Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-09-17• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA Date Clerk The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, September 17, 1996, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barney (Attorney for the Town), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), Geri Tierney (Planner). ALSO PRESENT: Patricia Classen, Edna M. Updike, Carl R. Updike, Michael S. Husar, Tom Pruckno, Tessa Flores, Ira Goldstein, Elizabeth Classen, Andrew Magre, Lauren Stanforth, John Gutenberger. Chairperson Cornell declared the meeting duly opened at 7:38 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 September 9, 1996, and September 11, 1996, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the goproperties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, 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 September 12, 1996. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Cornell read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM : PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED UPDIKE SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 421 SHEFFIELD ROAD, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW. Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:41 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. •Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that there are no environmental issues associated with this subdivision. Mr. Frantz stated that the neighbors of Mr. and Mrs. Updike would • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 SEPTEMBER 17,1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 • like to purchase the back portion of the property, which is now a hay field that Mr. Suwinski cuts and harvests, and Mr. Suwinski will be adding it to his 130 +/- acre farm. Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any intentions to take it out of the Agricultural District. Carl Updike of 421 Sheffield Road, stated that Mr. Suwinski has a need for the land. Mr. Updike stated that the land would be consolidated back into the farm that it was originally subdivided from. Mr. Updike purchased the property from Walter Drake many years ago. Board Member James Ainslie stated that Mr. Suwinski does a beautiful job with his farm for his horses, and he is sure that Mr. Suwinski will keep the property in good open shape. Mr. Updike stated that Mr. Suwinski is willing to put in writing that there will not be any buildings on this land, that it will just be a pasture. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that would not be necessary to do formally because this parcel is landlocked by the Updikes. Mr. Frantz stated that there has never been any restrictions put on this property especially if Mr. Suwinski wants to put a farm building on that parcel. Board Member Ainslie stated that there is no restriction to putting a farm building on AG land in an Agricultural District. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there is already a house on the larger farm property that the Suwinskis own. Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that the proposal is to consolidate this parcel with the Suwinski parcel, and any further separate development would have to undergo subdivision approval with the Planning Board again. Mr. Kanter suggested that the Planning Board not place any additional restrictions on this subdivision. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above - referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1,1996 NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #2.) Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of environmental significance for the Updike Subdivision duly closed at 7:44 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF 402 +/- ACRES FROM THE TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 27 -1 -27.22 9.85 +/- ACRES TOTAL AREA AND LOCATED AT 421 SHEFFIELD ROAD, FOR CONSOLIDATION WITH TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 27-1- 27.3, LOCATED AT 451 SHEFFIELD ROAD, AG- AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. CARL R. AND EDNA M. UPDIKE, OWNERS /APPLICANTS. Chairperson Cornell declared the above - matter duly opened at 7:45 p.m., and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published. Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone •from the public would like to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Board Member Herbert Finch asked if the stream bed or the surveyed land was going to be the boundary. Mr. Updike stated that the stream bed is the boundary, and on the east side of the stream bed Mr. Suwinski will be putting a fence up for his pasture. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the center line of the stream would be the property line boundary. Board Member Fred Wilcox asked if that meant the stream as it was surveyed today. Mr. Wilcox stated that he would not want to see the survey say the boundary is the stream and then the stream changes course in 30 years. Director of Engineering Daniel Walker stated that stream center lines in the Town of Ithaca are often used a parcel boundaries. Mr. Updike stated that the land has been surveyed, and that Mr. Frantz has a copy of the survey. 0 Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that this stream is a fairly shallow, but well defined • • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES FeSM l I WOM 4 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 4.2 +/- acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 27.2, 9.85.+1- acres total area and located at 421 Sheffield Road, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -27.3, located at 451 Sheffield Road, as shown on a survey entitled "Map of Survey Parcel of Land Owned by Carl R. & Edna M. Updike, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L. S. dated December 19, 1991 and revised May 23, 1996 and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. Within six months of this approval, conveyance of the 4.2 +/- acre parcel to be created to the owner of Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -27.3, and delivery to the Town Planner of a copy of the recorded deed to such owners, and a copy of the communication from such owners to the Tompkins County Division of Assessment requesting consolidation of said 4.2 +/- acre parcel with Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -27.3, and b. Submission for signature by the Planning.Board Chairperson of an original or mylar copy and four (4) paper copies of the approved plat, with required Surveyor's Certification, prior to filing with the office of the Tompkins County Clerk. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #3.) Board Member Eva Hoffmann had a question about the format of the Agricultural Data • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 APPROVED =OCTOBER 1, 1996 Statement, and the Planning Board and Staff had a brief discussion. SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the Updike Subdivision duly closed at 7:57 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE LIBRARY STORAGE FACILITY (LIBRARY ANNEX) IN CORNELL'S PRECINCT 7, TO CONSIST OF A 155000 +/- SQUARE FOOT ADDITION FOR STORAGE OF LOW CIRCULATION LIBRARY BOOKS AND ASSOCIATED OFFICE SPACE, A NEW LOADING DOCK, ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES AND LANDSCAPING, LOCATED ON PALM ROAD OFF ROUTE 366, ON A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 64 -1 -1, CONSISTING OF 50 +/= ACRES, SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT (SLUD) NO. 9. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; THOMAS PRUCKNO, AGENT. Chairperson Cornell declared the above - matter duly opened at 7:58 p.m., and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published. goThomas Pruckno of Planning and Zoning Construction for Cornell University, stated that Cornell has an addition to the existing Library Annex, which is approximately 15,000 square feet. The new addition is for the purpose of storing books from the other 16 libraries on Campus, and is intended to be a high density storage warehouse. The books are going to be sorted by size and bar coded, and they will be stored in rows to be retrieved by a man lift. There will be a processing area in the front of the facility. There will be a loading dock off the west side of the facility. The existing building will have some renovations made to it, especially in the one story western side of the facility. The existing storage area will have some mechanical work, which Cornell is proposing to do. Chairperson Cornell noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Chairperson Cornell asked if the books would be stored by size, not by the decimal system. Mr. Pruckno stated that was correct because it would be more efficient that way. There would be more books per linear foot of shelf. Attorney for the Town John Barney asked how they would be able to locate the books then. Mr. Pruckno stated that they would be bar coded before they are put on the shelves, and •when they need to locate a book, it could be located through the computer system. The computer would be able to tell people where the book is by isle and shelf. The person working in the library • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 would operate the man lifter to retrieve the book off the shelf, and pass it along to the main campus. Chairperson Cornell asked if the building would be fully climate controlled. Mr. Pruckno responded, yes, that was one of the items in the project. The library would need to maintain a certain temperature and humidity range for long term preservation of books. Board Member Robert Kenerson asked Mr. Pruckno if he could go over the air conditioning units and the plantings, around them to make sure the Planning Board understands which ones they are. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that this is in reference to the resolution, that on Sheet L -1, in the upper right hand corner of the drawing, there is one water tank and two air conditioning chilling units. Cornell University is proposing a row of vegetative shrubbery around those units, and the staff recommendation is that the another row should be added such as conifers or some winter screening. Board Member Kenerson asked how tall the units would be. • Michael Husar of Quinlivan, Pierik, & Krause Architects in Syracuse, New York, stated that he is not sure how tall the units are. Board Member Kenerson stated that he just wanted to see the height, to determine if the units would be visible with the proposed plantings. Mr. Kenerson stated that the Planning Board should be looking for noise abatement as well as some visual covering of the mechanicals. Chairperson Cornell asked if there would be any vegetation to block the units. Mr. Pruckno stated that Cornell would agree to provide plantings that will totally screen the equipment. Mr. Pruckno stated that he would guess the equipment would be approximately 40 to 45 inches tall, which is standard commercial equipment that would be installed. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the equipment would be placed on top of something that would raise it up higher. Mr. Pruckno responded, no. The equipment would be on a concrete service pad, but that would be flush with the grade that is around the equipment. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has a little trouble understanding the drawing on the last page in the report entitled "Library Storage Facility - Final Site Plan Review - Planning, Design, • and Construction ", dated August 16, 1996, Prepared by Thomas Pruckno. Ms. Hoffmann stated that this drawing is supposed to show the berm, and how the berm blocks the sound from the walkway. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Mr. Husar stated that two areas were analyzed for potential noise impact. Mr. Husar stated that they took one line due south to the natural area boundary line, and that having a 40 -foot high building acts as a buffer where the sound levels, according to the calculations, were reduced. Chairperson Cornell asked if this is because the units are on the other side of the building. Mr. Husar responded, yes, because there would not be a direct sound path. Mr. Husar stated that they moved the water tank location so it would be further outside as an additional protection from the edge of the building. The second unit was brought on a straight line until it was intercepted with the natural area boundary line, which the surveyor is assuming offsets the building setback line. The 370 -foot distance that is noted is below what the FEBA required. Mr. Husar stated that he is referencing the information from the Site Plan Review and from the chiller unit which is located on the north side of the building, and this line is approximately 370 feet to the south east where it would intercept the natural area boundary line. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the drawing she did not understand is on the last page of the packet Mr. Husar stated that drawing is meant to be a cross section through the site. It shows the 40 height of the machine along the side of the building, which is low lined relative to the building. Mr. Husar stated that this tries to show the actual rise of the berm behind the building as it goes up, assuming that the receiver would be a person approximately six feet tall. Mr. Husar stated that the lines at the top represent the building, and the diagonal line represents the lay of the land. Board Member Bell asked what the wording on the diagonal line on the map said. Mr. Husar stated that says "inverse on loss due to berm ". The height of the berm actually reduces the sound because it is forced to go over the berm and not down the slope. The 355 feet was the dimension without swapping the units. Cornell had the unit on the outside initially, and they transferred the units to the inside to take more benefit of the corner of the building. Mr. Husar stated that if the units were swapped, Cornell would end up with a distance of 370 feet as opposed to 355 feet. Board Member Bell asked what the wording is on the corner of the map. Mr. Husar responded "does natural area boundary line offset existing building setback line ?" Cornell's assumption is that it does. Board Member Bell asked what that meant. Mr. Husar stated that the building setback line offsets to the north. The survey does not carry • the natural boundary line beyond the limits of where the building was intended to be. The assumption was that the building setback line offset was by the natural boundary line, and if it goes • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED =OCTOBER 1, 1996 • .J straight, then they are actually farther from the natural boundary lines with the machine units. Director of Engineering Daniel Walker stated that the building setback line was set by the off set distance from the natural area boundary line that was set in the field. Farther to the east, the wetland area increased, so that would be logical, but the boundary was widened. Board Member Bell asked why Cornell is not positioning the chillers further to the west toward the center of the building along the side line. Mr. Pruckno stated that Cornell's assumption is that they will ultimately end up with a second storage facility along side the first, and the intent is to provide two additional units at approximately the same location which would be the center of the pair. Mr. Pruckno stated that the second unit would be identical to the first and the additional units would be put in the same location, so there would be a common chase leading to the mechanical rooms. Chairperson Cornell asked if Cornell University had mentioned this second addition to the Library Annex before. Mr. Pruckno responded, yes. Chairperson Cornell asked if the second addition would be too close to the slope. Mr. Pruckno stated that they would need to dig out the slope. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the items in No. 3 in the memo from Director of Engineering Walker have been addressed. Director of Engineering Walker stated that these deal with the Storm Water specifications, and the memo is really more notes to himself. Mr. Walker stated that some areas let people discharge in the storm drainage system to get rid of ground water, but the Town does not allow that. The solvent cement joints are part of the sanitary sewage systems. They would not get a building permit with that detail in these drawings. Chairperson Cornell asked if there should be a specific amount of space away from the chillers to operate properly. Mr. Pruckno stated that there would need to be some clearance between the sides of the units and the plant materials, but more importantly is what is above it as it blows air out. Chairperson Cornell asked if there could be large plantings done in front of the chillers. Mr. Pruckno stated that should not be a problem. • s • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1. 1996 Chairperson Cornell stated that her recommendation is to have some large screening all around the chillers where possible. Chairperson Cornell asked if Cornell University is planning for an additional unit to the east of the unit that is being proposed now, will it matter about the plantings. Mr. Pruckno responded, no, that if Cornell gets to that point, they could always move the plantings. The chiller pad is being sized for all four units, and the plantings could be put in permanently at this time. Board Member Hoffmann asked if it were possible to bring some of the plantings down the eastern side of the present building for now, and then remove those plantings as the new building comes in. Board Member Finch asked how much sound would Board Member Hoffmann expect these units to make. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is not sure, but it might be possible to add a few more plants. Chairperson Cornell asked if the concern about the sound is because of the natural area. Board Member Hoffmann responded, yes. The Planning Board had a discussion on additional plantings and vegetation to the south side by the building set back line. Mr. Husar passed around pictures showing what the area looks like from the roadway in reference to the vegetation that is already there. Chairperson Cornell suggested screening the chillers on the north side would be sufficient. Board Member Ainslie asked why Cornell would put Shag Bark Hickory that lose their leaves, instead of Conifers, which would give year round protection. Mr. Husar stated that most of the natural plantings in the area are deciduous. From the west the building would not be seen, and from the east while looking through trees there would be a glimpse of the building. The only view in which the library addition could be seen from the creek wall, is where the concentration of plantings are located on Drawing L -1 to the south east corner of the site. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that in review of the project for the Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Cornell had the photographs with the balloons in them, and Mr. Frantz had gone out to assess the potential visual impact. Mr. Frantz stated that the corner of the building on the south eastern side, three to four feet of the roof and the top of the wall, would most likely be visible from the recreational walkway. Mr. Frantz stated that this would be the extent of the visual impact of the building. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 is • Board Member Bell asked whether the chillers operate in the summer and not in the winter. Mr. Husar stated that there are boilers for heat, and the chillers are primarily for air conditioning. The conditions are in the range of 55 to 60 degrees interior, and it would be unlikely that it would be cooling in the winter. Board Member Bell asked if the boilers were from the main plant. Mr. Husar responded, no, that the boilers are part of the heating process for the warehouse. The boilers are part of the small package units. Board Member Bell asked if the boiler units would be in the building. Mr. Husar responded, yes. Board Member Bell asked if they are connected to the Central Heating System to the Campus. Mr. Husar responded, no, this is a separate unit. Board Member Bell stated that two of the drawings are different on one point which is, whether or not there is a space between the existing building and the new building. It looks like there is an outdoor corridor that leads to two doors. Mr. Husar stated that the space in question on the site plan is a stone walkway in the alley. Mr. Husar further stated that Cornell is planning to put a roof over the alley if the funds are there, to control the potential of snow and ice build up. Chairperson Cornell asked what was the purpose of the alley way. Mr. Husar stated that there are two exits right now out of the existing Library Annex. Originally the alley was looked at as a possible alternative exit from there, but currently the way the plan is configured, that the southeast corner of the annex would drop directly out to grade. Mr. Husar stated that the northeast corner will go through a vestibule, and then through the new construction. The staging area on the drawing shows the alley way to be in the way of egress in the exterior. This would make the alleyway unnecessary as a means of egress, so Cornell felt that they would need to spend the money to cover the alleyway over to make a corridor if the funds are there. Board Member Bell asked if they would be creating a situation of a lot more energy loss by creating the outdoor walls instead of moving the building over. Mr. Pruckno stated that there is another issue. The addition walls will consist of tilt -up precast concrete panels, and to put these panels right next to the existing facility is going to be very difficult. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 SEPTEMBER 17,1996 APPROVED = OCTOBER 1, 1996 Mr. Pruckno also stated that they feel with the existing insulating system that would be installed, there would not be that great a heat loss because they would be putting in extra insulation within the panels to prevent that heat loss. Mr. Husar stated that by putting the taller building next to the existing building would generate a drift load against the existing roof, which it was not designed for. The slot was left there to keep the snow down, which the snow would fall down into the alley. Cornell has the alternate to put a roof in there which will be at a lower elevation so the roof drains. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the alley way would be covered with a roof or not. Mr. Pruckno stated that if the funds are available there the roof will be done. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be moisture problems with the building with the snow and rain water, if the roof is not on. Mr. Husar stated that the walkway is stone with two catch basins in the alley to take the water away. Board Member Bell stated that this would create a huge maintenance problem, as well'as some threat to the integrity of the books that are being stored so carefully in a humidity controlled environment. Chairperson Cornell stated that this is an issue for Cornell University to work out. Mr. Pruckno stated that they would prefer the better solution by having the roof over the long narrow corridor, but Cornell is in the position of making some cuts. The alternative, if the roof does not go on, is that Cornell would need to increase the maintenance costs. The library people are willing to do that by coming in to shovel out the corridor as needed. The roof could be added at a later date and time. Board Member Hoffmann asked how wide is the corridor. Mr. Pruckno stated that it is six feet wide. Board Member Bell asked if the Board was going to talk about the parking, because it was a concern at the previous hearing. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Planning Staff does not have any problems with the parking plan as proposed, based on the parking needs assessment that was provided by the applicant. • The Planning oard was in agreement that there are no problems with the proposed parking 9 g P P p p 9 • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 plan. Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Gregory Bella NOW THEREFORE, BE lT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board, based on the submission of a parking needs assessment, and pursuant to Section 9© of Local Law No. 14 - 1995, hereby finds that. a. The anticipated occupancy of the proposed structure and character of its use is such that fewer than the number of spaces required by this law would be needed to accommodate the anticipated number of cars that will be traveling to andlor parking at the building, and b. The reduction in the number of parking spaces from the 80 spaces required by Section 7(o) of Local Law No. 14 - 1995 to the 21 proposed by the applicant will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site or elsewhere, will leave S adequate parking for all of the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies of the building as proposed, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community. 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed site plan as shown in a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled "Demo Layout & Planting Plan & Details" and "Grading Plan, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan & Details'; prepared by Quinlivan, Pierik & Krause Architects and Engineers and dated July 23, 1996, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions. a. The provisions of Sections 9(c)(v), 9(c)(vi), and 9(c)(vii) of Local Law No. 14- 1995; b. The proposed planting around the chillers on the north side of the building be revised to show a double row of shrubs and include a combination of spruce and juniper species for better year -round sound attenuation, C. Submission of copies of all required permits or approvals, if any, from county, state, and federal agencies prior to issuance of building permit; • d. Submission of detailed sizing and final materials specifications of all required improvements for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to the • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 issuance of building permit; e. Submission of construction details of all proposed structures, roads, water /sewerage facilities, and other improvements for review and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of building permit; f. Submission of one original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to issuance of building permit. Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Staff what they meant in provision "b" in the proposed resolution, which states "double row of shrubs around the chillers ". Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that this could be a combination of shrubs and the Junipers or Spruce to the outside of the shrubs that are already proposed that is parallel to Palm Road. Mr. Pruckno stated that would be okay, and that the only concern would be to stay out of the drainage swale so the plantings do not die. Board Member Wilcox stated that he would like to modify provision "b" to state that the 0 plantings should be of sufficient height to visually screen the chillers and the water tank from Palm Road. Mr. Wilcox stated that he wants something within a reasonable amount of time to prevent people from Palm Road driving by from seeing the ugly chillers and the water tank sitting there. Attorney Barney stated that the two That's be broken into numbers (1. and 2.), to make clear that there are two separate issues. Attorney Barney stated that he was not clear about provision "d" and "e ". Provision "e" states "submission of construction and details" and in provision "d" states "detailed sizing and final materials specifications". Provision "d" should be included in provision «e„ Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that these are taken off of the Town's Final Site Plan Checklist, in which there are two categories. Mr. Frantz stated that detailed sizing and final materials specifications deal with road improvements and water /sewer, and then getting into construction details of the actual building, which are the types of plans that have to be submitted for review for building code compliance and the ultimate issuance of the building permit. Attorney Barney stated that he does not think that the Town's Engineer wants the responsibility to review for building code. Attorney Barney stated that he would delete provision "d ", and make provision "e" to "d" to state "submission of construction details of all proposed drainage utility structures, roads, water /sewerage facilities, and other utility and /or drainage improvements for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of building permit'. Attorney Barney stated that provision "f' would become "e ". Attorney Barney stated that provision "b" should state "proposed plantings around the chillers north side of the building • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 be revised by adding a second row of shrubs and a third perpendicular to Palm Road and to include a combination of spruce and juniper species for better year -round sound attenuation with such plantings to be subsequential within a reasonable period of time to screen the chillers from Palm Road'. There be no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #4.) Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Final Site Plan Approval for Library Annex duly closed at 8 :50 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, PURSUANT TO THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT, FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN MODIFICATION BY DENMARK DEVELOPMENT, INC., LOCATED AT 704 FIVE MILE DRIVE, AS FURTHER DESCRIBED BELOW. Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:51 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. William Downing of 215 North Cayuga Street, stated that he is the architect representing Denmark Development, Inc., the owners of which are Elizabeth and Patricia Classen. Mr. Downing stated that they have submitted an environmental assessment, and that on March 14,1995, a previously improved Site Plan was approved by this Planning Board. A use variance was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 27, 1995. The land use in the vicinity is a bus garage, public works offices, and multiple family residences. The owners propose to continue the use of this 160 year old building as a residence for the elderly in accordance with the B3 Occupancy Classification. Mr. Downing stated that they were advised by the Zoning Board of Appeals variance that this was okay. The previous Site Plan included a large addition to this building of approximately 3,000 to 4,000 square feet. There are a number of reasons, the owners have decided not to build that building, and they propose to use the building within the present foot print. Chairperson Cornell asked if the building will be left in tact, adding the staircase for the building. Mr. Downing stated that they are making provisions for code required exits and alarm systems. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Chairperson Cornell asked if there are any aspects to this that would have any environmental impact. Planner JoAnn Cornish responded, no. They are proposing to add additional parking, and with the current plan they were able to save all of the mature vegetation on the site. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the Environmental Review Committee has looked this proposal over, and a couple of the members of the Committee felt that the blazing of the addition of the roof did not fit the historical character of the architecture. They would be more happy to see fenestration that is more similar to the windows that exist, and the other possibility of not having a window there or to have siding to match the siding of the house. Director of Planning Kanter stated that he wasn't sure whether the architectural design is within the purvue of the Environmental Review Committee. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. isThat the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussions, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #5.) Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of environmental significance for Old Hundred duly closed at 8:55 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO A SITE PLAN FOR WHICH FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL WAS GRANTED ON JUNE 273 1995, FOR THE PROPOSED CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE (OLD HUNDRED) LOCATED AT 704 FIVE MILE DRIVE, TOWN •OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 31 -4 -2, TO USE AS AN ADULT RESIDENTIAL FACILITY, SAID CONVERSION TO INCLUDE INTERIOR RENOVATIONS, CONSTRUCTION OF 12 PARKING ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 SPACES, AND LANDSCAPING, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. DENMARK DEVELOPMENT, INC., OWNER; WILLIAM S. DOWNING, DOWNING BARRADAS ARCHITECTS, AGENT. Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:56 p.m., and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published. Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone from the public would like to speak. Chairperson Cornell asked if the nice trees would be left in place in the parking lot. Planner Cornish stated that the mature vegetation will remain, and they have also added some additional screening to the parking area, which is noted on the plan. There is an existing abandoned driveway that will revert back to grass, so the large lawn area will remain the same. There was some slight modification to the exterior landscaping since the Classen's bought the property, which seems to go very nicely with the house. There is some existing and proposed exterior lighting. Those details are in the packet as well. There was a site visit in which the applicants had pointed out the lights to the Planning Board members, and they seem to be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, as well as the character of the house. • Chairperson Cornell asked what the sign is going to look like. Planner Cornish stated that the existing sign will remain the same. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there was a comment about the sign from the County Planning Board, that the existing sign is located within the road right -of -way and it needs to be moved. Board Member Wilcox stated that the County did not say the sign needs to be moved, they are just saying that the sign is in the road right -of -way. The existing sign has been there for a long period of time. Mr. Wilcox stated that he remembers how long the Planning Board argued about the plans last year, and nobody liked it. Now they come back with this, and the Planning Board thinks It is very nice. Board Member Bell stated that he concurs with Board Member Wilcox. The previous plans would have imposed some very rigorous building code standards because of the nature of the use, and those would have forced the destruction of a great deal of interior architectural fabric, including door frames, plaster ceilings, and other things that nobody wanted to see get destroyed. Mr. Bell stated that he is very happy that the project has minimal impact as it is how proposed. Mr. Bell stated that some people felt that no better solution could have ever been done than what the Board saw with the earlier proposal, and he felt, at that time, that it was not true, and that there are other things that can be economically feasible, and can still work. Mr. Bell stated that, for the future, the • Board does not have any historic structure protection on the books for the Town any more now than the Town did a year ago. Fortunately, this project turned out for the best, but had these applicants ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 wanted to do something really disastrous, the Town would have very little protection due to the historic nature of the building. The Planning Board had protection on the environmental issues and other conservation issues, but not on the building issue. This should be put on the planning agenda for further discussion. Board Member Ainslie stated that the Planning Board needs to do it piece by piece. Mr. Ainslie stated that he does not think that anyone could put an overall historic ordinance on everything that is old. The Planning Board had a brief discussion about some historic places within the Town of Ithaca that should be considered for historical ordinances. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the first step toward any kind of historic preservation ordinance or regulations is to conduct a historic resource survey. The Town Board is in the process of setting up a contract with the DeWitt Historical Society to provide certain kinds of services to the Town of Ithaca; primarily to be the Town's historian, but also to look into the possibility of doing certain things, like starting the process of an historic resources survey. They most likely would not be doing a survey for the Town, but they would be able to help guide the direction the Town needs to go in. ® Board Member Wilcox asked if the proposed use is remaining the same as an adult residential care facility, as well as an adult day care facility. Mr. Downing stated that it will conform to the Zoning Board of Appeals variance that was given for B3 Occupancy, which includes residents over the age of 62 who are active, but not including adult day care facilities. Board Member Bell stated that the occupancy will be going from 3 residents to 6 residents. Board Member Wilcox stated that was far less than what was approved last year for the full addition. Board Member Bell asked if the Classen's are asking for the right to go from 3 to 6 residents. Mr. Downing stated that 6 residents are allowed. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the original use variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals covered much more than they are requesting now. The Classen's are here for the modifications to the Site Plan itself. Attorney Barney stated that they are allowed to have 14 residents, for which the use variance 0 was granted. ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 18 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 • • Director of Planning Kanter stated that the original plan had more in the way of administrative offices and the possibility of day care use in the Old Hundred Building. Board Member Wilcox stated that he wanted to make sure that the Planning Board is approving what the Zoning Board of Appeals did before or whether the Classen's need to go back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to get a new use variance. Attorney Barney stated that the use variance will continue, which was granted subject to the Site Plan approval by the Planning Board, so the variance will continue. What the Classen's have come back for is a modification to the Site Plan. Chairperson Cornell noted that this is a Public Hearing, and asked if anyone else present wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Herbert Finch: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed modified site plan entitled "Old Hundred, 704 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York" dated 8117196, prepared by Downing Barradas Architects, subject to the following conditions. a. Submission of documentation showing that the proposed use in the proposed location and the proposed operators, if required, are approved by the State Department of Social Services, the Tompkins County Department of Health, and any other appropriate regulatory authorities, and b. The existing building be brought into compliance with all applicable codes, including the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and that the appropriate building permits be obtained, and C. Submission of an original or mylar copy and two copies of the final site plan. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she wanted a provision added that the sign be moved PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 so it is not in the road right -of -way. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board talked about this previously, and the thought at the time was the sign itself is not objectionable from an aesthetic point of view. This does not have to be a condition that they have to move the sign. Mr. Downing stated that if the County wants the sign moved and if that was requested, the Classens would certainly move it. Attorney Barney asked if the Planning Board would want the documentation of the Department of Social Services approval within a specific time frame. Elizabeth Classen of 704 Five Mile Drive, stated that they are using the B3 Occupancy, and to their knowledge, that they do not require any DSS approval. Attorney Barney asked if there needs to be Department of Health Approval. Ms. Classen stated that the New York State Department of Public Health would be the entity that might need to approve this. Attorney Barney stated that this condition is followed by saying if required, so what the Planning Board is looking for is documentation that is required to run the residential facility from the appropriate departments and your lawyer to meet this requirement. Ms. Classen stated that she does not think any State permits are required. Planner Cornish stated that the Planning Staff was not sure either, and that is why they added the if required statement just in case any documentation or permits are needed. Attorney Barney asked when would the Classen's get the State Department of Health permit or approval. Ms. Classen stated that she does not think that they need this approval because they are just renting rooms to up to six elderly people. They are not renting rooms to people that are requiring care necessarily. Chairperson Cornell asked if it is more like a boarding house. Ms. Classen responded, yes, with a B3 occupancy for 62 and older independent senior citizens. Any approvals that are needed, they are willing to get and have available. Attorney Barney asked if the approvals are given prior to construction or before the people are living there. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 20 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Planner Cornish stated that most of the construction is already done. Ms. Classen stated that they already have a certificate of occupancy, and construction of the stairway needs to be done. Attorney Barney asked if they have a certificate of occupancy for six people. Ms. Classen stated that they have a certificate for three unrelated people at this point. Attorney Barney stated that the condition should read "before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any more than three unrelated people ". Board Member Wilcox stated that on or before that time, the Planning Board would receive something from their attorney showing the permits or a letter stating that they do not need any permits. Ms. Classen asked if all they would need is for the attorney to send a letter concerning the permits. • Attorney Barney stated that was correct. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #6.) Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the Old Hundred at 704 Five Mile Drive duly closed at 9:22 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A REVISED SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 43 -01 -3.32, CONSISTING OF 24512 +/- ACRES, INTO 22 LOTS, WITH 39000 +/- LINEAR FEET OF PROPOSED ROAD, AND EXTENSION OF PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER SERVICE, LOCATED BETWEEN 128 AND 134 EAST KING ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET EAST OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH DANBY ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WILL INITIALLY BE REQUESTED FOR PHASE I CONSISTING OF 8 NEW BUILDING LOTS. EVAN • MONKEMEYER, OWNER; TERRENCE M. ROSWICK, RYAN SURVEY, AGENT. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 21 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Chairperson Cornell declared the above - matter duly opened at 9:23 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. Terrence Roswick of Ryan Survey, stated that he is here tonight to present a revised sketch plan from the July meeting with the Planning Board for the original eight lots. Mr. Roswick stated that the Planning Board had requested a more complete sketch plan, showing what could happen with the rest of the property. What was submitted was a sketch plan showing the original eight lots that were proposed last time, which will be called Phase I. Phase II will be an additional 14 lots with a potential loop road. Mr. Roswick stated that he and Mr. Monkemeyer met with Mr. Kanter about the different options. The Planning Board had a site visit for a walk through of the proposed property with Mr. Monkemeyer, and there was a submission of potential development for the back side of the property. They are not committed to this sketch plan, but wanted to show how it could be developed with the extension of a road for the down hill. The initial plan is to receive an approval for Phase I which includes the eight lots. Chairperson Cornell asked if Mr. Monkemeyer owns the land where the proposed road for Phase II would go. Mr. Roswick responded, yes. is Chairperson Cornell asked if other family members own the land around his parcel. Mr. Roswick responded, yes. Chairperson Cornell asked if Mr. Monkemeyer has considered clustering the subdivision. Mr. Roswick stated that he could not speak for Mr. Monkemeyer, but that Mr. Monkemeyer is strongly opposed to clustering from a marketing standpoint. Mr. Monkemeyer does not believe that the clustered subdivision would be as marketable as the standard subdivision outlined in the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Ithaca. Board Member Wilcox stated that clustering gives Mr. Monkemeyer more options. This would give him and the Board flexibility. Chairperson Cornell stated that in this case, the Unique Natural Area borders on the property and depending on the map, that clustering would be very appropriate. Mr. Roswick stated that Mr. Monkemeyer sees the 30 foot buffers being a negative factor in selling the lots. Evan Monkemeyer of 123 East King Road, stated that what he wants to establish is a single ® family, low- density, open space, large lot size subdivision, and that he does not feel that he needs that kind of hangnail in trying to market a product that is called a cluster subdivision. Mr. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 22 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Monkemeyer stated that Deer Run has some cluster housing, which are high density town houses that are attached. Chairperson Cornell stated that is a very clustered subdivision, but there are many different kinds of cluster subdivisions. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the development across the street from this proposed property has clustered housing, which is high density housing pushed together on a small piece of ground. What he is trying to do is follow the Zoning Ordinance and the Local Laws that have been put into place and established, and allow him to do these large lots. These lots would be 30,000 square foot pieces of ground, with single houses spaced evenly across the subdivision map, and would give potential buyers the confidence that this is going to be open space. Chairperson Cornell stated that she is particularly concerned about the Unique Natural Area that is adjacent to Mr. Monkemeyer's property, and may overlap his property. This is why a clustered subdivision would be a way of keeping the houses away from that area. An alterative would be a no -build buffer area. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the Planning Board could require clustering. 9 Chairperson Cornell stated that was correct. Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Monkemeyer if he has had a chance to speak with the Town staff about what clustering can be. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he did have a meeting back in June or July with Mr. Kanter to review some different possibilities. Mr. Kanter expressed the interest in seeing the 30 foot strip around the entire development, but was mostly concerned about the land to the east. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he feels that the idea of trying to develop the land and be concerned about a piece of property that is uphill and far removed from his piece of property, that the Town is stretching it in terms of asking that they require a buffer zone. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that for any other subdivision in the Town, the Town does not require these buffer zones unless it is up against a multiple - family or a high- density residential development. Mr. Monkemeyer asked how the Town could say that there is an open piece of land that is probably not going to be developed for over 100 years, and then ask for a buffer zone up against that raw piece of land. Board Member Bell stated that the Planning Board does require buffers against empty land a lot of times. Not long ago, the Planning Board had a proposal on Route 96B (Buttermilk Valley Estates), which is against the Buttermilk Falls State Park and that developer is donating 18 acres of land to provide more buffer. Mr. Bell stated that not all of the Board Members agree that the 18 acres is in the right configuration, but it would still be for the purpose of buffering the parcels. Mr. Bell stated that there have been other examples that are similar when there is land abutting a natural ® area. Mr. Bell stated that the Planning Board is looking at a project in Coy Glen, which is related to increasing the buffer, but it is not a specific development. Mr. Bell stated that in terms of the 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 23 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 larger issue of cluster, he would like to bring to everyone's attention Commonland Crescent, which is a nine year development. This is up against the Six Mile Creek Watershed Conservation District, clustering was recommended to the developer as the Phases were built. Mr. Bell stated that there is a restriction in the deed to create a buffer against the conservation zone. Mr. Bell stated that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance does allow some negotiations about how packed a cluster subdivision is, so there is flexibility. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the market he is going for is beyond the market Board Member Bell is talking about. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that this is an open space market where the people would want separation between the houses. He will be building homes that have windows that could look outside at yards, and not see the neighbors so close. Board Member Bell stated that the Commonland Crescent are at a lower price, but they are not low income and they do sell quite well. The Commonland Crescent seems to be appealing to the academic community and stable with occupancy. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he wants the buyer to have the right to buy the lot and create a home that suits their needs. ®Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that on the Deer Run Subdivision, they were talking about lots being 70 feet wide. One type of cluster for this particular site, which may both deal with the issues that the Planning Board is raising as well as meeting Mr. Monkemeyer's concerns, would be to go with the 150 feet of lot width and 250 feet lot depth, that it would be appropriate under a cluster scenario to perhaps go with R -15 lots. This way Mr. Monkemeyer could have his 100 feet wide and deep for side yards, have the windows looking out at the side yards, or maybe 120 feet wide lots. Cluster subdivisions have been used very successfully and are very flexible. Mr. Frantz stated that there are options. Mr. Frantz stated that R -15 are 15,000 square foot lots that are 150 feet wide, and it is possible that Mr. Monkemeyer could get approximately 30 lots on that parcel by clustering, and keep approximately a third of the land as permanent open space. Mr. Monkemeyer asked if anyone could name any place else in the Town of Ithaca that has water and sewer with 30,000 square foot lots for a single family homes. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded, yes, the Southwood Subdivision was approved in 1989, on East King Road. They had all, the approvals they need and it is platted on the tax maps, which they are paying taxes for. Mr. Monkemeyer asked if it has sewer. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that is does have sewer. They extended the sewer line because they were going to develop. The owners are paying taxes on 48 R -30 lots. • Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board wants to work with Mr. Monkemeyer. The p 9 Y PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 24 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Unique Natural Area is bordering Mr. Monkemeyer's property, and there is a possibility that it is on part of his property. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Monkemeyer if he has a recommendation on how the land could be protected. Chairperson Cornell stated that if Mr. Monkemeyer is not going to cluster and have an open space area set aside, one alternative would be to have a buffer area go through part of the lots. On the submitted sketch plan those would be lots 4 and 5. Mr. Monkemeyer asked whether the buffer could be a cluster of trees which would not interfere with the marketable value of the property. Chairperson Cornell stated that this would be a buffer that nobody would do anything with. Mr. Monkemeyer asked how would the buffer protect the Unique Natural Area. Chairperson Cornell stated that it means it would be left alone. Mr. Monkemeyer asked how would that protect the area. It sounds like the Town wants to protect it by preventing people or animals from going into the Unique Natural Area. Chairperson Cornell stated that the 30 -foot buffer comes from the Cluster Subdivision • Regulations. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Subdivision Regulations require a 30 -foot buffer around the whole perimeter of a cluster development where there are adjacent residential properties. Chairperson Cornell stated that she would recommend a much larger buffer just around lots 4 and 5 to protect the Unique Natural Area. Mr. Monkemeyer asked if the buffer would fall under the setback requirements of the lot itself or would it be in addition to that. Right now he can not build close to the property because of the R -30 zoning. Attorney Barney stated that the buffer is structured with a deed restriction which prohibits construction, but allows mowing to maintain a certain level of vegetation in it. It does not have to be in addition to the setback. Chairperson Cornell stated that Board Member Hoffmann asked why the Planning Board is talking about lots 9 through 22 on the Sketch Plan, in terms of the buffer. Chairperson Cornell stated that she would prefer to keep the discussion on Phase I, because she is not sure that Phase II is feasible all the way it is drawn to try and protect the Unique Natural Area. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the reason she brought it up is that since the Unique ® Natural Area continues along the whole eastern property line, and in Phase II part of the project, there would need to be a buffer to continue along that property line. ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 25 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Director of Planning Kanter stated that during a meeting with Mr. Monkemeyer, a number of different possibilities were discussed. Mr. Kanter passed around a rough sketch outlining a possible example of a cluster lot subdivision and an open space preservation area that was shown to and provided to Mr. Monkemeyer in a previous meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that he tried to make the cluster concept clear to Mr. Monkemeyer, that he was not talking about town houses necessarily or high density housing. There are many cases where cluster subdivisions involve totally separate lots with single family, detached houses, but on different shaped or sized lots to adjust to the characteristics of the site. Mr. Kanter stated that in this particular case, the kind of open space to be preserved could be a buffer area between the developed lots and the Unique Natural Area. Mr. Kanter stated that the rough sketch that was passed around was one possible way of doing this. Regardless of whether this becomes a clustered subdivision or a conventional subdivision the Planning Board still can consider requiring that kind of buffer area between whatever developed lots there are and the Unique Natural Area. Mr. Kanter stated that the real question is how does the Town protect the adjacent area, and part of that also has to do with what Attorney Barney was asking on how well defined is the Unique Natural Area, where is it, or what is in there. Mr. Kanter stated that for these reasons, the Planning Staff has requested a study of the site to give the Board a better indication of what is really out there. Mr. Kanter stated that so far the Planning Staff has not received that type of study, so it is difficult to accurately define what is happening on the site. ®Chairperson Cornell stated that the Unique Natural Area Report indicates that the area includes a number of different habitats including the swamp white oak forest and mixed confers and hardwood floors with pitch pines posing as an open meadow. Chairperson Cornell stated that for over 100 years, it has been known as one of the most interesting ecological sites in the County. Chairperson Cornell stated that there are rare birds and insects that are also reported in this area, and there are also some scenic views. Chairperson Cornell stated that the values of this site have been studied by Cornell students and professors for over 100 years, and there is a 100 year record. Mr. Roswick stated that Barb Roder, who came to walk over of the site, looked at the list that was prepared by the County, and looked at the unique vegetation and wildlife. Mr. Roswick stated that what makes this specific Unique Natural Area interesting is the fact that there is a wetland that is perched on a hilltop. The meadow is more ancillary, but not a significant factor. Mr. Roswick stated that this property was an old field that was farmed, and was left to grow up. Mr. Roswick showed the Planning Board Members a photograph of the piece of land approximately 10 years ago. Mr. Roswick pointed out the parcel, the boundaries, and the row of trees that would break the parcel up for the two Phases. Mr. Roswick stated that Ms. Roder, the wetland consultant that Mr. Monkemeyer hired, found some of the significant vegetation was located more to the east, which is located further up on the hillside. Chairperson Cornell stated that before she felt comfortable moving the boundary line of the Unique Natural Area, she would like to see a more thorough study. Board Member Bell asked what the status of the study was. • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 26 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 Chairperson Cornell stated that the Town has asked for a more in -depth study to be done. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the study that was asked for was not necessarily to define where the boundary is, but to simply look at the Phase I segment of the site to report to the Planning Board what was found there. Mr. Kanter stated that anything that was found should be reported to the Planning Board in writing. Mr. Kanter stated that in terms of looking at Phase 11, as potential development, the Town Staff does not need a detailed study of Phase II in order to say that Phase I could go ahead. Mr. Kanter stated that before the Planning Board agrees to any specific configuration for Phase 11, that the Board would want to see that same type of study done. Chairperson Cornell stated that she can see where Phase I, with modifications, could exist in this area. Chairperson Cornell stated that she still has questions about Phase 11. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she feels differently about this. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it does not make sense to look at the layout of Phase I unless the Board sees a layout of Phase II to see that the whole development could be laid out in a way that makes sense. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she cannot see how the layout can be until there is a basic study that the Board could look at as to what there is on the whole site that might need to be protected. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Board should have a better look at the site to the east, so the Board knows what there is there. Mr. Roswick stated that they could not provide information for the eastern parcel which belongs to Ithaca College. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she understands that, and that a field trip was scheduled, but was postponed. The field trip will be rescheduled for this site, and this would help them to see what is actually there. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she does not see how the Board could just look at Phase I without knowing what is on the land for Phase 11, or what kind of configuration that would make sense in combination with Phase I. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the parcel needs to be looked at as a whole. Chairperson Cornell state that Phase I could be built and then Phase II may never be built. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to see a layout for the whole piece of land, and after she sees that, she would be able to approve Phase I to be built. Mr. Roswick asked Board Member Hoffmann what part of Phase II does not make sense to her. Mr. Roswick stated that Phase II fulfills the zoning requirements for lot size and it has a loop road with a potential extension to the west. Board Member Wilcox stated that the problem is that lots 12, 13, 14, and 15 might not be buildable, but the Board does not know that at this point. 6 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 27 SEPTEMBER 17,1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Planner Geri Tierney stated that if they want to think about feasible road connections for the future for Phase I, the road shown on the Sketch Plan currently does not meet the subdivision regulations because the curve in the road is too severe. The road in the layout for Phase II does not meet the Town's current regulations. Mr. Roswick stated that issues of the curve and the radius of the road are usually hammered out in the Preliminary Plan. Mr. Roswick stated that he would like to get a consensus on what is an acceptable plan for the sketch plan to move forward. Planner Tierney pointed out that Mr. Monkemeyer would not be able to use this layout for a road for Phase II. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the minimum radius for a road curve is 140 feet, but on the sketch plan there is only 80 feet. Mr. Roswick stated that he may have to loose lot 22 completely, and this could be modified in the Preliminary Plan for Phase II. Board Member Bell stated that even if there was no Unique Natural Area, he would be •concerned about the road configuration. Mr. Bell stated that there is empty land to the west and the north, both areas are developable for more subdivisions, and he does not think it is responsible to stick dead end roads out into nowhere which this plan does. Mr. Bell stated that this would eliminate the possibility for development to the north because there would be no access to it, and the development to the west shows a lot of vacant land that does not fit in with the picture of the area. Mr. Bell stated that he can not vote for something when he does not know what the rest of the picture is. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the surrounding lands of Ithaca College has no master land use plan, but their approvals come right out of this Board. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he thinks it is totally unreasonable to ask someone to create a master land use plan for their property when the surrounding neighbors have absolutely none. Board Member Bell stated that he is not disagreeing with Mr. Monkemeyer on that actual thing, but he is saying that he would like to see, but not that he has to supply it. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that his plan is being presented and that he can not wait for Ithaca College's plans. Planner Tierney stated that there seems to be some discrepancy about the land owners in the area. Ms. Tierney stated that the land to the west of the proposed site is owned by Herbert Monkemeyer Trust, and the land to the north is owned by Lenore Monkemeyer. Ithaca College owns the land to the east, and no one is questioning any road connection to that parcel. ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 1 28 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED =OCTOBER 1, 1996 Mr. Monkemeyer stated that Ithaca College continues north, and has approximately 300 to 500 acres going both to Coddington Road and to King Road down to Route 96B. Board Member Wilcox stated that a few months back, Mr. Monkemeyer wanted to rezone this property to R -15 for flexibility, and asked if he had changed his mind about this. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he was told that the Planning Board will not entertain that. Board Member Wilcox asked Mr. Monkemeyer if he would like to get the benefits of R -15 without having a zoning change. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the problem is that he wants large lots. He wants a traditional looking subdivision. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he wants 30,000 square -foot lots. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Monkemeyer why he originally wanted to rezone to R -15. Mr. Monkemeyer stated because of the setbacks and the side yard requirements for the flexibility of people to move their houses on the lots, and to have building coverage to build a large unit all on one level. Attorney Barney stated that a cluster subdivision would be exactly that. Mr. Monkemeyer asked how he would be able to fit 30,000 square foot lots with the same amount of land for a clustering. Board Member Wilcox stated that Mr. Monkemeyer has a perception of clustering as being small lots and high density on one side and open space on the other. Mr. Wilcox stated that what clustering does is give the Town some flexibility to try and meet what Mr. Monkemeyer wants to do. Clustering does not mean high density. There are some regulations that come with it, but it has not been explored thoroughly because Mr. Monkemeyer has a perception that clustering means something that it really does not mean. Attorney Barney stated that the magic of cluster allows the Planning Board to alter what would otherwise be required dimensions of lots and setbacks that relate to those lots. If Mr. Monkemeyer goes clustered, he could still have the 30,000 square foot lots which could have the building line less than 25 feet from the road or less than 40 feet from the side line. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that with clustering, Mr. Monkemeyer could have one house 10 feet from a side line as long as the next house is 20 feet from the side line, so there is 30 feet between buildings. 0 Director of Planning Kanter stated that if the Board wanted to consider it, Mr. Monkemeyer could have a smaller front yard setback than required in R -30, thus allowing to pull houses back 6 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 29 SEPTEMBER 17,1996 APPROVED =OCTOBER 1, 1996 further from the Unique Natural Area, especially Lots 4 and 5. Chairperson Cornell stated that by pulling away from the Unique Natural Area, the objections of the Board are diminished substantially. Chairperson Cornell stated that she would like to see Mr. Monkemeyer build within the constraints of the land and the landscape. Chairperson Cornell stated that she understands that Mr. Monkemeyer does not see the constraints that she does, but she thinks Mr. Monkemeyer could get a very interesting development if he does that. Chairperson Cornell stated that clustering could be anything that he imagines it to be and a whole lot more. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that it sounds like the Board is trying to do is to try and keep people and animals out of this Unique Natural Area. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board is only trying to keep development out of it. Mr. Monkemeyer asked what other solutions are there. Chairperson Cornell stated that not to development on the Unique Natural Area, and stay enough away from it. SDirector of Planning Kanter stated that there is no reason why a buffer area cannot include the addition of landscaping or trees. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board needs to see what is actually there. If it is compatible, a lot of trees would be great. Director of Planning Kanter stated, for example, if somebody went in and mowed the edge of a wetland, and then brought a subdivision proposal to the Planning Board, the Board would not like that, but there is no reason they could not say revegetate the edge of the wetland that was mowed. Mr. Kanter stated that a buffer does not mean that things can not be planted in it, but no permanent structures could be built there, and it could also mean no cutting of trees. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board needs to know exactly what is there to decide what kind of buffer could be established. Mr. Monkemeyer asked what the legal implications of a buffer mean. Attorney Barney stated that the Town would leave it as part of a lot. For example, for lots 4 and 5, that there would be a 100 foot buffer in a deed restriction that would be a condition in the subdivision approval where there would be no activity to occur in the 100 foot buffer. Attorney Barney stated that the buyer of that lot would need to get this put into their deed restriction to be imposed upon the lot owner to respect that part of the buffer. • Mr. Monkemeyer asked if anyone in the Town ever considered the marketability of a lot with Y Y Y • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES a buffer requirement. 30 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1.1996 Chairperson Cornell responded, yes. SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it has not been a problem with other subdivisions. Attorney Barney stated that in some respects it probably enhances the value of the subdivision because it would assure the area that there would be no development around their property. Chairperson Cornell stated that there have been studies done for greenways and open space developments to see how the market is effected by having buffers. In general, they find that there are no effects or it enhances the value of the property. There are buyers that would want that type of situation. Chairperson Cornell stated that Phase I would work if Mr. Monkemeyer manipulated the lots so that he could have a 100 foot buffer on lots 4 and 5 along the Unique Natural Area to be acceptable. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not want to go on until she sees another plan for the whole parcel. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to see a Phase I of a plan that hangs together better than this one does, and where both Phases are more acceptable together. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that when he began the process he came in with eight lots, and the Planning Board asked him to show what would happen in the rear portion of the parcel. This is a conceptual plan, but now the Board is asking for more firm plans that work better. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he is showing the Board the -density, the number of potential lots that could be developed on the total parcel. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the Board heard from the Planning Staff that Phase II will not work because of the configuration of the road. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that it would be less, it would not be more. Mr. Monkemeyer asked if the Board's intention was to lessen the density. Board Member Hoffmann responded, not necessarily. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to see a good layout on the whole parcel. Phase I looks fine, but she would like to see a layout for Phase II that is workable and makes sense together with Phase I. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to see the layout within the restraints after the Board knows what is on the site, such as plants and animals that need protection. Board Member Wilcox stated that this Board does not want to decrease the density, unless there is a problem with the site. Mr. Wilcox stated that the Board is looking to work with Mr. Monkemeyer to come up with a workable solution, and it does not apply to less lots or anything like that. Mr. Wilcox stated that Mr. Monkemeyer has the right to build and the Planning Board has the right to make sure that the development fits the site. ® PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 31 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he does not care if the Board wants to reduce the density. Board Member Wilcox stated that is not what the Board is trying to do, the Board just wants to protect the Unique Natural Area and help Mr. Monkemeyer work through this. Board Member Ainslie stated that the Board is trying to tell Mr. Monkemeyer to do a total evaluation of everything that walks or flies on this property. Mr. Ainslie asked if that type of study would need to be a year long study. Chairperson Cornell responded, no. Chairperson Cornell stated that the park issue still needs to be discussed. Attorney Barney stated that the whole purpose of a sketch plan is to give guidance to the developer as to what this Board might find acceptable subject to the full scale of the environmental studies and public hearings that are held. Attorney Barney stated that he hears a lot of criticism, but he does not hear what might be acceptable here. The Board wants a full scale plan of the whole thing, but Mr. Monkemeyer is not looking to subdivide the other piece. The Board should only be looking at subdividing Phase I. The Board should be reasonable in saying they want to get an idea, but to ask him to design the full property to meet all the standards when he is not planning it, is ®unreasonable. Attorney Barney stated that this Board needs to focus on what Mr. Monkemeyer needs for Phase I and what is acceptable. When Mr. Monkemeyer comes in for Preliminary Site Plan Approval, the Environmental Assessment Form should disclose what is there and what is not there, and then the Board would make a determination of whether the Environmental Assessment Form is adequate or not. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board should be at the point of getting to the park land issue. The Planning Board's responsibility is to give people an idea of what needs to be done for the Preliminary Approval to make sure everything is satisfactory for Final Approval, but there is a lot of work that needs to be done. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Monkemeyer if he wanted to review Phase I separately from Phase II or combine the two Phases. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he only wants to do Phase I at this point. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Planning Board will need to discuss the park land issue. Planner Tierney stated that as development proceeds in that area, that there will be a need for a community park. Ms. Tierney stated that it would be possible that the part of the land designated as Phase II would be suitable for such uses, and the Board has the ability to request 10% of the land be set aside as park land. Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if the Town owned the park adjacent to the Montessori ® School. I n U PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 32 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 Director of Planning Kanter responded, no, not yet. This was brought up at the last meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that Mr. Monkemeyer reported that the Estate's attorneys were going to put together some paperwork on that. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he has letters to testamentary, so he does have the authority to transfer a deed. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he mentioned at the last meeting that he felt the Ithaca Montessori School should have the opportunity to expand into those lands that were proposed as Town park, and that the Town could consider another location or another piece of ground. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that there has been talk about expanding that school from a grade school to a middle school as a private school. Director of Planning Kanter stated that is certainly something that the Planning Board would want to consider in conjunction with the overall of the development of the South Hill area. Mr. Kanter pointed out on the map for the Board where the previously approved park land next to Montessori School was, and then pointed out another area where a potential community park has been identified as a possibility. Mr. Kanter stated that the area of a possible community park would be in the middle of the three Monkemeyer parcels on approximately 7 to 10 acres. Mr. Kanter stated that in the future there is certainly more development potential in the area on the other parcels around this location. Mr. Kanter stated that this would help the Montessori School by using this potential park land, and then the school could expand out. Board Member Ainslie asked if Deer Run has a community park. Director of Planning Kanter stated that there is a small park called Troy Park, which is approximately 4.2 acres. Board Member Ainslie asked if Chase Pond had a park. Director of Planning Kanter responded, no. Board Member Ainslie asked if a park was required as part of Chase Farm. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that they were required to dedicate a bikeway easement across their property from King Road down to the Deer Run development. Director of Planning Kanter stated that there was Phase II of Chase Farm, that never happened, which was supposed to have a small park. Board Member Ainslie asked if Chase Farm was still required to have a small park or were they to remit money. • Director of Planning Kanter responded, neither. Mr. Kanter stated that the way the Board conditioned the approval for Phase I was that Phase 11 would include the park, but there were no • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 33 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 • contingencies if that did not happen .so it did not have to occur, unless Phase II is built. Board Member Wilcox stated that even though Wally Wiggins phased his subdivision, the Town gets the park land as Phase I, even though it is a discontinuous piece of property. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in Mr. Wiggins development, the Board looked at the whole layout of the parcel before approval was given for Phase I. Board Member Wilcox asked what the Troy Road Park was used for, and asked if it slopes like Troy Road does. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the park slopes like Troy Road, and it is only really suitable for a play structure and a little lawn area. Most of the Troy Road Park is remaining in its natural state because it is a fairly steep slope in that area. Board Member Ainslie asked if it would have been better if they had remitted money. Director of Planning Kanter stated that maybe the Board could have required a small piece for a playground then some additional fee in lieu of because the rest of the land was not appropriate for recreational facilities. Board Member Wilcox stated that the Board did not have the right to take money in lieu of land at that time. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Town had the right, but not the mechanism. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town can not necessarily take a request from an applicant who wants to contribute a fee in lieu of park land instead of reserving park land, and say okay. Mr. Kanter stated that there are steps that need to be done to reach a decision of requiring a fee in lieu of. One is if there is need for a park or recreational facilities on the site, and in most subdivision cases the answer would be yes. Second, would be, is the particular site where the subdivision is proposed appropriate or feasible for a park facility, and that is the very question that might have applied to Troy Park. Mr. Kanter stated that this should be something the Board should think about for this particular site in regard to the characteristics of the site. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that at the last meeting he pointed out that there are two pieces of land on top of the hill on either side of Hospicare. One is to the west that Cornell owns, which was just down zoned from Multiple Family to R -15 a year ago. On the other side of the Malloy subdivision, there is a piece of land that Bill Manos still owns, which was down zoned from multiple residence to R -15, and that is on the flat plateau. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the Town's equipment is sitting on that land. 0. Director of Planning Kanter stated that it was discussed at the previous meeting, and there were two parts of the response given at that meeting. The site on the west of Hospicare is owned O PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 34 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED =OCTOBER 1, 1996 by Cornell University, and that has been added into the permanently protected natural area, and it definitely covers some of the swamp area itself, so that is not going to be a good place for a recreational facility. The Manos site on the east side is level and probably a good area for certain kinds of recreational facilities, but is not big enough for a community park because it is approximately 2 to 3 acres. Mr. Monkemeyer asked what could Manos do with a site that size. Director of Planning Kanter stated that Mr. Manos could build possibly up to 10 houses on that lot under R -15 zoning. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that is the question Mr. Manos should have asked himself before he subdivided it off and created that parcel. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that if the Board is looking for level sites on South Hill, that the Board will have to look off the hill or drastically cut and fill most sites on South Hill. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the problem with the Manos property, from the stand point of the Town's program for park development, is that it is not large enough for facilities 40 such as soccer fields and ball fields. Board Member Wilcox asked Mr. Monkemeyer if he has control of the Herbert Monkemeyer Trust property to the west. Mr. Monkemeyer responded, yes. Board Member Wilcox asked if the Board was thinking about swapping the previously proposed park land by the Montessori School to the potential park land Mr. Kanter was referring to earlier, would Mr. Monkemeyer have legal authority to say yes or no. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that was correct. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that his sister also has a 50 acre piece to the north that lies in the Unique Natural Area. A portion of that land may be available. Board Member Wilcox stated that the park lands that could be swapped would carve a nice park land by getting road way from Mr. Monkemeyer's parcel. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the final decisions on all of this do not have to be made, in order to go ahead with Phase I. What would need to be done when the Preliminary Plat comes in for Phase I is to have it well established in the Board's mind, what they want to do so that appropriate conditions for Phase I can be determined. • Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he has a plan that will work. His only question with the buffer • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 35 1 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 requirement up against the Unique Natural Area. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he thinks that there could be some compromise on that, but he does not want anything put into a legal encroachment or covenant that would be in a deed that would restrict the property owner's rights to make use of their land to it's fullest extent. Attorney Barney asked how else would the buffer be protected. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that there are rear and side yard setbacks where people can not put any structures in them. Attorney Barney stated that people could put anything they want in their rear yards within reason. The purpose of the buffer is to make sure that people do not put any construction there. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he would be agreeable to putting in dense plantings of conifer trees, three to four feet apart. Attorney Barney stated that he recommends that Mr. Monkemeyer talk to the Planning Staff about the different ways of restricting the buffer. Director of Planning Kanter stated that staff is always willing to talk, but that nothing gets resolved until coming to the Planning Board. The Planning Board needs to give a firm directive in saying that Mr. Monkemeyer needs to come back showing a buffer with so many feet. Attorney Barney asked the Planning Board Members if they want a buffer for this subdivision. Chairperson Cornell stated that Nancy Ostman from the Cornell Plantations suggested that a 100 -foot buffer would be sufficient to protect the sensitive areas. Board Member Finch asked if the buffer would begin at the edge of the sensitive area and extend 100 feet from that edge. Chairperson Cornell stated that it would be 100 feet from the property line. Planner Tierney stated that assuming that there are no sensitive areas on the Monkemeyer property, the 100 -foot buffer would start from the edge of Mr. Monkemeyer's land in Phase I only. Board Member Bell stated that the Unique Natural Area does not correspond with the property line on the maps provided by the Planning Staff. Planner Tierney stated that it would need to be confirmed whether or not there is a sensitive area. If the Board found that there are sensitive areas on the land, then the Board would have to • consider where to put the buffer. Ms. Tierney stated that this is something that could only be considered when there is written verification on what is there. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 36 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Director of Planning Kanter stated that this would be part of the Environmental Assessment Form for the Preliminary Approval. Chairperson Cornell asked the Planning Board Members what their opinions were on the 100 foot buffer starting from Mr. Monkemeyer's property line to correspond with the Unique Natural Area. Chairperson Cornell stated that she would need more information before she could be certain that 100 feet was necessary. Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Monkemeyer, since the study has been done by the his consultant, and the conclusion was that there were no sensitive areas, if that report could be written up quickly. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that it would be appropriately presented to the Board through the SEAR process. Attorney Barney asked what the Planning Board wants to do with the 100 foot buffer. Mr. Monkemeyer asked what happens if the report shows nothing. •Chairperson Cornell stated that if the report shows nothing and the Town verifies that report is correct, then there would be a 100 foot buffer. Board Member Bell stated that the Planning Board had this discussion regarding the Buttermilk Valley Estates Subdivision in terms of the meaning of land as a buffer versus other things as a buffer. Mr. Bell stated that development was 450 feet from the nearest house to Lake Treman with a host of unique species, and this proposal is not that dissimilar. Mr. Bell stated that he wanted to see some other kinds of examinations of other kinds of barriers such as fences. Mr. Bell stated that if household dogs and cats eat birds all the time as the Board was told, that there are other issues besides just land. Chairperson Cornell stated that this is far more unique and it is right there, not 450 feet away. Board Member Bell stated that he wanted to see a buffer, but more than 100 feet of land. Board Member Wilcox stated that he is not convinced a buffer is necessary either way, but would like information to find out. Chairperson Cornell stated that if the information comes back that it is necessary, would the Board still be interested in the buffer. Board Member Wilcox stated that if the information comes back that there is a significant • natural area there and rare species, does the Board want a buffer, yes. J u PLANNING BOARD MINUTES y 37 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1. 1996 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Staff's point of view is that some buffer distance is probably a good idea. The staff just does not know where the edge of the valuable natural area is at this point, but from the site visit it seemed apparent. The Planning Staff needs to check out the consultant's environmental report. Board Member Kenerson stated that if the information supports the buffer, yes, but this would all come out in the regular forms of environmental significance. Board Member Finch stated that he does not have a problem with the buffer. Board Member Ainslie stated that he does not have a problem with a buffer. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to see the 100 -foot buffer on the assumption that the Unique Natural Area starts at the property boundary line. Director of Planning Kanter indicated that it appeared that a Full Environmental Assessment Form should be submitted by the applicant, given the Board's concerns with the Unique Natural Area. Attorney Barney concurred Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Sketch Plan for Evan Monkemeyer Subdivision duly closed at 10:56 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD ON A PROPOSED "LOCAL LAW REGULATING SIGNS IN THE TOWN OF ITHACA, NEW YORK, AND AMENDING, RESTATING, AND RE- ENACTING TOWN OF ITHACA LOCAL LAW NO. 6 - 1980." Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 10:57 p.m., and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published. Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. ''.No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for further discussion. Board Member Hoffmann asked for some clarifications on the proposed Town of Ithaca Sign Law. After a brief discussion, Board Member Hoffmann was satisfied with the proposed Town of Ithaca Sign Law with some minor spelling corrections. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XI V, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that. O PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 38 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 - a. There is a need for the proposed local law revising the current Town of Ithaca sign Law; and b. The existing and probable future character of the Town will not be adversely affected; and C. The proposed local law is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed "Local Law Regulating Signs in the Town of Ithaca, New York, and Amending, Restating, and Re- enacting Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 6 - 1980." There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAYS - None. • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #7.) Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Recommendation to the Town Board for the proposed Sign Law duly closed at 11:20 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: INFORMAL DISCUSSION OF BAKER PARCEL (TAX PARCEL NO. 58-1- 14.2), SLATERVILLE ROAD, Chairperson Cornell decided due to the lateness of the meeting to postpone this agenda item until the October 1996 Planning Board Meeting. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: JULY 16, 1996 AND AUGUST 6, 19960 The Planning Board decided to consider approval of July 16, 1996 Minutes at the October 1 st Meeting. • MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the August 6, 1996, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 39 SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 APPROVED - OCTOBER 1, 1996 Board be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. AYES - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. ABSTAIN - Wilcox. The MOTION was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the field trip for the South Hill Swamp has been rescheduled for Thursday, September 26, 1996, at 4:00 p.m., and all members are urged to come. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT. Upon MOTION, Chairperson Cornell declared the September 17, 1996, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 11:25 p.m. • DRAFTED by Debby Kelley on 9/96. • Pr pared by: a� e orah A. Kelley, Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder. Mar Bry t, Administrative Secretary. ® TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD'4, ATTGE�NDANCE SHEETY Date /�7/�%� PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME' ADDRESS OR AFFILIATE" (Please PRINT to ensure Accuracy in Official'Minutes)l 96 Ll IG Aa/ S- flu( Q QU(NUVW �i�'(Zlr- KZNn5C-7 Xle 42 ;z LY4 ® ADOPTED RESOLUTION. SEQR Updike Two -lot Subdivision 421 Sheffield Road Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 17, 1996 MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS. 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 4.2 +/- acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -27.2, 9.85 +/- acres total area and located at 421 Sheffield Road, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -27.3, located at 451 Sheffield Road, AG- Agricultural District. Carl R. and Edna M. Updike, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on September 17, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II is prepared by the Town Planning Department, a survey entitled "Map of Survey Parcel of Land Owned by Carl R. & Edna M. Updike, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L.S. dated December 19, 1991 and revised May 23, 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, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAY - None. MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording Secfetary ® Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 9/18/96, v n U ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Updike Two -lot Subdivision 421 Sheffield Road Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 17, 1996 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 4.2 +/- acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -27.2, 9.85 +/- acres total area and located at 421 Sheffield Road, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -27.3, located at 451 Sheffield Road, AG- Agricultural District. Carl R. and Edna M. Updike, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on September 17, 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 September 17, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey entitled "Map of Survey Parcel of Land Owned by Carl R. & Edna M. Updike, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L.S. dated December 19, 1991 and revised May 23, 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 Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 4.2 +/- acres from Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 27.2, 9.85 +/- acres total area and located at 421 Sheffield Road, for consolidation with Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1 -27.3, located at 451 Sheffield Road, as shown on a survey entitled "Map of Survey Parcel of Land Owned by Carl R. & Edna M. Updike, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" prepared by Robert S. Russler, Jr., L.S. dated December 19, 1991 and revised May 23, 1996 and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: • 0 n L`J Updike Two -lot Subdivision 421 Sheffield Road Preliminary and Final Subdivision Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 17, 1996 a. within six months of created to the owner Planner of a copy of communication from Assessment requestin No. 27 -1 -27.3; and -Page 2- Approval, this approval, conveyance of the 4.2 +/- acre parcel to be of Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -27.3, and delivery to the Town the recorded deed to such owners, and a copy of the such owners to the Tompkins County Division of g consolidation of said 4.2 +/- acre parcel with Tax Parcel b, submission for signature by the Planning Board Chairperson of an original or mylar copy and four (4) paper copies of the approved plat, with required Surveyor's Certification, prior to filing with the office of the Tompkins County Clerk. AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 9/18/96. ( FILENAME: #12 \St=\Resols \updikSub.fin Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements Section 37. Form of Final Plat. 010 A final plat with the following the Office of the Town Engineer to the Planning Board meeting at requested. information must be filed in at least ten (10) days prior which final approval is ✓ Four dark -line prints of the proposed plat. , Fully completed Environmental Assessment Forms, with comments from the Town Engineer or Town Planner indicating whether the proposed subdivision is a Type I, Type II, or Unlisted action and indicating a recommendation for negative or positive declaration of environmental impacts. ✓ Highway and alley boundary or right -of -way lines, showing boundary, right -of -way or easement width and any other information needed for locating such lines; purposes of easements. Highway center lines,. showing angles of deflection, angles of intersection, radii, lengths of tangents and arcs, and degree of curvature, with basis of curve data. Lengths and distances shall be to the nearest one - hundredth foot. Angles shall abe to the nearest half minute. IV names. Key map, when more than one sheet is required to present plat. ✓ Accurate locations and descriptions of all subdivision monuments. NIA Accurate outlines and descriptions of any areas to be dedicated or reserved for public use or acquisition, with the purposes indicated thereon, any areas to be reserved by deed covenant for common uses of all property owners in the subdivision. W Border lines bounding the sheet., one -inch from the left edge and one -half inch from each of the other edges; all information, including all plat lines, lettering, signatures, and seals, shall be within the border lines. ✓ Building setback lines with dimensions. ✓ Date of Plat. ✓ Exact boundary lines of the tract, indicated by a heavy line, giving dimensions to the nearest one - hundredth foot, angles to the nearest one -half minute, and at least one bearing; the traverse shall be balanced and closed with an error of closure not to exceed one to two thousand; the type of closure shall be noted. Location and description of all section line corners and government survey monuments in or near the subdivision, to at least one of which the subdivision shall be referenced by true courses and distances. Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements -4- Location, name, and dimensions of each existing highway and alley and each utility, drainage, or similar easement within, abutting, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed subdivision. ✓ Location of the property by legal description, including areas in acres or square feet. Source of title, including deed record book and page numbers. ✓ Name and address of all owners of the property and name and address of all persons who have an interest in the property, such as easements or rights -of -way. ✓ Lot lines, fully dimensioned, with lengths to the nearest one - hundredth foot and angles or bearings to the nearest one -half minute. y/ Map Scale (1" =50' or 1" =100') and north point. Nlk Mortgagor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by the mortgagor(s) if any, to the effect that he consents to the-plat and the dedications and restrictions shown on or referred to on the plat. ✓ Name of subdivision, which shall not duplicate the name of any other subdivision in the country. ✓ Name of Town, County, and State. Name(s) and address(es) of the owner(s). ✓ Name (s) and address( es) of the zubdivider(s) , if the subdivider(s) is (are) not the owner(s). Name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic information. Date of survey. _✓ Name and seal of registered and surveyor who made the boundary survey. Date of the survey. ✓ Names and addresses of owners of all parcels abutting the proposed subdivision. Names of recorded subdivisions abutting the proposed subdivision. ✓ Owner's certificate: a certificate signed by the owner(s) to the effect the he /they owns the land, that he has caused the land to be surveyed and divided, and that he makes the dedications indicated on the plat. Certification signed by the chairman or other designated official or agent of the Planning Board to the effect that the plat was given preliminary approval by the Planning Board. Reference on the plat to any separate. instruments, including restrictive covenants, which directly affect the land in the subdivision. U Preliminary & Final Subdivision Plat Requirements -5- vNO Surveyor's certificate: certificate signed and sealed by a ® registered land surveyor to the effect that (1) the plat represents a survey made by °him, (2) the plat is a correct representation of all exterior boundaries of the land surveyed and the subdivision of it, (3) all monuments indicated on the plat actually exist and their location, size and material are correctly shown, and (4) the requirements of these regulations and New York State laws relating to subdividing and surveying have been complied i13i1` 0,1.5 with. 1,I01Z Tax and assessment certificate: a certificate signed by the county treasurer and other officials as may be appropriate, �a �5 to the effect that there are no unpaid taxes due on the land fe being subdivided and payable at the time of plat approval and no unpaid special assessments, and that all outstanding taxes and special assessments have been paid on all property dedicated to public use. ,'L The blocks are numbered consecutively throughout the subdivision and the lots are numbered consecutively throughout each block. CoNO The original or mylar copy of the .plat to be recorded and four dark -line prints, on one or more sheets. Two copies of the County Health Department approval of the water supply and /or sewerage system. ✓ Vicinity Map - showing the general location of the property, 1" =1000' or 1" =20001 . Width at building line of lots located on a curve or having non - parallel side lines, when required by the Planning Board. Preliminary & Final subdivision Plat Requirements 4006- Section 38. Improvement Plans and Related Information. 1. Where improvements are required for a proposed subdivision, the following documents shall be submitted to the Planning Board. Detailed construction plans and specifications for water lines, including locations land descriptions of mains, valves, hydrants, appurtenances, etc. Detailed construction plans, profiles, and specifications for sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities, including locations and descriptions of pipes, manholes, lift stations, and other facilities. Highway paving plans and specifications. The estimated cost of: a) grading and filling, b) Culverts, swales and other storm drainage facilities, c) sanitary sewers, d) water lines, valves, and fire hydrants, e) paving, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, f) any other improvements - required by.these regulations. �A The plan and profile of each proposed highway in the subdivision, with grade indicated,--drawn to a scale of one- inch equals 50 feet horizontal, and one -inch equals 5 feet vertical, on standard plan . and profile sheets. - Pro£il--es shall show accurately the profile of the highway or alley along the highway - center line and location of the sidewalks, if any. Prelimi &Final SD 6/8/95 El ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Cornell University Library Storage Facility Palm Road, Cornell University Final Site Plan Approval Planning Board, September 17, 1996 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Gregory Bell: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed expansion of the Library Storage Facility (Library Annex) in Cornell's Precinct 7, to consist of a 15,000 +/- square foot addition for storage of low circulation library books and associated office space, a new loading dock, additional parking spaces and landscaping, located on Palm Road off Route 366, on a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64 -1 -1, consisting of 50 +/- acres, Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 9. Cornell University, Owner; Thomas Pruckno, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on June 18, 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and further, granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, and 0 3, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on September 17, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a site plan submission which includes a parking needs assessment, drawings entitled "Demo Layout & Planting Plan & Details" and "Grading Plan, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan & Details ", prepared by Quinlivan, Pierik & Krause Architects and Engineers and dated July 23, 1996, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board, based on the submission of a parking needs assessment, and pursuant to Section 9(c) of Local Law No. 14 - 1995, hereby finds that: a. the anticipated occupancy of the proposed structure and character of its use is such that fewer than the number of spaces required by this law would be needed to accommodate the anticipated number of cars that will be traveling to and/or parking at the building, and ba the reduction in the number of Section 7(o) of Local Law No. will not adversely affect traffic adequate parking for all of the the building as proposed, and welfare of the community. parking spaces from the 80 spaces required by 14 - 1995 to the 21 proposed by the applicant flow on the project site or elsewhere, will leave reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies of vill not otherwise adversely affect the general • • C Cornell University Library Storage Facility Palm Road, Cornell University Final Site Plan Approval Planning Board, September 17, 1996 -Page 2- 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed site plan as shown in a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled "Demo Layout & Planting Plan & Details" and "Grading Plan, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan & Details ", prepared by Quinlivan, Pierik & Krause Architects and Engineers and dated July 23, 1996, and other application materials, subject to, the following conditions: a. the provisions of Sections 9(c)(v), 9(c)(vi), and 9(c)(vii) of Local Law No. 14 - 1995; b, the proposed plantings around the chillers on the north side of the building be revised by adding a second row of shrubs and another row perpendicular to Palm Road, and include a combination of spruce and juniper species for better year -round sound attenuation, such plantings to be such that they will, within a reasonable period of time, screen the Chillers from Palm Road; C. submission of copies of all required permits or approvals, if any, from county, state and federal agencies prior to issuance of building permit; d, submission of construction details of all proposed drainage and utility structures, roads, water /sewerage facilities, and other utility and/or drainage improvements for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of building permit; e, submission of one original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to issuance of building permit. AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. lk &40 Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 9/18/96. Filename: #12 \Starr\Resols \cuanxfin.fin r1 FINAL SITE PLAN CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME wBRAkY STORAGE FAMMY PROJECT NUMBER 1& 01 ! yo PREPARER V = ITEM SUBMITTED N/A = NOT APPLICABLE W = WAIVE COND = CONDITION OF APPROVAL 6cog&r FfZANT� 1. ✓ Completed and signed Development Review Application, Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (if required). (Only (1) copy each.) 20, ✓ Payment of additional review fees as needed and deposited in an escrow account.. 3. All other items submitted with the preliminary site plan application with modifications made according to the approval given by the Town Planning Board. 40 como 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. 5. coNa Detailed sizing and final material specifications of all required improvements. 60 u NO Construction details of all proposed structures, roads, water /sewage facilities, and other improvements. 7. eaao One (1) Original or,mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. PLANBORD \FINALSITE mb/5/14/96 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR Old Hundred 704 Five Mile Drive Denmark Development, Inc. Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Planning Board, September 17, 1996 MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for proposed modifications to a site plan for which Final Site Plan Approval was granted on June 27, 1995, for the proposed conversion of an existing structure located at 704 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 4 -2, to be used as an adult residential facility. Said conversion to include interior renovations, an exterior staircase to be used for emergency egress, construction of 12 parking spaces, and landscaping. Residence District R -30, Denmark Development, Inc., Owner; William S. Downing, Downing Barradas Architects, 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 September 17, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning Staff, a site plan entitled "Old Hundred, 704 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York" dated 8/17/96, prepared by Downing Barradas Architects, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan, as proposed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance I n accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above - referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAY _ None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. U(ju Starr Hays, Recording Se retary, is Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 9/18/96. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Old Hundred 704 Five Mile Drive Denmark Development, Inc. Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Planning Board, September 17, 1996 MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Herbert Finch: WHEREAS. 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for proposed modifications to a site plan for which Final Site Plan Approval was granted on June 27, 1995, for the proposed conversion of an existing structure located at 704 Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 4-2, to be used as an adult residential facility. Said conversion to include interior renovations, an exterior staircase to be used for emergency egress, construction of 12 parking spaces, and landscaping. Residence District R -30, Denmark Development, Inc., Owner; William S. Downing, Downing Barradas Architects, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on September 17, 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and • 3. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted a use variance for the proposed Bridges of Ithaca (now referred to as Old Hundred) facility on May 10, 1995, conditioned upon the applicant obtaining site plan approval from the Planning Board, and 4. The Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval on June 27, 1995 for the original site plan entitled 'Bridges, 704 Five Mile Drive" dated 3/14/95, prepared by Manzari & Reagan Surveyors, and 5. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on September 17, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning Staff, and a site plan entitled "Old Hundred, 704 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York" dated 8/17/96, prepared by Downing Barradas Architects, and additional 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 Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and • Old Hundred, 704 Five Mile Drive Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval Planning Board, September 17, 1996 -Page 2- 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants`Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed modified site plan entitled "Old Hundred, 704 Five Mile Drive, Ithaca, New York" dated 8/17/96, prepared by Downing Barradas Architects, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for more than three unrelated persons, submission of documentation showing that the proposed use in the proposed location and the proposed operators, if required, are approved by the State Department of Social Services, the Tompkins County Department of Health, and any other appropriate regulatory authorities, and b. The existing building be brought into compliance with all applicable codes, including the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code, and that the appropriate building permits be obtained, and C. Submission of an original or mylar copy and two copies of the final site plan. AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. ® NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording Se6retary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, 9/18/96. C: # 12 \Starc\Reso 1 s \01 d 100. Fi n ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Proposed Revised Town of Ithaca Sign Law Recommendation to the Town Board Planning Board, September 17, 1996 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by fames Ainslie: WHEREAS: 11 The Town Board has proposed a "Local Law Regulating Signs in the Town of Ithaca, New York, and Amending, Restating, and Re- enacting Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 6 - 1980", and 2. Said proposed local law is an update and clarification of the existing Town of Ithaca Sign Law, and 3. The Town Board referred said proposed local law to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation, and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 17, 1996, has reviewed the above - referenced local law, and a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and II, prepared by the Town planning staff for the Town Board, which will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed local law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that: ® a. There is a need for the proposed local law revising the current Town of Ithaca Sign Law; and b. The existing and probable future character of the Town will not be adversely affected; and C, The proposed local law is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed "Local Law Regulating Signs in the Town of Ithaca, New York, and Amending, Restating, and Re- enacting Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 6 - 1980 ". AYE - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Starr Hays, Recording ecretary, ® Town of Ithaca Planning Board. 9/18/96. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST FINAL PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER PREPARER 1� = ITEM SUBMITTED N/A = NOT APPLICABLE W = WAIVE COND = CONDITION OF APPROVAL 1. ompleted and signed Development Review Application. a. Development Review Escrow Agreement and Back -up Withholding Form (if required). (Only one (1) copy each.) 2. Payment of review fees. Deposit of escrow. 3. Fully completed and signed Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part I (SERF), or Long Environmental Assessment Form, Part I (LEAF). (See Town Planner as to which to submit.) ® 49 V / Proposed preliminary site plan, with the following information, must be filed in the office of the Town Planner at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the Planning Board meeting at which preliminary approval is requested. Information may be supplied on more than one drawing if necessary. a. Vicinity Map showing the general location of the property and proposed project at a scale of 1" =1000' or 1"= 2000'. b. Y 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. C, 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 - tenth, angles to the nearest minute, and at least one bearing. d. ZSize, location, and use 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. e. V Size, location, proposed use, design, and construction materials of all proposed structures. Page 2 f. V Location, design, and construction materials of all proposed parking areas, access drives, and off - street loading areas. g. Size, location, design, and construction materials of all proposed signs and lighting. h. 4Z Location, design, and construction materials of all / proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities. i. v Landscaping plan and planting schedule including location and proposed design of buffers. j. \//O� Location, design, and construction materials of all proposed water and sewage facilities, k. zLocation of any existing or proposed fire and other emergency zones, including the location of fire hydrants. MI 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. n. 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. 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, __!L Map scale in bar form, and north point. q. VO� Name of proposed project. r. � Name of Town, County, and State. S, �rDate of Site Plan, including any applicable revision dates. t. Key map (when more than one sheet is submitted) L' I U 1. Vo� 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 project. MI 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. n. 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. 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, __!L Map scale in bar form, and north point. q. VO� Name of proposed project. r. � Name of Town, County, and State. S, �rDate of Site Plan, including any applicable revision dates. t. Key map (when more than one sheet is submitted) L' I U C7 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST U, 0 6, 2 - 8, V/ Page 3 Name and seal of the registered land surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary survey and the date of survey. 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. Estimate of the cost of improvements (excluding the purchase cost of land) to be prepared (preferably) by a licensed professional engineer. Three (3) dark -line prints of the proposed Site Plan and 25 copies of all sheets of the proposed Site Plan in reduced format (no larger than 1111 x 1711) and copy of all other items required above (Except Development Review Application and escrow forms), planbord \prelimis.ite mb \5/14/96 n FINAL SITE PLAN CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME )I EM PROJECT NUMBER �I\� " nn0 e) �L PRE PARER T = ITEM SUBMITTED N/A = NOT APPLICABLE W = WAIVE COND = CONDITION OF APPROVAL 10 ✓ Completed and signed Development Review Application, P pp tion, Development Review'Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (if required) . '(Only (1) copy each.) 2. Payment of additional review fees as needed and / deposited in an escrow account. 3. \ All other items submitted with the preliminary site plan application with modifications made according to the approval given by the Town Planning Board. 41 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. 5. Detailed sizing and final material specifications of all required improvements. 6. V / Construction details of all proposed structures, roads, water /sewage facilities, and other improvements. 79 One (1) Original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. PLANBORD \FINALSITE mb/5/14/96