilker would have to go to Zoning Ordinance for the definition of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 MAY 77 1996 0 APPROVED - MAY 2171996 structure. The term "structure" includes a building, and buildings can go to thirty -eight feet, but no structure, other than a building, can exceed thirty feet for a non - agricultural building. Mr. Hilker addressed the Board and stated: "Section 50E may be the same thing. The problem is that it is very restrictive. 1 000 square feet of coverage of all accessory buildings, particularly if we are already being subjected to seven acres for a building lot that seems to be enough room to put in more than 1 000 square feet of accessory buildings if you had to go the full seven acres. I totally disagree with that, but I will address that later. At the same time, that issue is also addressed in Section 50G, and that`seems to be a different yard for measuring how much accessory buildings can be on a property there. There goes 15% of the total lot area, and I am not sure what the differentiation is." Attorney Barney stated that the Town is currently working on a revision of the Zoning Ordinance. In this proposed ordinance 300 feet depth is the area for the rear yard requirement. Attorney Barney stated that within that required area one could not use more than 1,000 square feet per accessory building, but if you have a larger than required rear yard then you could have a larger accessory building. Mr. Hilker addressed the Board and stated: "Back to Section 50E, 1,000 square feet is half taken •up by a garage alone, so that does not leave much left over for any other use. It says there, I believe, that the total area covered by all the accessory buildings seems to be a little excessive there. I do not want to get into an item by item, but the most restrictive part, the part that is probably the most objectionable, is Section 50H, and that is the seven acres. It is 300 feet frontage, it is the minimum lot depth from the highway of 450 feet, and also, I believe, there is a depth for the front yard should be 300 feet. We are looking at 750 foot deep lot plus the depth of the building as a restriction here. That is very, very restrictive. If you put a road way down to a section of that lies in the Conservation District, you would have to put a loop on the end of that roadway for each house, 300 feet of roadway because you can not put it on both sides. The inside of it would not conform to this which means, as the gentlemen said before, you are designing the Conservation District of roads. What seems to be happening here is to force so much roads that the land becomes worthless because nobody, there is not a developer that I know of, that could afford to put in roads like what is being proposed here, and make money. In essence, what is really being ruled out, or at least forcing further Board reviews at the expense of the land owner, is cul -de -sacs. Cul -de -sacs allows buildings to be built around cul -de -sac with a frontage of about 75 feet where they are shaped to each lot, which could be quite deep, and therefore you minimize the length of the road. The way this is written, the cul -de -sacs are not allowed unless the Planning Board goes to exception in each case which is not the way zoning should be written, on the basis of exception. I think seven acres is very excessive. Many of us have fought this to the very exception of this Conservation District, suggesting that possibly three acres with no more than five assured, but three acres would be very adequate to protect what is necessary to be protected. It is hard to say what is to be protected because it is not really listed in here because it just says views. Well there are no views, to the public, any place in that area. There is none from the South Hill Trail or Burns Road, except looking straight down the road looking across the valley. You can not look across the private lands because PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 MAY 77 1996 • APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 it is all trees, so there is no place to view. It is hard to say what is trying to be protected here. The only areas which are opened on the South Hill Trail right now are the ones that were farmed in the last thirty years which are now growing up to second growth, in the last one of those which is right behind the Mudrak's house, already has trees grown up in them that are 15 to 20 feet high with full coverage. In another ten years there will be no views from that small area of that trail. In trying to protect something, in which you are doing, you are forcing it to loose the quality that you are trying to protect even faster. Because if it is not views, what is it you are trying to protect? I do not know.' Cornell asked Mr. Hilker to reiterate the most troublesome sections. Mr. Hilker addressed the Board and stated: "50E and 50G. The whole area of 50H, being what most people here have expressed the desire to be changed drastically. As an appraiser, I can assure you that what this does to the land owners is seriously reduces the value of the property if not totally wipe out. Because there are no development rights and no rights of putting lots as it stands now because it is not feasible. It has been tightened up so tight that those rights are no longer there, and myself, with the property which we intended to use as a retirement program to put a few houses in on a few lots, it would be impossible with this and that part of our savings has been wiped out if this gets passed. We bought the property with that expressed purpose. Consequently, we are having a problem with that. The last item I would like to address is Section 50K, make a note •that, to put an "if', 1 would state it as "if there is a possibility of putting in a subdivision or development of any one portion of this Conservation District ". Instead of the wording "it is anticipated that there be no set aside for parkland or fees' should be "there will be no parkland or fees' ." Director of Planning Kanter stated that he had heard mentioned a few times, in reference to the 300 foot frontage requirement resulting in a possibility of very long roads that would be going through the District. Mr. Kanter stated that this would only be the case if each individual lot were developed exactly under those lot size requirements, however, the Planning Board could require cluster subdivision in the Conservation Zone, and if they do that it can vary the lot sizes. Mr. Kanter stated that lot requirements could be modified to suit the character of the properties, and that the 300 foot frontage requirement would not be necessarily applied as frontage requirement on cluster lots. Mr. Hilker addressed the Board and stated, "it should be stated some place that cul -de -sacs are allowable with certain type of frontage.' Cornell asked Mr. Hilker that this should be explained in more detail. Mr. Hilker addressed the Board and stated, "More detail in those type of things because we have been subjected to many times in the past where we left these things ride and come back to find out, since we did not air our objections to it, but now we are stuck with them. I would like to see things •tightened up a little bit. The concept of cluster, a lot of us find very distasteful. It is the Commonland concept, that is already up on South Hill, where you have groups of little boxes, and a lot of us just PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 MAY T 1996 • APPROVED - MAY 217 1996 plainly do not like that, and we do not want to be forced into the little boxes on the hill side concept." Jim Hilker of 255 Burns Road, addressed the Board and stated, "As my wife, Liz, talked about earlier, we do live right in the middle of this District proposal. It is only two acres, then it would instantly put us in a legal non - conforming use. It is good to hear that there has been some talk about excluding the frontage lots along Burns Road as well, which I hope you consider strongly since it has already been done on Slaterville and Coddington Roads as well. I would really encourage you to consider that strongly. Not only would I not comply as far as the acreage, but also my lot depth would not comply because I got about 1 000 feet of road frontage, but it is only about 200 +/- feet deep, but it would not comply as far as the depth goes. It would be a couple different ways, and I think also in steep slopes and erodible soils would not comply either. I think the only option I would have left with my house would be to ask the Town or City to purchase it for the nature conservatory which would be intended in this Conservation District. It is good to see that it has been toned down some since the first proposals about six years. It was very drastic last time, and I see it has been toned down quite a bit. I am also concerned about seven acre lots for all the other people that have bigger parcels, because as my dad (Bill Hilker) stated he is a licensed real estate appraiser, and he knows what he is talking about when it comes to land values. There are just some concerns I have, and I hope that the Planning Board will consider the non - conforming that I do not want to be in, but have been imposed upon." • Assistant Town Planner George Frantz while pointing at map entitled, "Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District ", revised 4/18/96, stated, for point of information for the Board and the Public, the lots on Burns Road that are being mentioned are on the map between Coddington Road and the South Hill trail, and then three lots between the South Hill Trail and Six Mile Creek. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board would be discussing this later in the meeting. Ruth Walker of 1000 Coddington Road addressed the Board and stated: "I speak for my husband and myself. We have something under 100 acres that would be included in this plan. I have one question about the frontage lots. If there are restrictions as to the depth that will be allowed, they are supposed to be exempt, I understand from these restrictions, and so if you have a lot 600 feet deep from Coddington Road is that permissible ?" Director of Planning Kanter responded that the proposed boundary on the eastern side of Coddington Road, would be between 500 to 700 feet back from Coddington Road. Mr. Kanter stated that on the map entitled, "Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District ", revised 4/18/96, that down on the eastern end along Coddington Road that the alternate proposed boundaries are either 200 feet from the railroad right -of -way or 500 feet from the railroad right -of -way. Mr. Kanter stated that many of the lots to the south along Coddington Road would not be included in the Conservation Zone. Mr. Kanter stated that there are a number of house lots which are be included in this zone, but his thought was that Ms. Walker was mentioning there are a few lots which are very large parcels which start off as frontage on Coddington Road, but then go back farther, in fact •beyond the railroad right -of -way. Mr. Kanter stated that these portions of lots that are still in the R- 30 district would basically be under the regulations of the R -30 district, and presumably those PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 MAY 711996 • APPROVED - MAY 2111996 frontage lots if they were large enough could be subdivided according to the R -30 standards, and would not have that larger depth or frontage requirement. Mr. Kanter stated that most of the lots that front of Coddington Road will be totally still within the R -30 district, but there are several that would not. (Above- referenced map is hereto attached as Exhibit #6). Mrs. Walker addressed the Board and stated: "If we had planned to set up lots that would extend from Coddington Road all the way to the railroad tracks that would not be legitimate if this were passed?' for the Town Barney stated that would depend on how the lots were configured. Attorney Barney stated that the portions of the lots that are within the R -30 zone would be governed by the R -30 rules. Attorney Barney stated that the portions of the lots that are within the Conservation Zone would be governed by the Conservation zone. Attorney Barney stated that it is a little difficult to answer that question until she comes in with a particular layout. Chairperson Cornell stated that the lots would probably be permissible if they extended to the railroad, but they would have two zonings on them. Mrs. Walker addressed the Board and asked: "Was there some sort of basis that caused the Committee to decide on seven acres per lot ?" Director of Planning Kanter stated that it is largely due to the overall density of the area by bringing it down to the level where the Committees and Boards felt that the overall level of development that would occur under that seven acre lot size would allow reasonable amounts of development and still protect the natural resources in the area. Mr. Kanter stated that it was also largely based on examining a number of other zoning ordinances from many other parts of the State that have done similar kinds of zoning and coming up with a reasonable size which has been applied in other areas. Chairperson Cornell stated that several models have been used in researching this area. Mrs. Walker addressed the Board and stated: "As it has been stated before, when your retirement is based upon the property that you own and what you are going to be able to get for it, it is very important that things are handled just right and that we know exactly what we can do with our land after this is passed or if it is passed. I think a lot of people here feel violated because of these restrictions on property that we have paid taxes for many, many years. My husband and I have paid taxes on our property for 35 years, and we would like to do with it what we want to do with it. We intend to protect the environment as well as possible and if we ever wanted to develop or sell any property for developing, we would want it to be planned well and have open land, parkland possibly. To have such rigid restrictions is very difficult for us to be thinking about now. I think a lot of people feel that way.' Raymond Saatman of 1585 Slaterville Road, addressed the Board and stated: "I own a one acre PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 MAY 79 1996 • APPROVED - MAY 2111996 lot directly behind my property which was split off from a building lot years ago, and is being taxed as such. This lot does have a small amount of frontage on Burns Way, so I would speak in favor of having the properties along Burns Road and Burns Way be exempted, because otherwise I would not be able to build on it or sell it as a building lot, and since I am being taxed as a building lot I would stand to loose a lot from this." Phil Zarriello of 1011 Taughannock Blvd., addressed the Board and stated: "Two things that I heard tonight that keeps coming up. One I am happy to hear is the concept is generally viewed positively. The other one is compensation, how do we compensate people who are going to be effected by this? I think it would be good to have a map that shows which areas /properties would be effected once we take out the steep slopes and other areas that can't be developed, and what is remaining. Then we could start looking at what types of mechanisms could be put into place to compensate the land owners. On a bigger issue, which the Bakers first brought up, the purpose of the Conservation District is diminished if six acre lot across the street on Coddington Road can have 29 houses on the same size property. My point that I want to make is by looking at the bigger picture is to move away from property taxes as a way of funding local governments and schools. If we are able to fund through other mechanisms based on income primarily there would pass a mechanism to preserve open space simply because people are not going to be selling it to pay for the property tax." Mr. Sweet addressed the Board and stated: "It was brought up indirectly and I want to emphasize it: What are we trying to protect? What are we trying to preserve? How does seven acres enter into it? We have heard tonight that one of the real solutions is to put houses in clusters. However, that makes it almost guaranteed that the bulk of this Valley, if that's the way it goes, is going to be forest. I got the impression, and I have been to most of the information meetings, that we are trying to preserve and have wildflowers, birds, and wildlife and so on, and what we are doing, first of all, with this highway thing is damaging the environment permanently. The paved roadway does not grow plants on the highway, but when we built clusters it means more and more acreage has no management plan, but Mother Nature is going to insist that it becomes forest. It only takes a few years, when farmers quit using their land for farming, that trees come in. If we put up front the purpose of this Conservation District is to grow forest in Six Mile Valley, and limit development. The requirements guarantee it is going to be forest, but the only argument it is going to be is how soon. Whether it will 90% or 95 %, so let's be up front as what we are going to be doing with this proposal. Let's not talk about wildlife, birds, and flowers, when we are really going to grow trees." Marilynne Sommers of 930 Coddington Road, addressed the Board and stated: "I am speaking for myself and my husband, Gail Smith. We do support the proposed Conservation District. We do support the 500 foot boundary west of the Recreation Way. We are concerned about tax compensation for those effected by the District. We would like the needs of the home owners on Burns Road addressed as they have been addressed on Slaterville Road as well as Coddington Road. Thank you." 0 Bill Farrell addressed the Board and stated: "I noticed that the City is the largest land owner of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 MAY 77 1996 • APPROVED - MAY 2111996 the Six Mile Creek area and they also pay the least amount of taxes in that area, and they own the land. The 500 foot from the railroad bed, I think is ridiculous. If you look at the map, you can see that the Slaterville Road is a lot closer to the Six Mile Creek area than the railroad bed is, so I do not see any reason why they have to take 500 feet from the railroad bed up. There is so much land below the railroad tracks as compared to the Slaterville Road. We have requested sewer at the time we had water put out on Coddington Road, and they said they could not do it right then, but it would probably be three or four years and we would have sewer, that was 12 years ago or so. About four or five years ago, I had a petition having everybody sign it that wanted sewer and water to the Community Center which they have water to the Community Center, but there has been nothing on sewer. They talk about protecting the environment, and it does not make sense that they do not put sewer out there. There are some systems that are failing out there.' Hilker addressed the Board and stated: "After listening to Bill Farrell's comment about the City owned property with the watershed being most of the land effected and also they would not be the ones that would have to pay taxes on it, but yet if you walk the Valley and you were to inspect every part of it, the most well maintained and taken care of property in the whole Valley is the property that is owned by the residences, not the City. In fact, the worst you will find is owned by the City. They are abusing the land worse than I think any other land you will find within the County. My dad has 8 by 10 color glossy's to prove it, and he has given them to other Boards and • Committees and would be glad to furnish the Planning Board with a copy as well.' Cornell stated that the Planning Board has already looked into some of those concerns, and we will continue to address them. Chairperson Cornell stated she would like to take this to the Planning Board for discussion. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the issue of uses of non - conforming structures have come up a lot. Mr. Kanter stated that there would still be some lots within the Conservation Zone that would be non - conforming, and under the current zoning regulations it could be difficult to get approvals for doing some very basic things such as expanding a porch or putting on a deck, and those things which now, under the current zoning process go to the Zoning Board for special approval. Mr. Kanter stated that he and Attorney Barney have been talking with the Codes and Ordinances Committee, as we are looking at the idea of revising and updating the Zoning Ordinance, about doing something to change the way that non - conforming lot provision works, and that is something that the Codes and Ordinance Committee is very interested in. Mr. Kanter stated that what we are looking at with the Conservation Zone, is partly the overall Zoning Ordinance, and that is also why some of the provisions people might have questions about on how provisions strictly in the Conservation Zone apply. Mr. Kanter stated that people would have to look in the overall Zoning Ordinance to see how it works. Mr. Kanter stated that the Codes and Ordinances Committee would like to look at the term of non - conforming lots, and try to simplify the process for some very basic kinds of actions on non - conforming lots. • Chairperson Cornell stated there was a comment about a six acre lot that a person would not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 MAY 7, 1996 • APPROVED - MAY 2111996 be able to develop on. Attorney for the Town Barney responded that was incorrect, you would be able to put a single family house on a six acre lot. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Town would not be denying any land owners the right to build. Attorney for the Town Barney responded that would be true today on any non - conforming lot that you could still erect a single family home on an all residential zone. Attorney for the Town Barney also stated that there still is a limit on the lot for yard requirements, and it would require a variance if the lot was too small to meet the yard requirements. Bill Hilker addressed the Board and stated: "I meant to mention this, that those lots which would be made non - conforming, at the time of enactment of a provision of this, I think it should be written in that they would not be legally non - conforming just because they were of substandard size and within the Conservation District." Chairperson Cornell asked if that would be "Grandfathering ". Mr. Hilker responded that "Grandfathering" would be full status lots that are legally non - conforming. Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he had one call and one face -to face conversation this week. Mr. Finch stated that both people are concerned about security and whether or not the development of a Conservation area would improve the security or lessen the possible aggravation and irritations that go with the use of the Conservation area. Mr. Finch stated that he informed these people that he would report their concerns to the Board. Mr. Finch stated that his thought that this would not do anything to improve the law enforcement of the area, but there is some concern among people that live along Slaterville Road. Attorney for the Town Barney stated that he was not sure this proposal would have enhancement or any degrading. Chairperson Cornell asked if any of the lands owned by the City of Ithaca that are not part of the trail system or are the trails opened to the general public for general use. Attorney for the Town Barney asked are the lands posted. Bill Hilker stated that the trails are posted, but the South Hill Trail, when that came into being, that was one of the major concerns was about security, and the rights of private lands. Chairperson Cornell stated that law and order on the trail is an issue that the Town is addressing, and it is a Community issue. Director of Planning Kanter referred to the map entitled, "Town of Ithaca Six Mile Creek Study ", dated April 30, 1996, and stated that the south side of Burns Road has three house lots, and then there is another parcel to the west of the railroad right -a -way, and the other lots on the south side fronting on Coddington Road. Mr. Kanter stated that on the west side of Burns Road, there is one large lot that is very steeply sloping and there is one house on that lot. Mr. Kanter stated that Burns Way would remain mostly as R -15 Residence, but a small stretch that comes down to Burns Road would go in the proposed Conservation Zone area. • Chairperson Cornell asked if Mr. Kanter had a suggestion for realigning the lot line of the district PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13 MAY 7, 1996 • APPROVED - MAY 219 1996 on Burns Road. Mr. Kanter stated that if the consensus of the Planning Board is to exclude existing house lots along Burns Road, the Planning staff could do an analysis of exactly what those lots are, and then propose a boundary to the Town Board on that basis. Chairperson Cornell asked if it would roughly be along the back of some of those lots. Mr. Kanter responded, yes, and his thought was to draw it along the back of the house lot rather than some distance setbacks that would be standard throughout the area. Chairperson Cornell asked the Board how they felt about this issue and if it was reasonable to do that. Board Member Finch stated that it certainly should be done. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that the Board certainly needs to look into this further. Mr. Finch asked the Board about making Burns Road the boundary line. Chairperson Cornell stated that there is some very sensitive land south east of Burns Road. Mr. Finch stated that there are a lot of very sensitive people. Chairperson Cornell stated that was correct, but there are highly erodible soils extending past there. Board Member James Ainslie stated that he is quite disturbed about the "Grandfather clause ", like the Bakers and etc. Mr. Ainslie stated his thoughts were if the Board was going to put some of these acreage amounts into practice, there would have to be some sort of compensation. Mr. Ainslie stated he thought there was no other way of doing that on what he has heard tonight. • Chairperson Cornell stated that Phil Zarriello had suggested a way to approach that by taking a map by exclude the steep slopes and highly erodible soils, and see what property was left and then base it on that. Mr. Sweet addressed the Board and stated: " You have spent thousands of tax payers dollars doing just that for all of the Open Space in the Town of Ithaca, and all of that material was in a thick report, maps categorized everything, and published in 1991 or 1992. It is not being used now, and that was all categorized. So it would not be any effort, and after the June meeting I had wrote a long letter, pleading with them to use that in developing this, and we come back with a whole bunch of numbers." Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that there have been enough comments that have been made for the Board to look into and discuss. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board should come up with some main issues to discuss at a later date and compensation is one of them. Attorney for the Town Barney asked Chairperson Cornell what does the Board mean by compensation. Chairperson Cornell responded that the Board would have to discuss that and there are other methods that the Town would need to explore. Board Member Finch stated that the Board would need to discuss the boundaries. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Finch what his thoughts were concerning the 500 foot versus the 200 foot boundaries. Mr. Finch stated that his thoughts were that he was not impressed with the 500 foot • boundary, the 200 feet above the railroad would be sufficient. Board Member Hoffmann stated she did not have any strong feelings about the boundaries either way, but had a preference for the 500 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 MAY 7, 1996 ® APPROVED - MAY 2111996 foot boundary. Board Member Robert Kenerson stated that after all these years, if we get a reading from another public hearing that maybe this is not needed at all, but what is the real effect and the purpose putting in a Conservation District that will give us. Mr. Kenerson stated that this really needs to have the law changed. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she does really get that reading from this hearing, and she states that she heard other people saying that they have heard this with perhaps looking into changes for some of things. Mr. Kenerson stated that people have been talking about this for years, yet to achieve what we are looking for. Mr. Kenerson stated that this would be the first in Conservation District of this type, presumably there are other parts of the Town. Mr. Kenerson stated that if things do not get settled here such as compensation of lot sizes, views, and all of the things that are going around, this is the time to do it, but he says he is not hearing any major need for doing this to achieve any kind of results that have been described that can not be done with out going into the legal version of the concept. Mr. Kenerson stated that the 200 foot boundary makes sense. Board Member Ainslie stated that the 200 foot boundary would be the best. Mr. Ainslie stated that he is one of the newest members and the Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca is trying to go along where there is water and sewer at the present. Mr. Ainslie stated that the Town of Lansing has run into a great problem by running water and not sewer, but it is costly for a Town to run sewer. Mr. Ainslie stated that he agrees that if water is run out Coddington Road, it would have been nice at least to add sewer with it. Mr. Ainslie stated that you can not run water without having problems with private septic systems, and his thoughts were that the Board should look into this ® further. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing. Chairperson Cornell adjourned the matter of the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District proposal to another date for further discussion at 9:11 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING. CONTINUATION OF 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 8970 +/- SQUARE FEET. EXPANSION 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, LANDSCAPING, ADJUSTING THE CENTERLINE OF THE EAST HILL PLAZA ENTRANCE ROAD OFF OF JUDD FALLS ROAD, CURB REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, ASPHALT REMOVAL, AND RELOCATING A WATER MAIN. SAID FACILITY IS LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 62- 2AA213 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 9:13 p.m. and read aloud •from the Notice of Public Hearings and posted and published and as noted above. Chairperson Cornell stated that this proposal was adjourned from the April 2, 1996, meeting with the Planning PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 MAY 711996 ® APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 Board, for P &C Food Market to come up with further details that were outlined at the meeting. David Herrick from T.G. Millers stated that after the last meeting with the Planning Board, he had summarized a list of five items that were significant to this proposal. Mr. Herrick addressed the Board and stated: "Our interest is in addressing the concern of the driving lane widths in front of the store. We have talked about expanding the front entrance out into the driving lanes several feet and reducing the effective lane width to about 11 to 12 feet wide for both the east and west direction. To mitigate that concern, we removed eight parking spaces that currently exist in front of the P &C store front by widening the driving lanes up to and over 14 feet wide. Going from 11 or 12 feet in width to over 14 feet for each of the east and west driving lanes, giving some more room there apparently was felt that, not enough space currently existed, and if we encroached on that space any more we would be creating further hazards. We effectively lost eight parking spaces in front of the P &C store front, but have widened the driving lanes. In order to recapture those eight spaces, and bring us into the percentage requirement for the plaza parking, we made one alteration to the landscaping plan." Mr. Herrick pointed out on a map entitled, "Vicinity Map ", Sheet 1 of 3, dated April 30, 1996, original map date of January 30, 1996, stated: "Originally P &C had a long continuous island landscaping, and what we want to propose tonight in order to recapture the eight parking spaces lost in front of the Plaza, is to open up the island to make parking two rows deep expanding the landscape area at the entrance to provide effectively the same freed space. This ®would keep us in compliance with the parking space requirement. I have taken a look at a photo landscaping that is going to provided as result of the P &C expansion, and we are effectively 18 -19% over the green space, primarily because of the additional landscaping added along the west wall. The asphalt pavement, between the west wall and Judd Falls Road, the Ithaca Fire Department does not need for fire fighting, so we have converted this space for green space. We will be providing about three landscape berms in that area, and still providing positive drainage from the face of the building to the drain inlets that are currently there. The architectural and landscape elements specifically coordinate in between the site plan building perimeter and the elevational drawings. We have Jagat Sharma working with us on the elevational aspects, and he was responsible for putting together the color reduction for the Board, which I think quite effectively illustrates the use of block, texture, and color contrasts along with the proposed landscaping on the west wall to break up what was originally shown to you as one long expansive block." Jagat Sharma of Sharma Architect at 312 East Seneca Street, stated that he was asked to study the last presentation that was made to the Planning Board, elevation drawing and graphics that were presented, and he realized that the graphic that was presented that time was confusing. Mr. Sharma stated that from the studying point, he walked the site and took photographs of the site. Mr. Sharma showed some photos he had taken at the present site and showed the Planning Board and Staff. Mr. Sharma stated that the solution that P &C Food Markets had already worked out was to change the entrance to the new store. Mr. Sharma stated that he put everything together for the new presentation. Mr. Sharma stated that he has been working with Mr. Herrick's office on the idea of the landscaping between Judd Falls Road and the west wall of P &C. • Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that there are a couple of items she would like to address. Ms. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16 MAY 77 1996 • APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 Cornish pointed out on the map entitled, "Vicinity Map" dated April 30, 1996, original map date of January 30, 1996, that she and Director of Engineering Dan Walker have discussed the configuration, and have some concerns with the increase in the planting islands. Ms. Cornish stated that it might be a bit confusing and may not mitigate any traffic concerns here, but may cause more problems or have the radius increased a bit. Ms. Cornish pointed out where the entrance and exit are located, and her thought was it might be confusing. Ms. Cornish suggested that the Planning Board and staff might want to discuss this further. Ms. Cornish stated that on the elevation drawings there is a change in elevation of about three feet from the proposed entrance to the end of the south elevation, and the Planning staff thought that probably should be reflected in this elevation drawing since it may be an exposed concrete wall or brick wall. Ms. Cornish stated at the last meeting it was discussed that the elevation showing the angle out which is about an additional 30 feet of wall would be added to this elevation. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to see dimensions on the colored drawings that were handed out to the Planning Board as to how large this extension is. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it is hard to tell if it represents just the wall facing south or also the wall facing Judd Falls Road. Mr. Sharma stated that on the elevational drawings, it would tell you where the existing wall is and where the new wall will go with the height. Ms. Hoffmann stated that these drawings do not show the angle of the extension, and since there is no dimension there you will not be able to tell for sure by looking is at this drawing. Mr. Sharma stated that it is not normally done, but he could do that. Planner Cornish, referred to a map entitled, "Elevation Map ", dated April 24, 1996, stated to the Board that she sketched in the wall, change of elevation, and what the Board would probably see as an exposed wall. Ms. Cornish point out on the map and showed where the 30 foot extension of the building would angle out and be added on. Chairperson Cornell asked what are the materials that are proposed for the wall. Mr. Sharma responded that it would be concrete wall or bricks. Planner Cornish stated that she had a couple of concerns about the proposed landscaping and plant materials. Ms. Cornish stated that the plant materials were fine, but some of the placements might be questionable. Ms. Cornish pointed out on a map entitled, "Vicinity Map ", Sheet 3 of 3, and she stated at the entrance of the store, there are quite a few evergreen trees that may be dense and it may, at their mature height, cut down on visibility in that area. Ms. Cornish stated that the ground cover variety of shrub would stay low, and it might be better to have more height there, and there might be some opportunities to switch some of the planting materials around. Mr. Herrick stated that would not be a problem, and that they have quite a selection and variety of plants and shrubs to choose from. Ms. Cornish stated to Mr. Herrick that after this meeting they could get together and discuss this matter further. Chairperson Cornell stated that landscaping would be necessary because the area is rather • bleak. Mr. Herrick stated that the corner and wall would be greatly improved with green space. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17 MAY 711996 0 APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 Planner Cornish pointed out on a map entitled, "Vicinity Map" Sheet 3 of 3, and stated that they have reconfigured the front entrance, which would become a very large paved area. Ms. Cornish stated that there is an opportunity for an additional planter only to break up the brick expanse. Ms. Cornish stated that it was just a suggestion that the Planning staff had talked about earlier today, since it is so bare in the front. Chairperson Cornell stated that seems like a good suggestion in concerns of Ms. Cornish. Chairperson Cornell stated to summarize Ms. Cornish Is suggestions; narrowing the island to Judd Falls Road, revisiting the landscaping plans, and proposing a planter in front of the new brick expanse to break that up. Chairperson Cornell asked if there would be a new map for the changes in elevation. Planner Cornish stated that Mr. Sharma will be adding that to the final site plan submission with the dimensions that Ms. Hoffmann had asked for earlier. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Herrick how may handicapped parking spaces would be in the entire lot. Mr. Herrick stated that 13 handicapped parking spaces would be in front of the store. Chairperson Cornell asked if that would be sufficient. Mr. Herrick stated that it is the number that was provided as of 1991, when the restriping and other parking lot improvements were made. Chairperson Cornell suggested that the movable cart corrals should not be placed near the handicapped spaces. Chairperson Cornell asked if there was going to be a very brief pick up area if necessary. Planner Cornish stated that with the widening of the road at the exit drive, there is one area where the pavement would become increased in size. Ms. Cornish stated that it would not be official, but it would serve as an opportunity for someone who would be waiting for pick up. Chairperson Cornell suggested the other opportunity would be picked up by the bus zone, provided that the buses would use the bus zones. Board Member Hoffmann asked if Mr. Herrick could clarify where the bus zone would be. Mr. Herrick stated that it would be the cut out portion that would remain in front of Rite -Aid Pharmacy down to the entrance of Ceaser's Pizza. Ms. Hoffmann asked if that was between the two proposed planters. Mr. Herrick responded, yes. Board Member Ainslie asked the Board if they are requiring P &C to put a planter in front where we have not required any of the other buildings throughout the East Hill Plaza. Chairperson Cornell responded by saying that landscaping is on a site -by -site basis. Mr. Ainslie stated that this has never been brought up with any of the others. Attorney for the Town Barney stated that not any of the other buildings could expand like the P &C Food Markets. Mr. Herrick stated to the Board that there is no office space conversion proposed anymore as the result of the previous meeting. Mr. Herrick stated that this would now create more space up front with block wall, so his thought was there should not be any problems with putting landscaping there. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 18 MAY 711996 • APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 Board Member Hoffmann stated that she had a comment on the widened island right near the entrance that Ms. Cornish had mentioned about cutting it down. Ms. Hoffmann asked if having it or not having it expanded like that effected the traffic flow from the 1992 plan. Planner Cornish stated that it really does not effect it, it may only decrease any problems that one would have maneuvering through. Ms. Cornish pointed out the existing driveway through the parking lot on map entitled, "Vicinity Map ", Sheet 1 of 3, and stated that it just seems a little tight, and should be opened up some just to make this a more workable area. Mr. Herrick stated that this would be easy to do by increasing the radius. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be any signage to encourage people to take the route instead of going along the building, or stop signs to make it easier to come north and turn out on to Judd Falls Road, like the stop signs at Lansing's P &C. Chairperson Cornell stated that the signs at the Lansing's P &C are not legal stop signs. Attorney for the Town Barney stated that the law is changing to have stop signs within parking. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the problem with the stop signs at Lansing's P &C were that they did not meet placements, height, and size requirements, that the Department of Transportation require. Mr. Walker stated that the signage at Judd Falls Road indicates East Hill Plaza and Best Western Motel, and there is no sign on Ellis Hollow Road. Mr. Walker stated that the Board might want to consider no signage for the Best Western at the Judd Falls entrance to discourage people to take that entrance to get to the 0 Best Western. Chairperson Cornell asked the Board pattern. Board Member Hoffmann pointed concerns were to encourage people to go comes in, her thoughts are to have some Herrick stated that he could look into that a see if they would be agreeable with that. how they felt about getting stop signs within the traffic out on the map entitled, "Vicinity Map ", and stated her out on Judd Falls Road having to cross the traffic that kind of stop signage for the people coming north. Mr. nd would have to confirm with the property owners and Chairperson Cornell pointed out, her suggestions on where to put the stop signs along the P &C entrance, on the map entitled, "Vicinity Map ", and stated that the stop signs might discourage people to use this area and would force them to go around the more southern loop around the parking lot. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there were stop signs there a number of different times, but they were not considered legal. Attorney Barney stated that normally, to erect a stop sign on a Town road you would have to go through the Town Board for adoption to authorize this. Attorney Barney stated that the Board should have P &C deal with this at this time. Chairperson Cornell suggested to Mr. Herrick that he and P &C Food Markets explore the issue further. Director of Planning Kanter asked if there was going to be a sign at the Ellis Hollow Road entrance, and if so, could the Planning Board and staff have details of this labeled on the map. Mr. Herrick stated that with permission we are simply recreating the Cornell Plan from 1992. Mr. Herrick stated that there is an entrance sign shown at both locations. Chairperson Cornell asked if Mr. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19 MAY 711996 is APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 Herrick could move the Best Western sign from Judd Falls Road to Ellis Hollow Road. Mr. Herrick stated that this would be an issue for the owner, and he stated that he would ask them if that would be acceptable. Chairperson Cornell asked if there are any more comments from the public. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone would like to make a motion. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed plans entitled: Vicinity Map, Site Plan and Landscape Plan, all further entitled "P &C Food Markets, The Penn Traffic Company - Owner, Preliminary Site Plan" Job No. E95 -20, dated 1/31/96, with a revision date of 4/30/96, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., an elevation drawing entitled "P &C Food Markets" dated April 24, 1996, prepared by Jagat Sharma, Architect, and additional application materials, subject to the following conditions: 0 a. That the location of fire and other emergency zones, including the location of fire and hydrants be shown on the final site plan. b. That any required variances be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to Final Site Plan Approval. C. Construction details of all proposed structures including, but not limited to the water line, curbing, sidewalks, landscape islands, planting, and other improvements to be shown on the final site plan as per the Final Site Plan Checklist. d. Inclusion in the elevation drawings of the ± 3 feet change in elevation from the proposed New entrance to the western most edge of the proposed addition. e. Inclusion on the South Elevation drawing, of the entire proposed new addition and inclusion of dimensions on both the South and West Elevation Drawings. f. Revision of the planting plan to show a third planter along the south elevation in the area of the existing entrance to be removed and revisions to the location of certain species of plant materials in response to Planning staff suggestions. 1 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 20 MAY 711996 • APPROVED - MAY 2131996 g. Revision of the entrance island to the west end of the plaza parking lot pursuant to the recommendation of the Town Engineer to allow better traffic flow and easier turning onto and off of the perimeter road from and to Judd Falls Road. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the resolution indicates that the Planning Board made a negative determination of environmental significance at the April 2, 1996 meeting. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Kenerson, Ainslie. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit #8.) There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the East Hill Plaza P &C Food Market expansion located on Judd Falls Road duly closed at 9 :55 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING SPECIAL APPROVAL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TRACK AND SOCCER FACILITY AT CORNELL UNIVERSITY, PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A REGULATION SIZE RUNNING TRACK AND FACILITIES FOR OTHER TRACK AND FIELD EVENTS, A SOCCER FIELD, SECURITY FENCING, BLEACHERS, AND OTHER APPURTENANCES. THE PROPOSED FACILITY IS TO BE LOCATED ON PORTIONS OF TAX PARCEL NO'S. 67 -1 -13.2 AND 63- 1 -8.2, OR THAT PORTION OF ALUMNI FIELDS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA AND BOUNDED BY CAMPUS ROAD WING DRIVE, AND TOWER ROAD. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; SCOTT WHITHAM, AGENT. Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:57 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings and posted and published and as noted above. Scott Whitham, representing Cornell University, addressed the Board with a computer generated poster entitled, "Alumni Track and Soccer Field Location ", and stated that Cornell University does not have an NCAA regulation track at this point, and they have all their meets that follow NCAA regulations at the Ithaca High School, so the proposal is to build one at Alumni Fields. Mr. Whitham stated that the proposal is to take out some existing tennis courts where Cornell just built a new Stennis facility. Mr. Whitham stated that the walkway would be diverted around the track connecting to existing parking lots. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 21 MAY 77 1996 • APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that everything was outlined in the memo, except there were questions about the bleachers. (Memo is hereto attached as Exhibit #9). Mr. Whitham stated that the bleachers would be temporary for when there are large events. Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if the one entrance gate to the field would be used by spectators, and one or two sets of bleachers may block that access. Mr. Frantz stated that his thoughts would be that Cornell could revise the drawings to eliminate the excessive bleachers. Mr. Whitham stated that he would do that. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there were questions about the rotation of the light poles. Mr. Whitham stated that the track will not be lit at night, so the large poles that are out on the field would be taken out and not replaced. Mr. Whitham explained that there are some existing lights along the walkway, the lights will be simply moved in the same spacing along the new walkway. Chairperson Cornell asked if the track would be available at night. Mr. Whitham stated that the track would be closed off. Chairperson Cornell asked if Cornell University would be removing some of the existing lights. Mr. Whitham responded, yes. Board Member Ainslie asked if the soccer field would be natural grass. Mr. Whitham responded, yes. Mr. Whitham also stated that they were going to try and improve the drainage out there also. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the letter from Mr. Whitham to Mr. Kanter on April 4, 1996, Mr. Whitham mentioned the relocation of six Alumni Field floodlight poles. Cornell University will reduce the width of field numbers three and four to make room for the new track facility. Ms. Hoffmann asked for more clarification. John Keifer of Cornell University Engineers, stated that Cornell's thought was to relocate the six light poles, but the athletic department decided to take out the two end poles and leave the other four poles where they are. Mr. Keifer pointed out on the computer generated poster entitled, " Alumni Track and Soccer Field Location ", where they would be taking out the two poles and which four they would be leaving in. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the number of lights that are used to light the side walkway, and they are the 18 foot poles. Mr. Frantz stated that what Cornell is proposing to do is to take them down and relocate them along the new walkway. Mr. Frantz stated that in addition, they will be taking down two of the high lights that actually illuminate the field for any night athletic events. Chairperson Cornell noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there are any more comments from the public. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone would like to make a motion regarding the SEAR for this proposal. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: • r� • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 22 APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: MAY 77 1996 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Finch, Ainslie. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit #10.) MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Jim Ainslie: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, 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 Site Plan Approval for the proposed Track and Soccer Facility at Cornell University, proposed to consist of a regulation size running track and facilities for other track and field events, a soccer field, security fencing, bleachers and other appurtenances as shown on the above referenced drawings prepared by Appel and Goff Associates, Landscape Architects, and dated March 1, 1996 and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project: submission to and approved by the Town Engineer and Town Planner of design details for all proposed lighting fixtures, including location, height, and construction materials; ii. provision of the name and seal of the registered land surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic survey; PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 23 MAY 711996 . APPROVED - MAY 2111996 iii. submission to an approval by the Town Engineer of detailed sizing and final material specifications of all required improvements; iv. submission of a set of originals or Mylar copies of the final site plan drawing set to be retained by the Town; V. revision of Sheet L -3, "Layout & Planting Plan" to eliminate those sets of proposed bleachers which would block the entrance to the facility near the southwest corner of the facility. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board, in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant, b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be • adversely affected as a result of the proposed project, C. the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca, and 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that revisions of Drawing Sheet L -3, Layout and Planning Plan, to eliminate those bleacher sections which may encroach on the entrance way to the facility adjacent the southwest corner. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Finch, Ainslie. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: Adopted resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit #11.) •Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Site Plan and Special Approval for the construction of a Track and Soccer Facility at Cornell University duly closed at 10:17 p.m. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 24 MAY 711996 APPROVED - MAY 21, 1996 AGENDA ITEM. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED "BUTTERMILK VALLEY ESTATES' CLUSTER SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO. 36 -1-4.2 AND 36 -1 -6, 74 +/- ACRES TOTAL, INTO 70 LOTS, APPROXIMATELY 4,150 LINEAR FEET OF ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES OF PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, AND WATER AND SEWER FACILITIES, TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN 1146 AND 1172 DANBY ROAD, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO, S -1. OWNERS /APPLICANTS. RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30, R -15, AND WALTER AND JOYCE WIGGINS, Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 10:18 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as posted and as noted above. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the purpose of this meeting is for the Board to consider acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement, which was prepared by the Town Planning staff with the assistance of the applicant. The Final Environmental Impact Statement largely includes and reflects on the comments that were made on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and basically assembles the information pertaining to resolving some of the issues that might be mitigating measures that have been recommended. • MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency, on May 7, 1996 hereby accepts the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR 617 (the SEQR regulations), and FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to file a Notice of Completion of Final EIS and issue the FEIS as required under 6 NYCRR 617.10 and 617.21, distributing the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Ainslie, Finch. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. • (NOTE: Adopted resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit #12.) PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 5 MAY 711996 •APPROVED - MAY 2111996 Director of Planning Kanter stated that a tentative schedule date to consider the statement of findings which the Planning Staff will prepare, and also to consider, at the same meeting, Preliminary Subdivision Approval for this proposal on June 4, 1996, with the Planning Board. Mr. Kanter also stated that this would put everyone in the State Environmental Quality Review Act time frame. Mr. Wiggins asked if the Board could do Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval at the next meeting. Mr. Wiggins also stated that he would like to be able to hit the construction season, and whatever the Board could do to expedite this project would be most appreciative. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board does have a full calendar, and that they would try to do their best to sum it up for them. Director of Engineering Walker asked if Mr. Wiggins was asking for the Board to do was to grant Preliminary Approval for the entire site and Final Approval for the Phase I. Mr. Wiggins replied that was correct. The Planning staff went into discussion about having this proposal all in order for the June 4, 1996, Planning Board meeting, and they were all in agreement to work together. •Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision to be duly closed at 10:25 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED ITHACARE CENTER SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY, PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A +/- 115,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH 60 ADULT CARE UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA COLLEGE, ON THAT 28 +/- ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 39 -11.3 DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO.7. ITHACARE CENTER, INC., APPLICANT; MARK MACERA AGENT Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 10:29 p.m. and read aloud from the Agenda as posted and as noted above. Mark Macera, agent for Ithacare Center, Inc., addressed the Board and read from a prepared statement. Mr. Macera asked if there was any additional information that would need to be submitted before the next meeting with the Planning Board. (Mr. Macera's statement is hereto attached as Exhibit #13). Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that the Planning staff would like to know how the Planning Board feels about how Ithacare desires to meet the conditions regarding the proposed trail is system. Mr. Frantz pointed out that on Sheet LD -13, Ithacare's proposal is to have an identified PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 26 MAY 711996 • APPROVED - MAY 2111996 corridor which is roughly 12 feet wide, and within this corridor they propose a four foot wide path. The problem from their perspective is that it would be very hard to accurately locate the four foot wide path prior to the Planning Board actually granting approval. Mr. Frantz stated that what Ithacare is proposing is that some time during construction the final alignment of the four foot wide path be determined in the field taking into account consideration's such as which trees might be in the way and etc. Mr. Frantz stated that this would be a joint effort with the Town staff and Planning Board Members that are interested in helping with a field inspection. Board Member Ainslie asked if Mr. Frantz was confident that there was not something wider than 12 feet that would make the path veer more than 12 feet. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that we are talking about a fairly narrow path. Mr. Frantz stated that this path is going to be a fairly low volume and low speed path, so that it can take fairly sharp turns to get around obstacles. Mr. Macera stated that his thoughts were to get the Town involved during the site work that would need to be done. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the condition of the preliminary approval was that the location of the path be set prior to granting of final approval. Mr. Frantz stated that Ithacare is requesting that it be in a condition that is to be met prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. ® Board Member Hoffmann stated she was concerned about the four foot width of the trail for this particular facility because she is wondering if the width would be sufficient for a person in a wheelchair or a person using a cane. Mr. Macera stated that he has already demonstrated that in corridors with Ithacare looking at that recognizing the logistic, materials, and cost, and the damage to the environment if we were to widen that just for the sake of instance or two. Mr. Macera stated that there are a number of areas where there will be rest benches that will be wider to allow for parties or groups of people to pass each other. Attorney for the Town Barney asked if this trail is going to be wheel chair accessible. Mr. Macera responded, yes. Carl Guy from Court Street Companies, addressed the Board and stated that he has taken the detail from L. Robert Kimball Standard Walk Path, which is crushed rock with a stone dust surface that seems to stay together pretty well, and does not break down under weather conditions. Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if this was like a limestone dust. Mr. Guy stated that his understanding is that it is a crushed dust, it may depend on the operation, but the fines are put over the top of crushed stone to create an almost cement like surface. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Board might want to consider the design and alignment prior to building permit, because he believes on other site improvements, the Planning Board probably would want to see the path actually installed prior to issuing CO's. Mr. Guy stated that when we are out there with the survey equipment during construction and site work, we will like to be able to take our surveyors to lay out the path on a plan, and then bring it back to the Planning •Staff for any recommendations. Mr. Guy stated that to have it be required prior to Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is a fairly strong requirement because without occupancy we can not complete the LJ PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 27 APPROVED MAY 21 1996 MAY 711996 financing, open the project, and turn income. Mr. Guy stated he would like to keep it CO instead of building permit. Attorney, for the Town Barney asked if there were any reasons why Mr. Guy would not have it constructed before the CO. Mr. Guy responded, no. Mr. Macera stated that it would be a hardship to do a portion of that project which would be secondary to the actual residence to care for seniors, and which equipment and personnel are not yet on site to perform that function, just for the sake of putting in a site amenity that could also be accomplished prior to the CO. Chairperson Cornell stated that for the Town's concern would be due to Ithacare's budget and constraints that if it is last on the list you may run out of money. Mr. Macera stated that it is concurrent with actual site development. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the path location, shown on LD -13, could be accepted by the Board as the location of the path. Mr. Walker stated that he does not see any deviation of the concept of the path. Mr. Walker stated that what he would like to see is the construction schedule for the entire proposal. Mr. Macera stated that he had submitted to the construction schedule to''the Planning Department as part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Walker stated that they should break down the construction schedule in detail, showing an anticipated schedule and also an anticipated cost of getting things done. Attorney for the Town Barney stated that his concern was about dedicating the use of this to the public, that the Board would need to have an identification in some way, so the document says that the public may use this. Director of Engineering Walker stated that he would submit that the documentation shown on LD -13 as adequate. Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if it was possible for Ithacare to take Sheet LD -13 and go out to flag the path location. Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare could not do that, that they would have to have surveyors go out and mark the path, and even from that point assume certain distances between those markers to suggestion orientation of direction of the path. Attorney for the Town Barney asked if the surveyor would be doing that when they come to do the site work. Mr. Macera responded that was correct. Attorney for the Town Barney stated that it would be good when that is done for the Town staff and Board members to have a chance to walk through and take a look at it for a discussion. Attorney Barney stated that when the discussion is complete and before the certificate of occupancy is issued, that the trail, in fact, be built and the Town would be supplied with a detailed and as built description that we would then attach to a document that states that this area is dedicated for use by the public. Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare would permit public use of the trail, but it would not dedicate the path to the Town„ because Ithacare will still own the land and will permit public use and enjoyment of it. Attorney Barney stated available to public use instead of dedicated. Mr. Macera responded, that would be alright. Director of Planning Kanter stated that he does not have a problem with the direction Attorney Barney was recommending as long as that the as -built drawings and construction schedule are done ®before the issuance of the CO. Mr. Kanter stated that the problem the Town runs into with things like that, landscaping in particular, is when the CO time comes, the landscaping is not in because PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 28 MAY 711996 • APPROVED - MAY 217 1996 of seasonal or financial problems, then a temporary CO is issued, and then six months down the road another CO is issued, and so forth, and then it becomes a permanent temporary CO. At the point where the inhabitants are already in the building it would be difficult to close the building down because the landscaping is not in. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the only sure way for the Planning Board to make sure that the landscaping or path gets down, is to require an escrow account, and only allow release of funds after construction is up to standard of specifications as certified by staff members. Attorney for the Town Barney stated that we will cross that barrier when it comes. Mr. Macera stated that would be reasonable to do. Chairperson Cornell stated that she was not feeling well and asked that Vice - Chairperson Eva Hoffmann Chair the remainder of the meeting. Vice - Chairperson Eva Hoffmann asked the Planning Board and staff members if they felt comfortable after this discussion now. Board and staff members were all in agreement. Vice - Chairperson Hoffmann stated that in reference to the other items that were discussed, she feels unclear about what the Board does have and does not have, especially what has been reviewed and what has not been reviewed by the staff. Attorney for the Town Barney suggested that the Board take a copy of Mr. Macera's prepared statement and review them before the next meeting •for discussion. Director of Planning Kanter stated that it might be possible to schedule Ithacare for the May 21 meeting, depending on the submission of additional required materials.. Planner Cornish stated that the landscaping plan was almost impossible to read, even at full scale. Ms. Cornish stated that she was impressed with the selection of plant materials. Ms. Cornish stated the height of some of the plant materials adjacent to the overlook maybe questionable, so the placement of those would have to be done very carefully, so they do not block that view. Ms. Cornish stated that they are planned appropriately, and when they are placed actually on site, they should be placed perhaps a little bit lower than shown on the plan. Ms. Cornish stated that she found it difficult that there is no legend and there is no key on the map where there has been reference made to the protect existing plant materials, but there is no existing plant materials that she could find on the plan, and Ms. Cornish further stated that if there is any existing vegetation to be protected that it should be indicated on the landscaping plan, so when the contractors are in the field, they can protect it. Mr. Macera stated there is a legend and there is a schedule in details on every item and the locations there. Ms. Cornish stated she even looked at the full scale and she still could not interpret them. Mr. Macera stated that he would provide additional clarification information. Ms. Cornish stated that most landscaping plans that are presented are labeled clearly so that they could be read appropriately. Vice - Chairperson Hoffmann asked if there were any additional comments from the Planning Board and staff to help Ithacare understand anything that the Board may want to know. 0 Attorney for the Town Barney stated that the staff could communicate with Ithacare outside of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 29 MAY 711996 0 APPROVED - MAY 2111996 this meeting. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning staff will schedule a Public Hearing for Final Site Plan Approval at the next appropriate opportunity. Vice - Chairperson Hoffmann closed this segment of the meeting at 11:10 p.m., and adjourned it to another date for Ithacare to come back for a Public Hearing. AGENDA ITEM. MINUTES APPROVAL - MAY 199 1992 MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of May 19, 19923 be and hereby are approved with the following correction: Chairperson Cornell stated that on Page 12, Paragraph 4, states "Mr. Reese will help..." should say "Ms. Reese" instead of Mr. Reese. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. iAYES - Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Hoffmann. The MOTION was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: REPORT OF THE TOWN ENGINEER ON MINOR SUBDIVISION REVISION, AS PER ARTICLE II, SECTION 17 OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, FOR A LOT LINE MODIFICATION BETWEEN 139 WHITETAIL DRIVE, TOWN OF-ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 44 -1 -1509 AND 11 MARCY COURT, TAX PARCEL NO. 44 -1 -149, BOTH LOTS LOCATED IN DEER RUN SUBDIVISION. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the Deer Run Subdivision, Phase III B, the developer came in for the two landowners for a request of a minor modification of the lot lines so the yards would be within their own boundary lines. Mr. Walker stated that the angles of the lots were kind of odd as originally approved, and there is no effective increase or decrease of either parcel. Mr. Walker stated that the frontages are still adequate, and he sees that there is no problem with this. Mr. Walker stated that he approved this for the Board, and he is now reporting this to them as a minor modification to a previously approved subdivision. 0 The Planning Board Members were all in agreement and thanked Mr. Walker for supplying them n r� U PLANNING BOARD MINUTES with this information. 30 APPROVED - MAY 2111996 AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - APRIL 16, 1996 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch: MAY 711996 RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of April 16, 1996, be and hereby are approved with the following correction: That on Page 7, Paragraph 2, states "current campus schooling load... ", and should be changed to say "current campus cooling load' There being no further discussion, Vice - Chairperson Hoffmann called for a vote. AYES - Hoffmann, Cornell, Finch, Kenerson. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN -Ainslie. The MOTION was declared to be carried ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Vice- Chairperson Hoffmann declared the May 7, 1996, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourned at 11:23 p.m. DRAFTED 5/10/96 by DAK Prepared by- 6 Deborah A. Kelley, Keyboard Specialist /Minutes Recorder. Re - ectfully submitted, Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Mar Bry t Administrative Secretary. • • U U TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, May 7, 1996 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by establishing the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, to be located generally between Coddington and Slaterville Roads and the City of Ithaca and Town of Danby and Town of Dryden boundaries; generally following the established R -30 Residence District boundaries and either 200 feet or 500 feet west of the right -of -way of the South Hill Recreationway and railroad grade, as shown on a map entitled "Six Mile Creek Valley Proposed Conservation District" (revised 4/18/96). 8:30 11.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Continuation of 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 8970 +/- square feet. Expansion 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, landscaping, adjusting the centerline of the East Hill Plaza entrance road off of Judd Falls Road, curb removal and replacement, asphalt removal, and relocating a water main. Said facility is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.121, 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. 9:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the construction of a Track and Soccer Facility at Cornell University, proposed to consist of a regulation size running track and facilities for other track and field events, a soccer field, security fencing, bleachers and other appurtenances. The proposed facility is to be located on portions of Tax Parcel No's. 67 -1 -13.2 and 63- 1 -8.2, or that portion of Alumni Fields in the Town of Ithaca and bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Tower Road. Cornell University, Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent, 5. Consideration of Acceptance of Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed "Buttermilk Valley Estates" cluster subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 36 -14.2 and 36 -1 -6, 74 +/- acres total, into 70 lots, approximately 4,150 linear feet of road, approximately 20 acres of permanent open space, and water and sewer facilities, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence District R -30, R -15, and Special Land Use District No, S -l. Walter and Joyce Wiggins, Owners /Applicants, 6, Preliminary Discussion: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community, proposed to consist of a +/- 115,000 square foot building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80 independent living units, located on the west side of Danby Road approximately 2,000 feet south of the entrance to Ithaca College, on that 28 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -13 designated as Special Land Use District No 7. Ithacare Center, Inc., Applicant; Mark Macera, Agent, 7. Report of the Town Engineer on Minor Subdivision Revision, as per Article 11, Section 17 of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, for a lot line modification between 139 Whitetail Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -1 -150, and 11 Marcy Court, Tax Parcel No. 44 -1 -149, both lots located in Deer Run Subdivision. 80 Approval of Minutes: April 16, 1996 May 19, 1992 (previous minutes that were never approved) 96 Other Business, 10, Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY STARR HAYS AT 273.1747. (A quorum of four (4) members Is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) �° y9 ` TOWN OF ITHACA n o4$ 126 EAST SENECA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 � Y TOWN CLERK 273 -1721 HIGHWAY 273 -1656 PARKS 273 -8035 ENGINEERING 273 -1747 PLANNING 273 -1747 ZONING 273 -1783 FAX (607) 273 -1704 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION • • I, Starr Hays, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am the Recording Secretary for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board 'of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, commencing at 7:30 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Entrance of Town Hall. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) April 29, 1996 May 1, 1996 SS.. Bulletin Board, Front Stark Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Sworn to and subscribed before me this 3rd day of May 1996, Filename: Starr \Agendas \PPAFF \05- 07- 96.PPA Notary PuMir. Mary J. Saxton Notary Publlc� State of New York Registration #01SA5044003 Qualified in Tioga County ply Commission Expires May 22, 1997 The Maim Journal Mednesdav, Mai '1 1996_'rT T0WN'0F EiNACA PIANNINIS _BOARD 1 TICE IS HEREP GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held' 9�0 p.m. Consideration of by #w Planning Board of the Preliminary and Final Site Town of Ithaca on Tuesday,. Plan Approval and a Recom. -May 7; 1996, at 126 East'• mendation to the Zoning Seneca Street, Ithaca, NY, at Board of Appeals regarding As following times and on Special Approval for the con the following matters: stnution of a Track and Soc. 7:35 p.m. Consideration of a cer Facility at Cornell Univer- Recommendation to the Town sly, proposed to consist of a Board with respect to a local regulation size running track law amending the Town of and facilities for other track Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by and .field events, a soccer establishing the Six Mile field security fencin Creek Valley Conservation bleachers and other apput District, to be located gen.. nances. The proposed facility oral between Coddinpptatonn is to be located onportions and Slaterville Roads andthe of Tax Parcel No's. 67.1.13.2 City of Ithaca and Town of and 63,1.8.2 or that portion Danby and Town of Dryden of Alumni Fields In the Town bounddaries; generolly follow,.. of hh= and bounded by in the established R30 Resi -', Campus Road, Wing Drive • dente District boundaries' and Tower Road. Cornell Uni- and' either 200 Feet or 500: versiy, Owner, Scott Whit feet west of the right- of ham Agent. of the South Hill Itecreationl Said' Planning Board will at. Way and railroad grade as: said. times and sold place shown on a map entitled ISix; hear all persons in support of Mile Creek Valley Proposed such matters or objections Conservation District (re- thereto. Persons may appear vised 4/18/96), agent or in person. Indi- 8:30 p.m. Continuation of duals with visual impair- consideration of Preliminary menu, hearing impairments Site Plan Approval for the or other special needs, will proposed expansion of the be provided with assistance East Hill Plaza P & C Food as necessary, upon request. Market located on Judd Falls Persons desiring assistance Road in the Town of Ithaca. must make such a request not The proposed pro, act in- less than 48 hours prior to the valves expansion of the exist. . time of the public heaa Ing store by 8970 t square Jonathan Kanter, AICP Wt. Expansion will facilitate Director of Planning ronovating the floor layout 273 -1747 and result in the elimtnaHane May 1, 1996 of a 29 smote ssl( The proled also Pint 'es fha widening of an existing con. crate sidewalk, landscaping adjusting the centerline of the East Hilf Plaza entrance road off of Judd Falls Road. curb e Parcel No. 62 -2 -1.121 cor- ner of Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road, Business District 'C', Cornell Univer- sly, owner; The Penn Traffic Comm n Applicant* David Herrick, T.G. Miller, O.C., En. gineers and Surveyors, Agent. • • is TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. May 7, 1996 By direction of the Chairman of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board with respect to a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by establishing the Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District, to be located generally between Coddington and Slaterville Roads and the City of Ithaca and Town of Danby and Town of Dryden boundaries; generally following the established R -30 Residence District boundaries and either 200 feet or 500 feet west of the right -of -way of the South Hill Recreation Way and railroad grade, as shown on a map entitled "Six Mile Creek Valley Proposed Conservation District" (revised 4/18/96). 8:30 P.M. Continuation of 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 8970 +/- square feet. Expansion 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, landscaping, adjusting the centerline of the East Hill Plaza entrance road off of Judd Falls Road, curb removal and replacement, asphalt removal, and relocating awater main. Said facility is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, comer 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. 9:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the construction of a Track and Soccer Facility at Cornell University, proposed to consist of a regulation size running track and facilities for other track and field events, a soccer field, security fencing, bleachers and other appurtenances. The proposed facility is to be located on portions of Tax Parcel No's. 67 -1 -13.2 and 63- 1 -8.2, or that portion of Alumni Fields in the Town of Ithaca and bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Tower Road. Cornell University, Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent, Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance `must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Dated: Friday, April 26, 1996 Publish: Wednesday, May 1, 1996 Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 • • • May 7,1996 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 126 E. Seneca Street Ithaca, New Fork 14850 R reasonable objective for preserving the natural character of the Six Mile Creek Ualley is one we can all support. However, the radical 7 -acre zoning remedy you are seeking is unbelievable to us and especially so because it seems totally unnecessary,its legality is most questionable and, if enacted will constitute blatant overkill by government with absolutely no regard for the affected land owners. In spite of the soothing rhetoric which has been developed by the sponsors of this proposal there can be no honest question that owners of the land are going to have most of their land rights and land values taken away from them. While current R- 30 owners made hard-earned land investments under zoning that promised the possibility of 10 houses on 7 acres, the some owner can build only 1 house after this zoning change. Thereby, he will have lost ninety percent of his investment and possibly more in fact,because, unless the owner has farm land, he will have lost all of his land value and will be left with the privilege of paying taxes and hunting rabbits. No one is going to talk seriously about developing 7- acre housing. Provisions in the proposed ordinance such as the requirement for 300 feet of street frontage are obviously designed to prevent any possibility for development. The owner with 6 acres is permitted no housing or other realistic use for his land while his immediately adjoining R4 neighbor is permitted as many as 29 housing units on exactly the some acreage. Does this make sense? The representation that any development would pose serious environmental problems at all sites in the Ualley is a gross exaggeration. It is a given that no one wants to or will be allowed to build on steep slopes. It is our belief that owners have always respected and now more than ever will continue to respect sensitive areas. Those of us who have observed the Ualley for 60 -70 years know that the environment is thriving as never before. There are many more trees than 60 -70 years ago. There are wild flowers that we never saw in our youth. The much talked about erosion is non - existent • • • after 70 years in the nearly level, well- drained areas with which we are most familiar. If there is erosion on the steep wooded slopes,` 7 -acre zoning by itself will not change a thing. Continued farming as permitted in the proposed zoning is probably the worst possible alternative from an erosion standpoint. With the abandonment of farms the habitats for wildlife are growing rapidly throughout Tompkins County and New York State. Birds and animals are flourishing immediately adjacent to the Winner's Circle development. Deer sleep in plain sight of the homes. Coveys of wild turkeys pay daily visits to homes in that area. In 1991 when the need for a zoning change was first voiced, a justification promoted at that time was the protection of the Ithaca water supply. An editorial in the Ithaca Journal - characterized this claim as a "sham ". We should not tolerate another "sham" which says that 7 -acre zoning is needed to protect the Ithaca water supply, It would seem.that all of the authority needed by the Planning Board to exercise reasonable protection of the Valley is already in place. The stringent environment review required in any subdivision request should in itself suffice for this protection. There is no question that a lot of housing may be "inapppropriate" in many areas of the Valley. At the some time there are other areas where it is highly "appropriate Every land owner should have the right for this review as it applies to his specific land. If the Planning Board needs additional authority to establish conditions such as the required planting of trees, such authority should be granted. The control system can certainly be fixed as needed without resorting to a measure which makes a joke out of the "fee simple" rights granted in our deeds. The proposed zoning change should cause all property owners in the Township to wonder what rights to their land they really have and where the Township will strike next. They should consider the inevitable loss of ratables as these actions continue. However, with all subterfuge aside, if the Planning Board and the people in the Town still demand an absolutely clean, essentially untouched natural area throughout the Valley they must be prepared to pay for it and have the means of payment determined before, not after, a • • • radical zoning change. Governments throughout the country have programs for purchasing development rights. The 1992 Open Space Report sponsored by the Town of Ithaca lists other options which can be pursued for this purpose, It is ironic to us that the' Town seems to have ignored the options listed in its own report, If these and other options are all unsatisfactory then the beneficiaries who are the taxpayers in the Town should authorize a bond issue to purchase land outright or to, otherwise compensate owners for their losses. We have been given a sound legal opinion that radical zoning changes without compensation have been prohibited by courts throughout the land. The U.S. Congress is currently working on H11425 which is to stop Federal agencies from any abuse of owners' rights and values without compensation. We should not have to resort to legal action at this local level, With due consideration we hope that the Town will recognize that the proposed zoning change without compensation is morally wrong by any measure. Good neighbors do not commit acts of this kind against their neighbors. We thank the Planning Board for the opportunity to speak. Sincerely, y /�Z �6a� Carlton H. Baker 354 Calvert Circle, (610) 4444962 Kennett Square, PR 19348 DeWitt T. Baker, DUM 223 East Corning Road, Corning, Hew York 14830 (607) 962 -610 Copies to, Town Supervisor Property Owners i • 5/7/96 R.D. Sweet Comments on the Proposed Conservation District I wish to speak in favor of the intent of the proposed Conservation District. However, I urge that several changes be made. If they are made the proposal would be strengthened in at least four ways. 1. The benefits would be assured for the distant future not just for the next few years. 2. Property owners would have much more flexibility as they develop their land. 3. The number of requests for variances would be greatly reduced. 4. The risk of a successful court challenge would be almost eliminated. The first change I urge is that for 300 ft. of highway frontage of each lot. The intent of the Conservation District is to have all development done in the least disruptive way. However, highway construction is destructive; paved roads do not grow plants or animals; all roads increase kills of birds and wildlife. Yet the 300 ft* requirement is 5 times greater than that for other Town of Ithaca residential zones. An unfriendly lawyer would do well with this requirement. • The second change I am urging involves the 7A minimum lot size. It has two serious flaws. The first is that it practically guarantees in the long term better than 90% of the valley will be forests. Of course forests are fine if one desires firewood, pulpwood, and timber. But if one wishes attractive views and an abundance of flowering plants, birds, and wildlife they would get a grade of mediocre. The current proposal ignores natures plans for every piece of land in this region. She strongly favors trees and forests. As she slowly but relentlessly proceeds, plant species are eliminated. Proportionately, the capacity to support flowers, birds and other wildlife also decreases. I invite anyone who doubts my comments to drive out to the forests of Danby and Caroline. Note the views. Leave the car and hike into both the hardwood and reforested pine sections. Count the kinds and abundance of flowers, birds and wildlife. Next drive to any of many areas of the county where there is a mix of farms, meadows, brush, and small woodlots. Compare the two settings as to views, flowers, birds and wildlife. Which setting is best for achieving the purposes of the Conservation District? In my opinion forests come out a very distant second best. One final point. The forests in Danby and Caroline 50 -60 years ago resembled Six Mile Valley today. The second flaw with the 7A requirement is that it is not based on • environmental or ecological principles ., \Consequently it must be categorized as arbitrary. It appears as if somebody ecided that about 100 dwellings would be ic O.K. for the valley and since about 700 acres are involved, lot size should be 7 • acres. Again opposition lawyers would have a field day. My solution for the 7A requirement leads me to my third suggestion: To require site development and future management plans as part of the application for building or subdivision permits. These plans should be prepared by an expert in environment and ecology, not by the owner or town government. The requirement in principle would be similar to that for dwellings for which designs and specifications are prepared by architects. With this process, numerous specific size, distance, and similar numbers can be omitted. Of course, general guidelines would be needed to be sure the objectives of the Conservation District are met. Examples of possible guidelines: 1. Site plans and management programs must favor the goals of the Conservation District such as plant diversity, abundance of birds, and wildlife as well as attractive views. 2. Plans and management programs must be environmentally friendly and ecologically sound. 3. Development and management programs must be appropriate for each • particular site. 4. Plans must insure that building location, design, and construction will be unobtrusive. In summary, if the board changes the highway frontage requirement so that it matches that for other residential zones, and if it accepts the concept of requiring site plans and future management programs, which have been developed by environmental and ecological experts, then the Conservation District proposal will be strengthened in four ways: 1. Abundant flowers, birds, and wildlife as well as attractive views will be guaranteed far into the future. 2. Property owners would be given considerable flexibility in developing their land. 3. The number of requests for variances would be greatly diminished because few specific numbers are included. 4. The risk of successful court challenges would be almost eliminated because requirements would be based on environmental and ecological principles, not • on arbitrary numbers. • 0 - COPY March 12, 1996 Mr. Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street 3 196 r jj Ithaca, New York 14850 L1 i Dear Mr. Kanter, We received your letter about the Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District..We own land (which is also our residence) which will be included in the new Conservation District. We strongly favor the District and hope it gets enacted forthwith. We also favor the boundary alternate located SW feet from the South Hill Recreationway, Thankyou. Sincerely, Frank and Louise Mudrak 693 Coddington Road Ithaca, NY 14850 C6 wLw, ov 01- �K c �jo a.5 7&���� • • • T0: Town of Ithaca Planning Board & Town Board FROM: Dan Hoffman, Chairperson Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee DATE: May 7, 1996 RE: Proposed Six Mile Creek Valley Conservation District The Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee is a group established and appointed by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, to make recommendations concerning the Six Mile Creek Natural Area, which includes over 600 acres of land and water owned by the City and comprising the watershed for the City's water supply. (The City is the largest landowner in the Six Mile Creek valley.) At its meeting on April 15, 1996, the Six Mile Creek Advisory Committee voted unanimously to endorse the latest version of the proposed Six Mile Creek Valley conservation district. The proposed district protects the unique natural resources of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area, and enhances the substantial public investment in the area, without depriving landowners of the ability to develop their property within reasonable constraints. As for the boundary of the district on the Coddington Road side, the Advisory Committee recommends that it be located at least 500 feet from the western edge of the South Hill Recreation Way, in order to minimize the construction of buildings immediately adjacent to the Recreation Way and to enhance the possibility that there will continue to be a meaningful natural buffer on that side of the Recreation Way. The Recreation Way, for much of its route, provides an experience that is primarily one of woods and open fields. A setback of at least 500 feet will keep the sights and sounds of residential activity at a discreet distance and will preserve much of the natural experience users of the Recreation Way now enjoy. i p �✓�_E'e V ` 'a �' 00 roi �\ o,,, - 'Pic/ ®® ®® , 1 a. •.: oa aAC • r Li a so p �� RJ °�� 5 �� RE �l . �- �.° : jdlCr: / . •:: ••. p •: .: r ti• Cc /VS IN E VA � l If O/v I so V'Q T •7 D N / �p it o ` :. �s, :1 Sc.y T R is AFR r- so 8 We 6 \06 C ;. .• F Ry��o� r R q " RFS ; . ;., an so `: ; ~ R% • go •• .. .•.: O `{ 'ice /- - ••:. y �. ••.. •- . do •. , 0 e Do me ! _� o ke 0*80 so CITY OWNED LAND '' = /R' r Ae 0 as be so DPROPOSED SIX r4TT,R :'.`!` CREEK VALLEY %_ 3 a 1 a d Go. 0 14 CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOUNDARY s� s BOUNDARY ALTERNATE - 200 F—=- FROM SOUTH HILL RECREATIMMY � ��& E� ry, a D BOUNDARY ALTERI�TE - 500 FEET FROM SOUTH HILL RECREATIoN�w � -�- e'gDE OF I r six MILE cftEQZ �° ss • �• .-. _ _. O VA �VA= - - - - - LOW FT. p � y'� I ` � O •yam �� o f< 8 21 PROPOSED CONSERVATION DISTRICT soo FT, 1.00o FT. � v at' OQ� ate: TOWN OF ITHACA Revised: SCALE ' TP Y PLANNING DEPT, Scale: 126 E. SENECA ST. Sheet: HACA. IT N.Y. 14550 �F- FINAL ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION: P & C Food Market Expansion East Hill Plaza Preliminary Site Plan Approval Planning Board, May 7, 1996 MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded` by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS. 1. This action is the 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 8970 +/- square feet. Expansion 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, landscaping, adjusting the centerline of the East Hill Plaza entrance road off of Judd Falls Road, curb removal and replacement, asphalt removal, and relocating a water main. Said facility is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, 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. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Preliminary Site Plan Approval, did, on April 2, 1996, make a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on May 7, 1996 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Vicinity Map, a Site Plan and a Landscape Plan, all entitled "P & C Food Markets, The Penn Traffic Company - Owner, Preliminary Site Plan" Job No. E95 -20, dated 1/31/96, with a revision date of 4/30/96, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., an elevation drawing entitled "P & C Food Markets" dated April 24, 1996, prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect, and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed plans entitled: ' Vicinity Map, Site Plan and Landscape Plan, all further entitled "P & C Food Markets, The Penn Traffic Company - Owner, Preliminary Site Plan" Job No. E95- 20, dated 1/31/96, with a revision date of 4/30/96, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., an elevation drawing entitled "P & C Food Markets" dated April 24, 1996, prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect, and additional. application materials, subject to the following conditions: .x � b r P & C Food Market Expansion Preliminary Site Plan Approval - 5/7/96 Page 2 a. That the location of fire and other emergency zones, including the location of fire hydrants be shown on the final site plan. b. That any required variances be obtained from the Zoning Board of Appeals prior to Final Site Plan Approval. C. Construction details of all proposed structures including, but not limited to the water line,curbing, sidewalks,landscape islands,planting,and other improvements to be shown on the final site plan as per the Final Site Plan Checklist. d. Inclusion in the elevation drawings of the +3 feet change in elevation from the proposed New entrance to the western most edge of the proposed addition. e. Inclusion on the South Elevation drawing, of the entire proposed new addition adn inclusion of dimensions on both the South and West Elevation Drawings. f. Revision of the planting plan to show a third planter along the south elevation in the area of the existing entrance to be removed and revisions to the location of certain species of plant materials in response to Planning staff suggestions. g. Revision of the entrance island to the west end of the plaza parking lot pursuant to the recommendation of the Town Engineer to allow better traffic flow and easier turning onto and off of the perimeter road from and to Judd Falls Road. AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson. NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. ��A01 <�"'m ' Starr Hays, Recording Secret y, MarAryant,�aministratWe Secretary. Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 5/8/96. c:1 1-\Rn.1.%P&CE,p.Fn(a 1z) V 16 77 W COND 1s a. be c. d. • e. f. El ?,QA- PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST ITEM SUBMITTED NOT APPLICABLE WAIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL Proposed preliminary site plan, to include: vicinity Map showing the general location of the property and proposed project at a scale of 1" =1000' or irf=20001 . Size, location, use and design of all existing structures, parking areas, access drives, off- street loading areas, signs, lighting, pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and other existing features pertinent to plan review. t! Size. location,. proposed materials', of all proposed use, design, and construction structures. Location, : design, and construction materials of all proposed parking areas, access drives and loading areas. Location of fire and - other emergency zones, including -the, location of fire hydrants. ./.Location, design, and construction materials of all ropn.s-ed pedestrian and bicycle facilities. g. Location, design, h. i. 0 `proposed �// Location proposed utility, abutting, project. water and and construction materials of all sewage facilities. name, and dimensions of each existing or street and alley and each existing or proposed drainage, or similar easement within, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Natural features within and immediately adjacent to the site including but not limited to streams, lakes,. floodplains, ponds, wetlands, woodlands, brushlands, significant natural habitats or other features pertinent to review of the proposed project. Existing and proposed site topography represented by contour lines with intervals as required by the Planning Board, but not to exceed 5 (five) feet, including a grading plan describing the volumes of cut and fill materials and their composition, rand including elevations of proposed buildings, signage, lighting, and other features. Preliminary Site Plan Checklist -2- k. i/ Drainage plan which includes a description of method used for analysis, the calculation of drainage area above point of entry for each water course entering or abutting the site, and proposed method of on -site retention if required. 1. z Landscaping plan and planting schedule including location and proposed design of buffers. m. Size, location, design, and construction materials of all proposed signs and lighting. n. ZExact boundary lines of the tract, indicated by a heavy line, showing location and description of all monuments, giving property metes and bounds to the nearest one hundredth foot, angles to the nearest one - / half minute, and at least one bearing. o. V Border lines bounding site plan sheets one -inch from the left edge and one -half inch from each of the other edges. All required information, including signatures, seals, dates and such information shall be within the / border. P. V Map Scale and north_point, with a map scale of 1" =50' in ber or graphic firm. Q. Name of proposed project. r. Name of Town, County, and State. s. L/ Date of Site Plan. t. Key map (when more than one sheet is submitted) . u. c/ Name and seal of the registered land surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary survey and the date of survey. 20 Name(s) and address(es) of all property owners and persons who have an interest in the site and of parcels abutting the site, or within 500' of the site, including easements or rights -of -way, plus the tax parcel numbers. 3. Completed and signed Development Review Application, Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (if required). (only (1) copy each.) 4. Z Payment of review fees and deposit of escrow. 50 ✓ Estimate of the cost of improvements (excluding the purchase cost of land) to be prepared (preferably) by a licensed professional engineer. preliminary Site Plan Checklist. �s 0 � PRELIMI. 6/95 0 Fully completed and signed Short Assessment Form, Part I (SEAF) or Assessment Form, Part I (LEAF). to which to submit.) -3- Environmental Full Environmental (See Town Planner as Reduced copy of all sheets of the proposed site plan (no larger than 11" X 17 ") and copy of all other items required above (except development review application and escrow forms) . SITE PLAN l ADOPTED RESOLUTION: MOTION by 1TMSTI13- MWAIT SEQR Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Proposed Track & Soccer Complex Alumni Fields, Cornell University Planning Board, May 7, 1996 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Plan and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the construction of a Track and Soccer Facility at Cornell University, proposed to consist of a regulation size running track and facilities for other track and field events, a soccer field, security fencing, bleachers and other appurtenances. The proposed facility is to be located on portions of Tax Parcel No's. 67 -1 -13.2 and 63- 1 -8.2, or on that portion of Alumni Fields in the Town of Ithaca and bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Tower Road. Cornell University, Owner; Scott Whitham, 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 Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on May 7, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a series of plan sheets prepared by Appel and Goff Associates, Landscape Architects, entitled "Master Plan "; "Site Preparation Plan. "; Site Grading, Utilities & Erosion Control "; "Layout & Planting Plan"; and Enlarged Plan & Details ", each dated March 1, 1996, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed subdivision; 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson. NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording Aecretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 5/8/96. Mary tk, j tj :) ant, Secretary. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Proposed Track & Soccer Complex Alumni Fields, Cornell University Planning Board, May 7, 1996 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Plan and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the construction of a Track and Soccer Facility at Cornell University, proposed to consist of a regulation size running track and facilities for other track and field events, a soccer field, security fencing, bleachers and other appurtenances. The proposed facility is to be located on portions of Tax Parcel No's. 67 „1 -13.2 and 63- 1 -8.2, or on that portion of Alumni Fields in the Town of Ithaca and bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Tower Road. Cornell University, Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent. 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, has, on May 7, 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and ® 3. The Planning Board', at a Public Hearing held on May 7, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a series of plan sheets prepared by Appel and Goff Associates, Landscape Architects, entitled "Master Plan "; "Site Preparation Plan"; Site Grading, Utilities & Erosion Control "; "Layout & Planting' Plan"; and Enlarged Plan & Details ", each dated March 1, 1996, 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 Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, 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 Site Plan Approval for the proposed Track and Soccer Facility at Cornell University, proposed to consist of a regulation size running track and facilities for other track and field events, a soccer field, security fencing, bleachers and other 'appurtenances as shown on the above referenced drawings prepared by Appel and Goff Associates, Landscape Architects, and dated March 1, 1996 and other application materials, subject to the following condition: a. Prior to the issuance of any building permits for the project: ® i. submission to and approval by the Town Engineer and Town Planner of design details for all proposed `lighting fixtures, including location, height, and construction materials; Proposed Track & Soccer: Complex Alumni Fields, Cornell University Planning Board, May 7, 1996 Page 2. ii, provision of the name and seal of the registered land surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic survey; submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of detailed sizing and final material specifications of all required improvements; iv. submission of a set of originals or mylar copies of the final site plan drawing set to be retained by the Town; V, revision of Sheet L -3, "Layout & Planting Plan" to eliminate those sets of proposed bleachers which would block the entrance to the facility near the southwest corner of the facility. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. 1. That the Planning Board, in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a, there is a need for the proposed, use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant; b, the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project; C, the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca, and 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved. AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, .Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson. NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. L: M, (FILENAME:11 DEVREVSICURREIDTCUfRKSOC.RES) inistraflve Secretary. Ask TN 77 7AF W COND 1s a. b. c. d. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST ITEM SUBMITTED = NOT APP?4ICABLE WAIVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL C �lr cbr .3xcer rdoL. Proposed preliminary site plan, to include: ✓ Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property and proposed project at a scale of 111 =10001 or 1"= 2000' Size, location, use and design of all existing structures, parking areas, access drives, off - street loading areas, signs, lighting, pedestrian facilities, landscaping, and other existing features pertinent to plan review. Sizeo location,. proposed use, design, and construction materials of all propcsed structures. Location, design, and construction materials of all proposed parking areas, access drives and loading areas. ®e. _✓ vocation of fire and other emergency zones, including -the_ loc_at Jion of fire .hydrants . f . location, design, and construction materials of all propo-s-ed pe- de-strian and bicycles facilities. g. L Location, ' �'1 design, and construction materials of all proposed water and sewage facilities. h. ✓ Location, name, and dimensions of each existing or proposed street and alley and each existing or proposed utility, drainage, or similar easement within, abutting, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed proj ect . i. Natural f eatures within and immediately adjacent to the site including but not limited to streams, lakes,. floodplains, ponds, wetlands, woodlands, brushlands, significant natural habitats or other features / pertinent to review of the proposed project. j• V Existing and proposed site topography represented by contour lines with intervals as required by the Planning Board, but not to exceed 5 (five) feet, including a grading plan describing the volumes of cut and fill materials and their composition, and including elevations of proposed buildings, signage, lighting, and other features. Preliminary Site Plan Checklist -Z- k. C/ Drainage plan which includes a descri ti f th d to on o me o used for analysis, the calculation of drainage area above point of entry for each water course entering or abutting the site, and proposed method of on -site retention if required. 1• ✓ Landscaping plan and planting schedule including location and proposed design of buffers. m. (,oND Size, location, design, and construction materials of all proposed lighting. n. �_ Exact boundary lines of the tract, indicated by a heavy line, showing location and description of all monuments, giving property metes and bounds to the nearest one hundredth foot, angles to the nearest one- / half minute, and at least one bearing. o. ✓ Border lines bounding site plan sheets one -inch from the left edge and one -half inch from each of the other edges. All required information, including signatures, seals, dates and such information shall be within the border. p• ✓ Map Scale and north point, with a map scale of 1 " =50' in bar or graphic form. q• � Name of proposed projects r. yJ- Name of Town, County, and State. s. ✓ Date of Site Plan, t. 4 k Key map (when more than one sheet is submitted). Us "NO Name and seal of the registered land surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary survey and the date of survey. 20 ✓ Name(s) and address(es) of all property owners and persons who have an interest in the site and of parcels abutting the site, or within 500' of the site, including easements or rights -of -way, plus the tax parcel numbers. 3. ✓ Completed and signed Development Review Application, Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (if required). (Only (1) copy each.) 4. ✓ Payment of review fees and deposit of escrow. 5. J� Estimate of the cost of improvements (excluding the purchase cost of land) to be prepared (preferably) by a licensed professional engineer. • C Preliminary Site Plan checklist 6. z • PRELIMI. 6/95. • • -3- Fully completed and signed Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I (SERF) or Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part I (LEAF). (See Town Planner as to which to submit.) Reduced copy of all sheets of the proposed (no larger than 11" X 17 ") and copy of all required above (except development review and escrow forms). SITE PLAN site plan other items application ADOPTED RESOLUTION: • Regarding Completeness of the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement Danby Road Town of Ithaca Planning Board, May 7, 1996 MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: Whereas, Applicants /Owners Walter J. and Joyce Y. Wiggins and William F. Albern, P.E., Agent, have requested Subdivision Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed 74.5 +/- acre Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision, to consist of 67 clustered lots, an 18 acre lot to be preserved as undeveloped open space, a .8 +/- acre lot to be a neighborhood park, and a 17 +/- acre lot which contains an existing wetland, inn, restaurant, a barn which has been converted to apartments, a +/- .89 acre parcel proposed to be consolidated with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.3, a tennis facility, approximately 4,159 linear feet of road, and water and sewer facilities, to be located between 1146 and 1172 Danby Road, Residence District R -30, Residence District R -15 and Special Land Use District S -1, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36 -1 -4.2 and 36 -1 -6, and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board made a Positive Declaration of Environmental Significance on December 6, 1994, directing Walter J. and Joyce Y. Wiggins, Applicants and William F. Albern, P.E., Agent, to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Whereas, Applicants /Owners Walter J. and Joyce Y. Wiggins, Applicants and William F. Albern, P.E., Agent, have prepared a DEIS which has examined possible adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision and has proposed mitigating measures to minimize such impacts, and Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency, with the assistance of Town Staff, reviewed Ole DEIS submitted on February 20, 1996, and on March 19, 1996, adopted a resolution finding the DEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for the purpose of public review, and Whereas, the Planning Board held a public hearing on March 19, 1996 in order to solicit public comment on the DEIS, and received few substantial public comments, and Whereas, the Planning Board as Lead Agency, has responded in the FEIS to all substantive public comments received, and on May 7, 1996 accepted in substance the proposed responses to comments received on the DEIS. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency, on May 7, 1996 hereby accepts the; Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR 617 (the SEQR regulations), and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to file a Notice of Completion of Final EIS and issue the FEIS as required under 6 NYCRR 617.10 and 617.21, distributing the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public. AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Ainslie, Finch. NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. 5/8/96. Fy ki inistratfve Secretary. C7 �aNb 1 2 3. 5. 6. 7. &- FINAL SITE PLAN CHECKLIST ITEM SUBMITTED NOT APPLICABLE CONDITION OF APPROVAL All items submitted with the preliminary site plan application with modifications made according to the approval given by the Town Planning Board. 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. ii Cowcp Detailed sizing and final-material specifications of all required improvements. ✓ Construction details of all proposed structures, ro-ads, water /sewage .facilities, and other .improvements. ✓ Completed and signed Development Review Application, Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (if required). (only (1) copy each.) Payment of additional review fees as needed and deposited in an escrow account. CoNj) Original or mylar copy of final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. 6 �i nil s1 v /vl mad 6/6/95 MB E • Presentation by Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Ithacare Center to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, Tuesday, May 7. 1996 Agenda Item• #6 Preliminary Discussion: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community. (9 • Earlier this year, on Tuesday evening, February 6, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board passed a resolution granting Ithacare Center's proposed south hill senior living community preliminary site plan approval. The resolution contained provisions stipulating that before final site plan approval could be granted, several additional steps needed to be taken, and information submitted. I want to take a few moments to identify these items and speak to their status as of this date. Let me preface my comments by stating that while a considerable amount of information has already been submitted, I want to acknowledge that there may be a few items of information we still may need to submit. These items will be delivered to the Town very shortly. Moreover, as addressed by Mr. Frantz in his memo to the Planning Board, dated April 30, 1996, some of the information items were not received by the Town with sufficient lead time to receive the attention that they require. In addition to briefly introducing, and perhaps, beginning the discussion of the items included in our submissions this evening, I also hope to be able to respond to questions and comments members of the planning board may have based on the review of materials received to date. If there are no questions at this time, I'd like to run down the list of information items the Town Planning Board resolution of February 6 requests and refer to where they can be found. Item 2.a. requests revisions to the site plan to 1) more clearly show the location of all proposed parking spaces, reserved handicapped spots, future parking if conditions warrant and to designate the number and location of the parking spots reserved for visitors using the trails. These issues are addressed in document LD -2, Site Plan, as well as other supporting documents. Item 2.b. requests submission of building elevations for the residence from four (4) locations. These, as well as others that we have generated, are found in the three (3). elevation documents identified as SK -1, SK -2 and SK -3. These documents include the architectural features of the residence. We also have this evening two (2) "boards" depicting the colors and approximate shades of the siding, brick veneer, asphalt roof shingles and eye level perspective of the residence as seen from the north end of the N.Y.S. safety parking area. Item 2.ce requests a complete landscaping plan, typical average heights of the proposed plantings* found in LD -7, Landscaping and Lighting Plan, Landscape Detailse schedule and These can be and in LD -8, Item 2.d. requests details on the size, location, and construction materials of signs and lighting fixtures. Lighting fixtures information such as wattage, heights and orientation must also be included. This information can be found in LD -6 Site Details, LD -7 Landscaping and Lighting Plan and LD -12 Signing and Pavement Marking Plan. Item 2.e. and Item 2.1* requests identification of facilities available to the public and a declaration committing such facilities for public use and enjoyment. A "Declaration of Public Use" is enclosed with your narrative. The declaration covers the use of the trail and area of the N.Y.S. safety parking area that encroaches on Ithacare property. LD -13 is the Trail Location Plan. It includes the location of the trail and reserved parking area for the public visiting the trail. LD -5 and LD -6 include Site Details that speak directly to such issues as trail composition, dimensions, location of foot bridges over the tributaries and alike (distance). Item 2.fo requests a stormwater management plan. Ithacare's submission of information to the Town Engineer is ongoing. Item 2.g. requests sedimentation and erosion control plans. LD -9, LD -10 and LD -11 include sedimentation and erosion control steps to be taken during several phases of the project. Mr. Walker may wish additional information and we will await his guidance. Item 2.h. requests details associated with all proposed structures, roads, water and sewage facilities. These items are covered by LD- 2 Site Plan, LD -4 Utility Plan, LD -5 and LD -6 Site Details, LD -7 Landscape and Lighting Plan, LD -9, LD -10 and LD -11 Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans, LD -12 Signing and Pavement Marking Plan and LD -13 Trail Location Plan. Item 2.1. requests Town of Ithaca Board approval for changes to the original site plan of October 4, 1993, and adoption of "Findings" associated with the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Town Board approval came by way of amendment to the Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7 and adoption of "Findings" supporting existing plans. Item 2.j. requests that Ithacare gain the necessary easement from Ithaca College to encroach on College property. The College has supplied Ithacare with a correspondence approving of Ithacare's plans to encroach on College property. The correspondence is enclosed in the Town Planning Board packet. • • is of • Item 2.k. requests a site map of the Ithacare property showing the location of the residence and its infrastructure. LD -1 is an Overall Site Plan for the project. Two (2) corrections should be noted for elevations have the chimneys omitted from the be added. LD -7 Landscaping and Lighting Plan at the bottom of the drawing stating, "This s only!!! ". This is incorrect. It should also to the lighting plan. the record. SK -1 drawing. They will includes a reference heet for landscaping include a reference At this point I am prepared to respond to questions. Furthermore, I want to defer to the Town Planning Board and staff to determine whether or not the documents are satisfactory, the status of incomplete or unresolved issues, and further guidance with regard to the need for additional information. Thank you.