HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1997-08-05�►,
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
AUGUST 5, 1997
The Town of
Ithaca Planning Board
met
in regular session on Tuesday, August 5, 1997, in
Town Hall, 126 East
Seneca Street, Ithaca,
New
York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT:
Chairperson
Fred
Wilcox,
Eva Hoffmann,
Candace Cornell, James Ainslie, Robert
Kenerson,
Gregory Bell,
John
Barney
(Attorney for
the Town), Daniel Walker (Director of
Engineering), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner).
ALSO PRESENT: Terry Roswick, Evan Monkemeyer, Attorney John Klucsik, Scott Whitham,
Rajesh Bhaskaran, John Kiefer.
Chairperson Fred Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m., and accepted for
the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in
Town Hall, and the Ithaca Journal on July 28, 1997, and July 30, 1997, together with the Secretary's
Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under
discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public
Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on July 30, 1997. (Affidavit of
Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.)
Chairperson Wilcox 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 Wilcox closed this segment of the
meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES = JULY 15,1997:
MOTION made by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of July 15, 1997 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
hereby are approved as written with the following corrections:
Page 14, Paragraph 3, states "With the acreage that Cornell University has there is no way
they are going to run out of composting.", should be changed to read "With the acreage that Cornell
University has there is no way they are going to run out of land to use for composting."
Page 21, Paragraph 5, states "Board Member Hoffmann stated that a number of things, such
as the chimneys, are more visible from West and South Hill. ", should be changed to read "Board
Member Hoffmann stated that a number of things, such as the Cornell heating plant chimneys, are
more visible from West and South Hill."
Page 22, Paragraph 6, states "The question is, not how high the ights are, but how much of
the lights are going to spill from the site towards West Hill.", should be changed to read "The
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5, 1997
question is not how high the light fixtures area, but how much of the light is going to spill from the
site towards West Hill."
Page 36, Paragraph 1, states "Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be access to
the checkered piece from the brown piece of land, and what about the tree in the trail system. ",
should be changed to read "Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be access to the
checkered piece from the brown piece of land, and what about the tree blocking the trail system."
Page 36, in the PUBLIC HEARING paragraph, the word "respectfully" should be changed to
"respectively ".
Page 37, Paragraph 12's last sentence states "Plus the actual ownership of the area where
the sewer lines are would be a nice thing." Since Mr. Kanter was not present for clarification, he
would be asked at a later date to clarify the sentence.
Page 38, Paragraph 3, states "Board Member Bell stated that he has another alternative,
which lot "C" could be played with more geometry. There were few alternatives made. Since there
are potential negotiations with the Malloy Brothers, the Town could take a portion of lot "C" on the
western portion and give it to the Malloy Brothers in exchange for the triangle piece. ", should be
clarified to read "Board Member Bell stated that he has another alternative, in which the geometry
of lot "C" could be played with. There were few alternatives made. Since there are potential
negotiations with the Malloy Brothers, the Town could take a portion of lot "C" on the western portion
and give it in exchange for the triangle piece."
Page 44, Paragraph 11, states "Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is not a substenatue of
change, it is just clarification.", should be changed to read "Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is not a
substantive of change, it is just clarification."
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell, Cornell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR DETERMINATION, PROPOSED RETAIL GARDEN CENTER, 1059
DANBY ROAD:
Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the above - mentioned matter at 7:44 p.m., and read aloud
from the Agenda.
Terry Roswick, Cornerstone Site Planners, stated that there have development changes to
the site plan since the last meeting. Mr. Roswick showed the Planning Board, Staff, and the public
in attendance, an aerial photograph of the property in question. He pointed out the intersection
(Danby Road and East King Road) next to the site. Mr. Roswick stated that in the previous plan
there was a loop road around the outskirts of the site, but Mr. Monkemeyer would like to keep the
traffic to a circulation system. The entrance /exit point would be controlled to one entry way to the
retail center. The exit to the retail center would have a controlled outdoor register station to the west
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3
APPROVED = AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5, 1997
of the building. Visitors could park in front of the retail center, visit the retail center and exit to the
back to visit the greenhouse areas, and enter the gardens.
Attorney for the Town John Barney asked if this area would be fenced in.
Mr. Roswick responded, yes. The entire area behind the retail center, including the
greenhouses, would be fenced in. This would control the access of people visiting the site. The
parking areas and drive areas would all be gravel and stone, so there would not be any major
impervious surfaces added to the site. Right now, the site in question is an empty farm field that
gets mowed periodically. In terms of drainage, that would pretty much remain the same. Mr.
Roswick stated that he and Mr. Monkemeyer discussed the signage with the Planning Staff, and
other outdoor displays in the area. There have been plans added for two more potential features, a
chicken BBQ and an sunken ice cream garden. What prompted this type of development and
concept is that Mr. Monkemeyer has been working with a woman who would be managing this retail
center. They have done a lot of research of garden centers throughout the northeast. There is one
in particular in Long Island that has been quite successful. Mr. Roswick showed the Planning Board
photographs of concepts he has mentioned. One photograph shows an outdoor display for the back
of the retail center as to what it would look like. The second photograph shows outdoor registers
that the retail center would have. The third photograph showed a sunken ice cream garden, from
another retail center, that they would like to potentially have in the future. Mr. Roswick stated that
the retail center would be opened early spring through the summer ending at Christmas time by
sellina Christmas trees. The ice cream and chicken BBQ would only be seasonal.
Board Member James Ainslie asked what does the term "sunk in" mean.
Mr.
Roswick
stated that
the
ice
cream garden would be recessed a few feet below ground
level. This
is only a
conceptual
plan
at
this point.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if this is what Mr. Monkemeyer wants to do or would be doing.
Mr. Roswick stated that these photographs are conceptual plans of what Mr. Monkemeyer
would like to do on this site. At the bottom of the Site Plan it shows an elevation from the high point
of the hill down to Danby Road. Mr. Monkemeyer would be retaining all the trees that are on the site
presently. Mr. Roswick stated that this proposal would be appearing before the Zoning Board of
Appeals on August 13, 1997, for the issues of square footage exceeding the limit for code and the
signage. There have been several discussions with Mr. Frost (Zoning Officer) about the sign's
square footage.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked where would the sign be located.
Mr. Roswick pointed out on an enlarge map where the sign would be located (near the
entrance to the retail center.)
Board Member Robert Kenerson asked how many signs would be used.
Mr. Roswick responded, one.
Board Member Gregory Bell asked why is the sign parallel to the road instead of being at a
right angle to the road.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 AUGUST 5, 1997
APPROVED = AUGUST 19, 1997
Evan Monkemeyer, 123 East King Road, stated that if the sign was perpendicular to the road
there would be a ridge on both sides. With the sign being parallel to the road there would only be
one ridge, so it would be slightly bigger than angling it.
Board Member Ainslie asked where are the storage trailers located.
Mr. Roswick pointed out on an enlarge map where the storage trailers are located (north
east of the retail center.) Mr. Roswick stated that the storage trailers would be covered with a trellis
structure. It would match the trellis on the entrance sign, main entrance to the retail space, and
incorporate the same trellis theme for the storage trailers.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he has a problem with that. In previous discussions, Mr.
Roswick mentioned that the storage trailers would be temporary and would be removed. If Mr.
Monkemeyer would be putting roofs and vines on these storage trailers, it does not seem these
storage trailers would be temporary.
Mr. Roswick asked if the storage trailers were mentioned before as being temporary.
Planner JoAnn Cornish responded, yes.
Board Member Ainslie responded, yes, a three year limit. If Mr. Monkemeyer plans to put
roofs and vines on these storage trailers, he does not think these trailers would be moved. Mr.
Ainslie asked if the wheels would be removed from the storage trailers.
Mr. Roswick responded, yes.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he mentioned at the previous meeting that there is a
storage trailer at the West Hill Fire Station, and he thinks the trailers are unsightly. If Mr.
Monkemeyer plans to put roofs and vines on the trailers, they cannot be called temporary.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the materials supplied by Ms. Cornish states that these
storage trailers would be used short term. The trellises are to make the storage trailers look more
appealing than just storage trailers.
Planner Cornish stated that in a previous meeting, there were discussions, but no decisions
were made as to whether these trailers would be permanent or temporary. Mr. Monkemeyer
mentioned that these storage trailers could be temporary in nature, but no decision was made at that
time. It was just a discussion.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that it is important to have the storage trailers to store some of the
goods that would otherwise be outside taking up space. The storage trailers would store
prepackaged or baled items, such as peat moss, bales, and fertilizers. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that
if he could get a three year usage for the storage trailers it would show him if he needs to expand
the retail center or not. The storage trailers could be painted, and have a pleasant appearance with
trellises.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Ainslie if he was satisfied with Mr. Monkemeyer's answer.
Board Member Ainslie responded, yes. The Board should understand that if these storage
trailers have roofs and vines it would take them out of being temporary. Mr. Ainslie stated that he
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 AUGUST 5, 1997
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
does not want to see the storage trailers just sitting out because they are unsightly. If the Board
allows this operation to have storage trailers, what prevents someone else wanting storage trailers to
have them. This Board would be setting a precedence.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the Site Plan shows five to six evergreen trees (five to
six feet high) to be planted to the east of the overflow parking area towards the Montessori School
for screening. Ms. Hoffmann asked what type of evergreen trees and what would be their eventual
height when fully grown.
Mr. Roswick stated that there is a substantial amount of land here, and there are some
evergreens further up the hill that would be transplanted on the eastern side of the property. Some
of the trees are pines that could reach a maturity of 30 to 40 feet.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that eventually pines loose a lot of their lower branches, so
they do not provide much of a screen.
Mr. Monkemey_er stated that the trees would probably be of a Norway Spruce variety like the
trees on the frontage right now.
Board Member Hoffmann asked Ms. Cornish if this would be enough for a screen.
Planner Cornish stated that she agrees. She thinks it could use some additional
landscaping, such as shrubs, to make the screen more effective. Ms. Cornish stated that she visited
the site today, and it would be nice to have more vegetated screen.
Mr. Roswick stated that Mr. Monkemeyer does not want to block the view completely from the
Montessori School. The School is very exciting about the potential retail center as a neighbor, and
visits to the center would be incorporated in some of their lesson plans for the children.
Planner Cornish stated that she does not think the screen needs to be something that cannot
be penetrated, but she thinks it needs something more substantial. Also the storage trailers would
be at that end of the site. She did condition this in the proposed resolution for the Board's
consideration.
Board Member Bell stated that the spacing between the trees on the Site Plan shows
approximately 20 feet of opening, so a five foot tree would not be much screening at all. He would
like to see more screening.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that it would be nice to have evergreen trees that only reach
a certain height to block out the objectionable things, but to be able to see over it.
Board Member Cornell stated that is called pruning.
Planner Cornish stated that they do not have to go with a tree, there are certain shrubs that
would be appropriate for that location to add diversity.
Board Member Cornell asked if the area is very sunny.
Mr. Roswick responded, yes.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
Board Member Kenerson asked what are the lighting facilities for the project.
AUGUST 5, 1997
Mr. Roswick stated that Mr. Monkemeyer is looking to put lighting on the comers of the
building itself. There would be lights at the main entrance for security reasons facing the parking lot.
This is a type of facility that would close when it gets dark at night.
Board Member Kenerson asked if the sign would be lighted.
Mr. Roswick stated that the sign would be lighted with the source in front of it at the base of
the sign shining upwards.
Board Member Kenerson asked how high would the fence be around the retail center.
Mr. Roswick responded, six feet. The fence would be for security reasons to control the
entrance and exit to the retail center.
Board Member Bell stated that in addition to his comments from before, the screening should
be extended a little farther to the north as well because of the trailers and houses in that direction.
There has not been any discussions as to those things in regards to the storage trailers.
Planner Cornish stated that there is substantial vegetation there now such as very large
trees.
Mr. Roswick pointed out the area Mr. Bell is referring to on the aerial photograph, and stated
that the area is heavily vegetated.
Board Member Bell asked when was the aerial photograph taken.
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, 1994. The current spruce trees along Danby Road and up East
King Road were planted in 1967 from a seedling. If someone puts a five foot tree in within five years
it should be doubled in size.
Board Member Cornell asked if some of the spruce trees would be removed.
Mr. Roswick responded, no.
Board Member Cornell asked where would the entrance be.
Mr. Roswick pointed out on the aerial photograph where the proposed driveway would be.
There is already an existing driveway there.
Board Member Cornell asked how long would the storage trailers be there.
Mr. Roswick stated that three years was being proposed so far.
Planner Cornish stated that it is not only the storage trailers, it was the entire complex from
Montessori School. It was not to completely screen it out, it was just to soften the view somewhat.
Board Member Cornell asked what is the purpose of the storage trailers.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7
APPROVED = AUGUST 19, 1997
space.
growth.
AUGUST 5. 1997
Mr. Roswick stated that the trailers would be to store materials that would take up retail
Board Member Cornell asked where would the chemicals be kept.
Mr. Roswick stated that they are not anticipating using any chemicals.
Board Member Cornell asked if the retail center would be selling chemicals.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the retail center would be selling fertilizers.
Board Member Cornell asked if the retail center would be selling insecticides.
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, no.
Board Member Cornell asked if the retail center would not be selling any chemicals.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that there would be fertilizers and other products for stimulating
Board Member Cornell stated that most places like this carry insecticides. Ms. Cornell asked
if any insecticides would be used in the operation itself .
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, probably not. The products that would be bought would be in
bulk. The stay on the site would be no grader than 30 to 60 days and 45 days as a limit. This type
of stock would need to be moved as fast as possible.
Board Member Cornell asked what about white fly.
Planner Cornish stated that Ms. Cornell is talking about the plant materials that would be
sold. Normally, in this type of operation, the plants are sprayed with chemicals in a day to day
operation, even if chemicals are not for sale.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that there are no plans to grow the products outside, so they would
not need to protect something for a number of years or a long period of time. This is a fast turnover
type of store.
Board Member Cornell stated that they may need some type of chemicals to spray on the
plants before being sold. Ms. Cornell asked who would be running the business.
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, Barbara Cordino.
Board Member Cornell stated that it seems like the retail center would need to use some
chemicals.
Board Member Ainslie asked if Ms. Cordino has a pesticide license.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that if she was going to be spreading pesticides she would need a
license.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5,1997
Board Member Ainslie asked if there is nursery stock there over sixty days, the plants may
need to be sprayed with something.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that if the plants needed to be sprayed he would certainly have to do
it.
Planner Cornish stated that even if Ms. Cordino did not have the license it could be
contracted out to someone who has a pesticide license. A day -to -day operation of a nursery is going
to require some use of chemicals. That is just common sense.
Board Member Cornell stated that the question at this point is where would the chemicals be
stored.
Mr.
Monkemeyer
stated
that he does
not anticipate selling chemicals. If he does sell the
chemicals
they would be
stored
in the storage
trailers.
Since Ms. Cornell arrived late to the meeting, Mr. Roswick explained the concepts and the
photographs to her as described to the Planning Board earlier.
Board Member Bell stated that the Site Plan shows an outside portable toilet. Mr. Bell asked
if the Town has a local law that requires publicly accessible bathroom facilities instead of portable
toilets.
Attorney Barney stated that he does not know whether the law requires that. The Planning
Board could eliminate portable toilets from the Site Plan,
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that by building code, he would be required to put two handicapped
accessible (his/her) bathroom facilities inside the main structure. The portable toilets would be for
outside facilities to use for the concept of the ice cream shop and restaurant facility. Patrons would
be able to use the portable toilets if the retail center was closed at night while the other facilities were
open. The employees could also use the portable toilets instead of the handicapped facilities inside.
Board Member Cornell asked if there was any way to have a door on an outside wall to have
access to the indoor toilets from the outside.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that ft might be possible. The portable toilets would be connected to
public sewers, and would be landscaped.
Board Member Bell asked if the portable toilets would have running water.
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, yes.
Board Member Bell stated that is not a portable toilet to him.
Board Member Cornell asked if the portable toilets are outside rest rooms.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that is what they would be, but they would not be on any footings.
The portable toilets are on wooden platforms.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 AUGUST 5, 1997
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
Board Member Bell stated that portable toilets mean they are rented structures made out of
fiberglass that are brought in on trucks.
Board Member Cornell asked Mr. Monkemeyer if this is what he plans to do.
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, yes, but the portable toilets are going to be painted and
landscaped.
Board Member Cornell asked if the portable toilets are going to be Plexiglas.
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, yes.
Planner Cornish passed around a picture of a portable toilet that Mr. Monkemeyer plans to
use on the site.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the proposed resolution has a clause to eliminate the portable
toilets. That could be discussed more when the Planning Board discusses the Site Plan further.
Board Member Cornell stated that there are a lot of places that have rest rooms with access
from indoors and outdoors. If Mr. Monkemeyer wants to regulate the access, the door to the store
could be locked to the store when the store is closed.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has been hearing things that conflicts in her mind.
First of all, the idea of having portable toilets right by the entrance to the garden center and by the
ice cream place and BBQ stand it does not sound real appealing, even if they were prettied up. Ms.
Hoffmann stated that she would prefer to see something in the main building. Looking at the
photograph of the portable toilet, it just confirms her impression of what it would look like. Ms.
Hoffmann stated that she also has heard about the likely use of pesticides and herbicides. She
thinks there would be a conflict between having plants and garden material treated with such
chemicals next to food stands, whether it is the ice cream shop or the BBQ stand, or the fresh
produce that Mr. Monkemeyer plans to sell at the retail center.
Board Member Bell stated that not only does that conflict bother him, he is particularly
bothered by the portable toilets because there should be facilities all over the site for people to wash
their hands. Even just being the customers buying a bag of plant food or something, these foods
and pesticides are on the outsides of the bags not just inside the bags. To encourage someone to
go from handling agricultural chemicals to eating ice cream cones or BBQs, is not a responsible
health thing to do. There should be, not only the ability but the encouragement, for people to wash
their hands, including the employees who would be handling the foods. There is air borne materials
floating around these places. If people walk into Agway, the place smells like chemicals. People
need to use them to some degree, but he does not like the mixing of the two concepts.
Board Member Cornell asked if there are floor plans for the retail center.
Mr. Roswick responded, no.
Board Member Cornell asked where would the ice cream shop be.
Mr. Monkemeyer pointed out on an enlarged map where the location of the potential ice
cream shop and BBQ stand would be.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 AUGUST 5,1997
APPROVED = AUGUST 19, 1997
Planner Cornish stated that there are health department regulations concerning the serving
of food and the placement of chemicals. Ms. Cornish stated that she did talk to John Anderson
about the entire project, and she did speak to people at the DEC. There are other regulations than
what the staff is concerned with here. There are other levels of protection and she would like to hear
from the health department, and maybe Mr. Monkemeyer and Mr. Roswick could gather some
information from them.
Board Member Cornell stated that the Planning Board should rely on the health department
to make those decisions. Ms. Cornell asked if the ice cream shop and BBQ stand would be isolated
from the main building.
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, yes.
Board Member Cornell asked if the food areas would be covered.
Mr. Roswick stated that the BBQ stand would probably be a tented area. The ice cream shop
would have a small structure there. These are just future plans for the site.
Board Member Cornell asked if the Board already discussed the sign.
Mr. Roswick responded, yes.
Board Member Cornell asked how big would the sign be.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that they reduced the sign.
Board Member Cornell stated that there is a lot of screening.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Board wanted more screening to the east.
Board Member Cornell asked if there would be walk through gardens for the patrons.
Mr. Roswick responded, yes.
Board Member Cornell asked why would they want to sell food there.
Mr. Roswick stated that the food area would be a side attraction to the retail center itself.
Their main focus is the garden center, but they discovered that more successful garden centers
have these other areas.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Roswick if the application before the Planning Board is to include
the privilege or the sale of chicken as part of the Site Plan. If this does, that would raise different
environmental issues that the Planning Board needs to discuss. Attorney Barney stated that he did
not understand the Site Plan application was anything other than just the garden center. He
appreciates Mr. Roswick showing the Planning Board the potential future, but it needs to be made
clear as to what is being proposed. If these areas are only potential future issues, that Mr.
Monkemeyer would need to come back for review.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the ice cream shop and BBQ stand would need to be removed
from the Site Plan.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
Planner Cornish responded, yes.
AUGUST 5. 1997
Chairperson Wilcox stated that he was referring to Mr. Roswick's memorandum of June 23,
1997, which states "Although not officially part of this proposal areas have been set aside directly to
the north of the building to accommodate the potential space for a future chicken BBQ tent and a
sunken ice cream garden." Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is worried that if it is not part of this
proposal it needs to be removed from the Site Plan.
Attorney Barney stated that it could be handled a few ways. The Planning Board could have
the final Site Plan remove it, or alternately, there could be a condition opposed in the preliminary and
final approval that there is to be no BBQ operations without further application to the Board with a
revised Site Plan with all the environmental reviews to go with it.
Mr. Roswick stated that the main focus of this proposal is the garden center itself and the
plant materials. If this is to further complicate things, it may be best to take the BBQ stand and ice
cream shop off of the Site Plan.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Public Hearing Notice did not mention those ideas either.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the description of the BBQ stand mentions a BBQ
tent. It sounds like an open structure. Ms. Hoffmann asked where would the facility prepare the
meat, refrigerate, storing, and as well as the ice cream.
Mr. Roswick stated that the tent implies a temporary structure. The entire BBQ stand concept
is going to be a seasonal thing. For example, on Wednesday nights there would be a seasonal BBQ
like church picnics have.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that does not matter now because it is not on the table anymore.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if some of the refrigeration of the meat would be in the main
building, and the cooking is to be done at the tent.
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, no. Everything would be in a restaurant or a food service
facility. It would be like an outdoor sales vendor with a tent that sides could roll down in bad
weather. This would only be used for seasonal uses during the months of May through September.
It would not just be for the sale of meat, it could also be for the sale of garden salads and produces.
The ice cream garden area does not have to be used just for ice cream, but for dining and
picnicking.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that even if the BBQ stand is just a tent, there would still
need to be water, sinks, and refrigerators.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that they would comply with health department codes that applies to
the vendors.
Board Member Cornell asked Mr
refrigerators and sinks in the tent.
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, yes.
Monkemeyer if he meant the BBQ stand would have
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 AUGUST S. 1997
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
Mr. Roswick
stated that these would be
comparable to what fairs have for
food vendors.
Those vendors have
to follow health department
codes, and would have to meet those
codes.
Planner Cornish stated that there are health department standards that have to be met. The
health department is very strict. If Mr. Monkemeyer is going to propose the BBQ stand, it would
need to go through the health department and they would have jurisdiction on how the food is
handled.
center.
Board Member Cornell asked if the Planning Board should just be discussing the garden
Chairperson Wilcox responded, yes.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that he would like to have the right for these areas (future ice cream
shop and BBQ stand) as picnic areas with tables for people to enjoy.
MOTION made by Candace Cornell, seconded by James Ainslie:
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.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Short Environmental Assessment Form, number 8, should
be changed to "no ", and number 11, should be changed to "yes" because they special approval from
the Zoning Board of Appeals.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
(NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #2.)
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the SEAR Determination for Retail Garden Center at 1059
Danby Road at 8:33 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH REGARD TO A SPECIAL
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAIL GARDEN CENTER
PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A +/- 4 320 SQ4 FT STORE SIX GREENHOUSES (EACH 21 FEET
BY 48 FEET) TOTALING +/- 6,048 SQz FT., OUTSIDE NURSERY STORAGE AND DISPLAY
AREAS, PARKING AND OTHER APPURTENANCES TO BE LOCATED AT 1059 DANBY ROAD
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 43=1=3*2e BUSINESS DISTRICT "C". EVAN
MONKEMEYER, OWNER; TERRENCE ROSWICK AGENT:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5, 1997
Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:34 p.m., and read
aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Board Member Cornell asked why is the garden center being called "Russo ".
Mr. Monkemeyer responded, it is his mother's maiden name. If the Planning Board is familiar
with some of the projects that he has built with his father over the years on South Hill, the orientation
of the structure is along an east/west axis opening 50 percent of the main building to the south. This
would be one of the first commercial buildings in the Town of Ithaca with a path of solar design
feature and the greenhouses are also on the south side as well. He has preserved the Norway
Spruces on the frontage, and created a building that would have solar access.
Board Member Cornell asked when would the retail center be opened.
Mr. Monkemeyer stated that the retail center would be opened mid March to December 26.
The retail center would be closed for January, February, and half of March.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that in Ms. Cornish's review she stated that it may be a good
idea to have some more screening of some type to the north, such as plantings or fencing, between
the buildings to the north and this facility.
Planner
Cornish
stated that she
visited the site today, and
she thinks what is there is
adequate. It is
a fairly
heavily vegetated
area with mature trees. It
is a fairly effect screen. Ms.
Cornish asked if
the area around the BBQ
site has a turning radius for
a truck.
Mr. Roswick responded, yes.
Planner Cornish stated that should be labeled and show where the truck maneuvering area
is. The 50 degree radius is fine, but it needs to be labeled on the Site Plan on why that radius
exists. They need to consider where the trucks would be loading /unloading, and labeled on the Site
Plan.
Mr. Roswick stated that there are a couple of logical places for deliveries. Mr. Roswick
pointed out on an enlarged map where the overflow parking area could be acceptable for trucks to
park for unloading.
Planner Cornish asked if the trucks would need to back out of there.
Mr. Roswick stated that the trucks could do a K -turn in that area. The trucks would be
arriving early in the morning when there are no cars in the parking area.
Board Member Bell asked if tractor trailers would be coming to the site.
Mr. Roswick stated that some plant materials would be delivered on large flat beds for
nursery stock.
Board Member Bell stated that he does not see how a tractor trailer could do a K -turn in the
parking lot.
Mr. Roswick stated that there appears to be enough room. There is approximately 60 feet.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
Board Member Bell stated that some trailers are 60 feet long.
AUGUST 5. 1997
Mr. Roswick stated that if it would be to hard to navigate in the overflow parking area, the
trucks could be parked in another space for unloading.
Planner Cornish stated that with this configuration there would some tricky turns there. The
Planning Staff's concern is mainly that there be no tractor trailers backing out onto Danby Road, and
for the safety of the patrons that the tractor trailers have ample maneuvering space so they do not
have to back up with people in the area.
Board Member Bell stated that
if
the
tractor trailers need to park in the circle, people would
not want to unload materials and push
to
the
retail center.
Mr. Roswick stated that there is also an entrance right off the main turn of the entrance way
from Danby Road.
Board Member Cornell asked if there were any considerations about having a second exit
onto King Road.
Mr. Roswick stated that there were discussions entertaining that, but at this point Mr.
Monkemeyer would like to have one consolidated entrance /exit from Danby Road. He would like to
discourage any traffic close to the school.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Planning Board looked at that concept at the Sketch Plan
review of this project, which included a loop road that would be incorporated with the entrance to the
Montessori School. The Planning Board was not particularly pleased with that.
Planner
Cornish stated
that
the sight distance where the current curb cut is more than
adequate. It is
very generous in
both
directions.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the overflow parking area would have a surface and finish
that would be strong enough to hold the continuous use of tractor trailers.
Mr. Roswick responded, yes, it would be crushed stone.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that this is a Public Hearing, and asked if anyone from the public
wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone was prepared to offer a motion.
Planner Cornish asked Mr. Walker if he had any concerns about the drainage on this site.
Director of Engineering Daniel Walker responded, no. The present drainage plans are
adequate.
MOTION made by Candace Cornell, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5, 1997
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval as shown on the
preliminary site plan labeled "Russo's Garden Center', dated May 20, 1997, revised 6/12/97,
6/13/97, and 6/21/97, prepared by Cornerstone Site Planners, and additional application
materials subject to the following conditions, all to be submitted prior to final site plan
approval:
a. Applicant to submit a revised site plan which shows an area designed for truck
loading /unloading with appropriate turning radius, the height of the proposed flag
poles, the construction materials of all proposed parking areas and access drives, a
planting schedule, proposed lighting - details, type and location, the location of the
nearest fire hydrant, and the location of handicapped parking.
b. Revised site plan to show additional buffer /landscape plantings in the area east of the
proposed garden center, between the project area and the Montessori School.
C. Revised site plan to show the elimination of the proposed Port-A -Jon facility, to be
replaced with a more permanent comfort facility for public use, or indication that
comfort facilities for public use are to be included in the garden center building.
d. That any required variances be obtained from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of
Appeals.
e. The estimated cost of improvements.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals,
determines the following:
a. There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by
the applicant;
b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected as a result of the proposed project;
C. The specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that condition 2b should be revised to read "Revised site plan to
show additional buffer /landscape plantings acceptable to the Director of Planning in the area east
of the proposed garden center, between the project area and the Montessori School."
Attorney Barney std that he would like another condition (20 to state "the final site plan be
revised to limit the use of the two circular areas on the north to picnic tables and chairs only instead
of a chicken barbecue area and ice cream garden, without prejudice to the applicant to later apply
for a modified site plan if he be so advised to indoor such facilities, and subject to the further
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5, 1997
condition that the three trailers in the northeast comer shall be removed from the property three
years from the date the first certificate of occupancy is issued, or if earlier, by August 5, 2002."
Planner Cornish stated that condition 2a, should eliminate "proposed lighting - details, type,
and location, the location of the nearest fire hydrant ".
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
(NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #3.)
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the Retail Garden
Center at 1059 Danby Road at 8:50 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR DETERMINATION - CONTINUATION FROM JULY 159 1997 MEETING
ALUMNI FIELD LIGHTING, CORNELL UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ROAD:
Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the above - mentioned matter at 8:51 p.m., and read aloud
from the Agenda.
Scott Whitham, Agent for Cornell University, stated that at the last meeting he was looking for
subjective guidelines to see how to judge the glare issue with the lights. The Dark Sky Association
was located through the Web. Both, Town and Cornell University staff, found some guidelines from
the City of Tucson, AZ, which seemed to be particularly interested in this.
John Keifer, Chief Electrical Engineer at Cornell University, stated that at the last meeting
Anthony Putrelo helped Mr. Whitham with some technical issues. First, he would like to make
reference to the proposed resolution for the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. On the second page, item "b" states "that the
lights installed shall be Musco Sports Lighting, inc. Futures with Level 8 optional spill and glare
control." Musco would be on the bidders list. Cornell University would prefer not to have a sole
source listed. He would like to add the condition "or as equal ". Cornell University feels that there are
other companies that they feel have the lights of equivalent quality.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Planning Board will address that issue when they get to
the resolution. The Planning Board is still trying to get through the environmental aspects of the
project at this point. The Planning Board could not make a SEAR determination last time because
the Board felt there was not enough information supplied at that time. Right now the Board is
concentrating on the possible environmental concerns with the lighting, sky glow, spillage on the site,
etc. At the last meeting, the Planning Board was not concerned about the site, but the glare and
spillage seen on West Hill.
Mr. Keifer stated that since the last meeting, Cornell University learned about the Dark Sky
Association. Cornell's lighting designer is a member of that Association, and he has agreed that
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17
APPROVED = AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5. 1997
Cornell University's
installation
of these
lights would
meet the requirements of the Tucson
Ordinance. That is a
very doable
thing, and
it would be a
goal for Cornell University.
Chairperson Wilcox asked what is the designer's name.
Mr. Keifer responded, Tom Lemmons. Mr. Lemmons has a company called "TLA Lighting"
out of Salem, MA. Mr. Lemmons is the designer for this project. Mr. Keifer stated that he would like
to refer to a memorandum to the Planning Board from Mr. Frantz dated July 30. Page 2, paragraph
3, states "The key question remaining, in my opinion, is whether the Cornell lights can meet the
criteria outlined on the second page of IDA information sheet No. 76, `Exterior Lighting: Glare and
Light Trespass'. Mr. Keifer stated that he would like to discuss what Cornell University is doing to
meet that requirement. In the Information Sheet No. 76, second page states "Limitation of
Observation of Direct Glare: Direct glare shall not be observable (outside the originating property
limits) at an angle greater than 85 degrees from the nadir of the vertical axis of the light source." Mr.
Keifer stated that he believes the vertical access of the light source that they are talking about is 85
degrees off of horizontal. These poles (over 100 feet tall) would refer to a point on the ground that
would be roughly a 1,000 feet from the poles. Mr. Keifer stated that he contacted Musco for a foot
candle distribution chart that would show what the foot candle would be at a 1,000 feet from the light
source. (Mr. Keifer passed the chart around to the Planning Board for review.) The drawing was
provided to him by Musco Lighting, and it their solution to Cornell's project. The drawing is a foot
candle model of the distribution of 1,000 feet from the light poles to the center of the field. The
drawing shows the lighting level less than .01 foot candles. Mr. Keifer stated it is important to
understand what direct glare means because that is the criteria that is set forth in this document that
direct glare shall not be observable as the second page of Information Sheet No. 76 document. This
means if someone could see an unshielded lamp or the luminar maximum candle power zone. The
reason he sent the drawing around is that the candle power on the field itself is 75 foot candles. At
a 1,000 feet away it is .01 foot candles. The intent is to show that this would be clearly outside of
the power zone of the luminar. Another part of a definition of direct glare that people could see the
unshielded lamp. He would like to point out that the light fixture Cornell intends to buy includes what
are called arch caps on the lamps. What this does is on each lamp a cap fits on the end of the lamp
and prevents people from seeing the arch source. When people look up at the light fixtures they
would not see the lamp itself. The arch cap is a device on the light bulb from seeing the arch
source.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if this is what Cornell is proposing to have on these lights.
Mr. Keifer stated that there are three measures that Cornell is proposing to have on the light
fixtures, which none are on the Schoellkopf fixtures. The illustration shows a visor that fits over the
top of the lamp, and another one is a reflector itself which is the cone shaped object that the light
bulb fits inside. The reflector on a playing lamp has no optical character. The reflector on the lights
that Cornell intends to purchase makes it more difficult when people are at a distance looking at the
light to see the reflection of the lamp on the reflector. It tends to take a light and direct it down to the
playing surface. The final thing Cornell intends to do with the lights are to use the arch tube caps, so
the arch tubes cannot be seen while looking at the light fixtures. Cornell believes this type of
technology is available from a variety of manufacturers, not just Musco. It would be a specification
for the project.
Chairperson Wilcox asked why the residents on West Hill will no longer experience shadows
in their living rooms if they are high enough on Hector Street from these new 100 foot poles and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 18
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5, 1997
lights. What has been done, what is the design, what is Cornell going to purchase, that would solve
the problem of the glow into the sky effecting the people on West Hill.
Mr. Keifer stated that it is very difficult to discuss this in exact quantitative terms. What he
can say referring to the Musco information, is that the luminous energy that leaves the light fixture at
steep angles (60 to 80 degree angles) on Musco's best fixture is about a tenth of what it is on an
unprotected light fixture. These new lights would only be as bright as a tenth of the current lights
shining on West Hill from the Schoellkopf lights.
Board Member Cornell stated that she lives on the East Hill, and she receives a very clear
view of lights that are already existing on the athletic fields. They are not awful lights, but she can
really see them.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there was a person from the public at the last meeting who
lives on West Hill who spoke on how bad the shadows are in her house from the current lighting
system.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there are two issues that the Board is dealing with
tonight. One is the spillage of light up into the atmosphere. That is one of the negative impacts of
the Schoellkopf lights that Mr. Bell raised at the last meeting. Those lights impact the Commonland
Community. Susan Blumenthal in a letter to the Planning Board was referring to the glow in the sky
from the Northeast section of the Town. This also effects the observatory at Mount Pleasant. The
second problem is the lights at Schoellkopf almost shine directly at West Hill, mainly by the way they
are positioned and unshielded. These are the issues that the Tucson Ordinance was designed to
address.
Board Member Cornell asked how do the current lights affect the Commonlands.
Board Member Bell stated that the night time color lamination is affected. The color of the
sky is different, and the stars cannot be seen.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that to the north, off Jessup Road, there is the Tobin
Fields that are lighted. Those lights have been cut off. Nobody seems to notice those lights when
they are on. Mr. Frantz stated, for the record, that he is a member of the West Hill Civic Association
in the City of Ithaca, and at the present time he is the president of the West Hill Civic Association.
Mr. Keifer stated that one of the criteria's in the Tucson Ordinance was that the light fixtures
cannot radiate energy above the horizontal. It is Cornell's intent to meet that requirement. That
should address the first item that was mentioned. The second one again is very qualitative that of
what is objectionable glare. Mr. Keifer stated that he would not even try to offer numbers and units
to that because people proceed that differently. One person might see a certain level of light and it
would not bother them, and another person would see the lights and think it was very bad. Mr.
Keifer showed the Planning Board a picture of Boston College's lighting system showing the
difference between the lights protected and unprotected.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he lives further over on West Hill. The Schoellkopf lights
really do not bother him because he gets as much light in the sky from the Pyramid Mall lights. The
mall lights light up the sky almost more than the Schoellkopf lights do.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5, 1997
Board Member Cornell stated that she observed those lights seriously, many times, and it is
very clear that the mall lights are the bright star in this area.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that it depends where people live for the lamination of lights.
Board Member Ainslie stated that there is a retirement community in Green Valley (30 miles
south of Tucson, AZ) that do not have street lights. He knows what the area is like because of the
observatories.
Board Member Kenerson stated that the standard of comparison is what the Board has to
see to understand the impact. There is Schoellkopf lights, and people have lived with that. Mr.
Kenerson asked if the lights that would be installed at the soccer field are comparable in number and
size of how much reduction Schoellkopf lights would be with the new lights.
Mr. Keifer stated that the literature published by Musco tells that the lights achieve a ten fold
reduction in spill and glare in their best fixture, which is the level 8 compared to the unprotected one.
Attorney Barney asked if Schoellkopf lights are the unprotected lights.
Mr. Keifer responded, yes.
Board Member Bell stated that he is concerned abc
horizontal. That idea would work fine if the light source is it
higher than the horizontal of 110 foot poles. When there is a
the horizontal is not level with the viewer.
ut the idea of no spillage above the
a valley, therefore, the observers are
110 foot pole on top of a 300 foot hill,
Mr. Keifer stated that the criterion that lights should not radiate luminous energy above the
horizontal is useful to astronomer who are looking at the sky. Certainly, Cornell's situation is worse
than that because there are people who are far away who are well below the horizontal angle. The
relevant point here is that the fixtures do a whole lot more than prevent light escaping above the
horizontal level.
Board Member Bell asked if the horizontal business is in the Tucson Ordinance, and Cornell
would be doing better than that.
Mr. Keifer stated that the Tucson Ordinance talks about the horizontal figures, but they also
talk about the need for cutting off luminars, and Cornell would be meeting that requirement. Cornell
will also be going beyond the need of keeping the light above the horizontal.
Board Member Cornell asked if Cornell proceeds with this project and uses these lights, if
those lights are successful, would there be a chance to have the Schoellkopf lights changed.
Mr. Keifer stated that there is a project at Cornell right now for installation of Musco's Level 8
modification to the lights at Schoellkopf Field. Cornell expects that project to be completed within
the next couple of months.
Board Member Cornell asked if Schoellkopf lights would be replaced.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 20 AUGUST 5, 1997
APPROVED = AUGUST 19. 1997
Mr. Keifer stated that Cornell purchased a modification kit. The modification kit includes a
visor that goes on top of the light fixtures, and it includes the new light bulbs that take the lens caps
with different optics.
Board Member Bell stated that the Town of Ithaca does not regulate Schoellkopf Fields, but
the Town is certainly interested.
Board Member Ainslie asked how many nights would these lights be used. At the last
meeting, it was mentioned that the Soccer Field lights would not be used as much as the
Schoellkopf lights are used.
Mr. Whitham stated that he talked to the coach for the team. The coach stated that there are
five to six games for the men, and there would be five or six games for the women. There would be
a couple of games in the spring. The coach thinks there would be approximately 12 to 15 games at
night a year on the new field.
Board Member Ainslie stated that would be much less than the usage of Schoellkopf lights.
Attorney Barney asked what about practices on these fields.
Mr. Whitham stated that he does not think there are night practices.
Attorney Barney asked why there are only 35 light fixtures on the drawing supplied from
Musco.
Mr. Keifer stated that he believes that is what the calculation yielded for the need of 35
fixtures or 35 times 1,500 watts.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that at the last meeting she asked if it was necessary to
have as many as 35 or 36 lights on each fixture, especially if it is possible to have the light reflected
and intensified by using these various conditions that Cornell is planning to use so more light is
reflected down to the ground. Ms. Hoffmann asked if it would be possible to reduce the number of
lights needed or reduce the intensity of each light there are reflectors that double the effect of each
bulb.
Mr. Keifer stated that he read something to that effect in the Dark Sky information that it was
actually beneficial to purchase the fixtures that do a better job of directing the light because fewer
lights could be used to do the same job. In practice he has not seen that based on the submittals
received from Musco. It does not appear to him that the fixture count is substantially different than
what Cornell would have with the other fixtures. He is not sure what the answer is to that. He has
not noticed a reduction in the number of fixtures recommended.
Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Keifer if he sees other proposals with these additional
visors and reflectors as he has mentioned.
Mr. Keifer stated that he has received one other package from a company called Quallite,
and their package is very similar to Musco. It also features the visor that goes on top of the fixtures,
and the arch tube caps and optics on the reflectors. He believes there are two or three other
manufacturers that do the same type of lighting.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 21
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
Board Member Hoffmann asked if he still cannot answer that question.
AUGUST 5. 1997
Mr.
Keifer
asked if it
was the one about why doesn't Cornell
see
about fewer fixtures because
the light is
better
directed.
Mr. Keifer stated that he does not know
the
answer to that.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the resolution states up to 36 lights. Ms. Hoffmann
asked how many fewer lights could be used, and stated that it would be beneficial to the Board to
know about that because of that concerns about the lights going where they do not want it.
Mr. Keifer stated that it certainly would. Cornell Is goal is to have 75 foot candles maintained
on the playing field. Cornell expects the lighting designer to design Cornell a package that would
produce that level of light, and no more. Cornell does not want to pay for the light fixtures and the
electricity to have the extra light transmitted off into the neighborhood surrounding the university.
Cornell would meet the goal of having 75 foot candles on the playing field and not more than that.
Board Member Cornell stated that it sounds like Mr. Keifer is aware of the problems, and he
is trying to find a solution that would work.
Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Frantz to summarize his findings of this project.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that based on Mr. Keifer's presentation, that he has
answered his question regarding whether or not Cornell's lights meet the criteria outlined in the
International Dark Sky Association Information Sheet No. 76. Mr. Frantz stated that the lights would
control the direct glare. One of the things factoring into this comment/recommendation is that the
Alumni Field is also surrounded by some very tall buildings in a range of 40 feet high. The
biotechnology building, which is at the west end, is at least if not more than 1,000 feet away, is
probably in the range of 50 to 60 feet tall. To the east there is the Stocking Hall and Wing Hall
Complex. To the north there is Reis Hall, but a lot of 40 to 50 foot tall trees along Tower Road.
Cornell could control the direct glare problem with arch tube caps, optics on the reflectors, and the
visors, so West Hill would not be so impacted with the lighting spillage. Mr. Frantz stated that the
village above the horizontal as required in the Tucson regulations could be controlled. He is safe to
recommend that the Planning Board make a negative determination of environmental significance
for the lights as proposed. The lights would be visible from West Hill from South Hill, but while they
are visible they would not have the intensity. The lights would not be casting shadows into living
rooms on West Hill from South Hill as Schoellkopf lights do.
Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Frantz what the light poles height would be. The
proposed resolution refers to 115 feet, but the environmental assessment refers to between 110 to
120 feet.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Cornell settled on 115 feet for the height of the
poles. The environmental assessment should be revised to say "up to 115 feet."
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the light poles would be ranging in height or would they all
be the same height.
Mr. Keifer stated that Cornell prefers the light poles to be short as possible because more
height costs more money. When the light poles are shorter the glare becomes a problem when the
fixture is angled more steeply.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 22 AUGUST 5,1997
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the environmental assessment should state "up to
120 feet."
Chairperson Wilcox asked if anyone from the public would like to comment on the
environmental aspects of this project.
Rajesh Bhaskaran, 700 Warren Road, Apt. 12 -3E, stated that at the last meeting he
mentioned the issue of nightly glare and light spillage. He is quite pleased that the group has taken
these consideration quite seriously. He has done some research on his own. He also talked to a
friend of his who is on the Board of Director's for the International Dark Sky Association, and from
those discussions, he is quite happy that Musco's Level 8 is a very good fixture. However, there is
another company that was mentioned on the International Dark Sky Association's site, and which
comes highly recommended. That company is called Softlighting in Seattle, WA. They have a
patented fixture that reduces glare on site as well as off site. Mr. Bhaskaran stated that he has a
listed table of beneficial aspects of the lighting. Softlighting, the light spillage from their lights is
classified as one foot candle at the field line for 150 feet. He does not have information from Musco
Lighting. Regarding glare from these lights, Softlighing claims that people cannot see the lights
once they move a little from the field. It seems like Musco would actually see the lights from a few
miles away. That may be the difference where Softlighting could offer an advantage. Also
Softlighting has lower poles with an average height of 80 feet, but they have more of that, and that is
distributed differently from Muscos. They have ten poles with an average height of 80 feet as
opposed to Musco who has four poles at an average height of 110 feet. Regarding the lamps,
Softlighting has more fixtures at a reduced height using one third less wattage. Softlighting would
use 1,000 watts lamp opposed to Musco 1,500 watts. For the point of view of the user, the 1,000
watt bulb has a lot longer life time than the 1,500 watts light. The reflector in the Softlighting lights is
patented designed called a forward throw, and the advantage of this reflector that it is designed in
such a way that Cornell could have more control of actually the light is actually aimed. Cornell could
put all the lighting that is required on the field and minimize lighting in other areas surrounding, and
into the sky. From looking at the information, it seems that Softlighting is also a very liable
alternative, and they should be given a consideration. These specifications could be used to see
that Softlighting would be better than Musco. Softlighting stated that their lighting systems are price
competitive to, so it is not much more than Musco's system. Softlighting is on the Web with pictures
of their lighting. Mr. Bhaskaran asked how long does Musco expect these lighting fixtures to last.
Mr. Keifer responded, 20 to 30 years.
Mr. Bhaskaran stated that Softlighting offers people to look at some examples of their lights
to do a direct comparison. Since it is a long term project, it may be worth while for Cornell to look
into this.
Mr. Keifer stated that Mr. Bhaskaran was good enough to give Cornell a heads up earlier
today that he was going to mention Softlighting. Cornell was able to do a little homework on
Softlighting. Mr. Lemmons the lighting designer is familiar with that product and knows the guy who
owns the company. The product could work for Cornell, but the designer did mention that there are
some shortcomings in the fixture relative to the project. One has to do with the nature of the design.
It is a shoe box fixture that is similar to a street. Because of the fact that the fixture is horizontal and
all the light comes out of the bottom of it, it is fairly limited on how far away it could light an object.
Cornell's lighting designer stated that there is the track between the light poles and the soccer field
could make it difficult to get light into the middle of the field because the track is 40 feet wide.
Another thing that the lighting designer mentioned was that there was not a whole lot of overlapping
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 23
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST 5. 1997
by those lights. It is important that the athlete has overlapping light zones. Softlighting products
could be effectively used for tennis courts and applications where not as much area needs to be
lighted.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that in the proposed resolution, condition 2b, should be
modified to read "that the lights installed shall be Musco's Sport Lighting, Inc fixtures with Level 8
optional spill and glare control or equivalent fixture, said equivalent fixtures subject to approval by
the Town Engineer." That gives Cornell the option of evaluating other vendors including Softlight.
MOTION made by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie:
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.
Board Member Bell stated that the first whereas in the SEQR resolution is based on the
Musco version of four light poles being 115 feet. If Cornell were to decide to go with another plan,
ten poles 80 feet high, the action would not necessary be this configuration. He does not think the
first whereas totally applies to the revised circumstances.
Attorney Barney stated that the information applies to this Site Plan which is for four light
poles. If there is going to be changes, this Board would want to know if there would be a difference
of light poles.
Board Member Bell asked if Cornell wanted to try another company would they need to come
back to the Board with a revised Site Plan.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that not if another company could provide Cornell with
the type of lighting desired.
Board Member Bell stated that he is worried that this Board is encouraging a slightly less
quality project due to the time constraints being imposed. Cornell wants these lights installed for the
fall sports season.
Mr. Keifer stated that Cornell would like to get started as soon as possible.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that this is the proposal that was presented to the
Planning Board.
Attorney Barney stated that the Board could delegate to the Town Planner or the Town
Engineer authority to approve up to "x" number of additional poles if a different lighting system was
chosen without requiring the proposal to come back to this Board.
Board Member Bell stated that he does not think anybody cares if there are more poles
especially if they are shorter, if it would accomplish what this Board is trying to do. He would like to
see the first whereas revised.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 24 AUGUST 5. 1997
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
Attorney Barney stated that the first whereas should be revised to state "This action is the
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed installation of lighting erected on
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, or on that portion of Alumni Field in the Town of Ithaca
bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive, and Tower Road, Residence District R -30."
Chairperson Wilcox stated that in the third whereas, "July 15, 1997 and" should be added to
the resolution before August 5,1997.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
(NOTE: The adopted _resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #4.)
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the SEQR Determination for Alumni Field Lighting at Cornell
University at 9:50 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN
APPROVAL AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGARDING
SPECIAL APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF FOUR (4) LIGHT POLES EACH
APPROXIMATELY 110 FEET IN HEIGHT EACH MOUNTING UP TO 36 FLOODLIGHTS WITH
11500 TO 2,000 WATT METAL HALIDE LAMPS SAID POLES AND LIGHTS TO BE ERECTED ON
TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 63- 1- 8.29 OR ON THAT PORTION OF ALUMNI FIELD IN
THE TOWN OF ITHACA BOUNDED BY CAMPUS ROAD, WING DRIVE, AND TOWER ROAD.
DISTRICT R-30. CORNELL UJNIVFRSITY_ OWNFR•
Iii"
Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:51 p.m., and read
aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Chairperson
Wilcox opened the Public Hearing. No one spoke. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing,
and asked if anyone was prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION made by Candace Cornell, seconded by Eva Hoffmann:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied
by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed installation of four light poles as shown in a site plan submission which includes
drawings entitled "Soccer Field Lighting" numbered L01, L02, and L03, prepared by Cornell
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 25
APPROVED - AUGUST 19. 1997
AUGUST 5, 1997
University, Planning Design and Construction and dated June 12, 1997, and other application
materials, subject to the following conditions:
a. Granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the required Special Approval for the
proposed project, and any necessary variances, including a height variance for the
light poles; and
b. That the lights installed shall be Musco Sports Lighting, Inc., fixtures with Level
optional spill and glare control or equivalent, said equivalent as approved by the Town
Engineer, and
C. Revision of the site plan drawings to correct all references to the proposed height of
the poles from 120 feet and 140 feet to 115 feet, prior to the issuance of building
permits, and
d. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan to be retained by the
Town of Ithaca.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals,
determines the following:
a. There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by
the applicant;
b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected as a result of the proposed project;
C. The specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
Attorney Barney stated that condition 2c be revised to state "revision of the site plan drawings
to correct all references to the proposed height of the poles from 140 feet to 120 feet or less, prior to
the issuance of a building permit."
Attorney Barney stated that condition 2d should be revised to read "the site plan may be
modified with the approval of the Town Engineer or Town Planner, to increase the number of poles
from four up to no more than ten, with a revised site plan to be submitted to the Town Engineer and
Town Planner and be so approved before a building permit is issued."
Attorney Barney stated that condition 2e should state "submission of an original or mylar
copy of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca."
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 26
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
(NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #5.)
AUGUST 5. 1997
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for Cornell
University Alumni Field Lighting at 9:59 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR DETERMINATION: PROPOSED SOFTBALL FIELD, CORNELL
UNIVERSITY, PINE TREE ROAD:
Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the above - mentioned matter at 10:00 p.m., and read aloud
from the Agenda.
Mr. Whitham stated that Cornell University is proposing a women's softball field to the north
of Reis Tennis Center on Pine Tree Road. The Site Plan was revised where the project was shifted
to the east to avoid two large white oak trees and one large hickory tree.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if the revised Site Plan is consistent with the site visit done last
week.
Mr. Whitham responded, yes. There were two issues that were of concern on the site. The
issues that were discussed on site involved the proximity to the wetland area to the north of the site.
When the field was shifted to the east there were concerns about the grading near the creek area,
and there was a change of an approximately 30 foot section for the end of the field to be a one -on-
one slope with rif-rap. The other issue was parking. There is an existing gravel lot to the south of
the tennis center.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz showed the Planning Board an enlarged drawing to show a
walkway to an overflow parking area. Mr. Frantz stated that as far as the parking demand goes for
the majority of the events, given the experience over the last three to four years with parking at Reis
Tennis Center, the existing 46 space parking lot would be adequate to serve both the tennis center
and softball field. Should there be a major event at the tennis center the same time a softball game
is happening, the additional 36 parking spaces provided for at the Equitation Center panting area
could act as over flow parking. This would adequately serve the needs of both the tennis center and
the softball field.
Board Member Bell asked what is on the lower left comer of the map where there are
topographical lines.
Director of Engineering Walker stated that it is a storm water retention pond that was installed
as a requirement to control the additional run off from the tennis center.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there were some concerns at the site visit last week about
one row of trees that would be eliminated.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 27
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
Mr. Whitham stated that the shaded hedge row would be eliminated
the east to save some trees.
AUGUST 5. 1997
The field was shifted to
Board Member Hoffmann asked what about the area in the back towards the creek. At the
site visit it was mentioned that it was possible to move the back edge of the circle in some to make
the arch more shallow.
Mr. Whitham stated that he had further discussions with the coach, who was hoping that the
arch would not be changed. In terms of home run, that distance was important to say it was a real
home run or not. The arch could be changed, but then after looking at the site thinking that the one
tree in particular to save could not be saved even if the radius was moved in.
Board Member Hoffmann
the concern about that particular
where the steep slope would be,
to have a less steep slope so
approximately 15 feet away from
stated that she understood that already at the site. It was not just
tree, but bringing the whole line back a little bit also near that area
making it possible not to have so much fill and making it possible
%lose to the creek. The bottom of the slope is only going to be
the edge of the creek.
Board Member Cornell asked if Cornell would be affecting the slope.
Mr. Whitham stated that to have the field itself graded between one and two percent Cornell
would be creating a new slope at the edge of the creek. Cornell had looked at manipulating the
radius, but there would not be anything to gain. The steep slope is to the west, so it does not
change the grade of the slope considerably in terms of getting up the extra 10 feet that the coach
wanted.
MOTION made by Candace Cornell, seconded by Gregory Bell:
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.
Chairperson Wilcox stated that question 10 in the Short Environmental Assessment Form
that states "What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ?" The answers
should include a check next to "Residential" because there are houses across the street, and
"commercial" should be noted as being in the vicinity.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that "Park/Forest/Open Space" should also be
checked.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 28 AUGUST 5, 1997
APPROVED = AUGUST 19. 1997
(NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #6.)
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the SEQR Determination for a Softball Field at Cornell
University at 10:12 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND
RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH REGARD TO A SPECIAL
APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SOFTBALL FIELD AND
APPURTENANT FACILITIES, PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE REIS
TENNIS CENTER, LOCATED OFF PINE TREE ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF
THE PINE TREE ROAD /ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD INTERSECTION, ON PORTIONS OF TOWN OF
ITHACA TAX PARCELS NO, 601-6 AND 60- 1-8.2, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. CORNELL
UNIVERSITY, OWNER; SCOTT WHITHAM, AGENT:
Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 10:13 p.m., and read
aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. With no one
present to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing, and brought the matter back to the
Board for further discussion.
Board Member Cornell asked if the slope would be stabilized.
Mr. Whitham stated that there is a detail provided to stabilize the slope.
Board Member Bell stated that Cornell University would be more than stabilizing the slope
they would be raising it eight feet or so.
Board Member Cornell responded, no
new slope.
She meant stabilization after they are done with the
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she could not find the storage building on the map that
was mentioned in the text.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that would be the building directly behind home plate
entitled "Storage Building /Press Box."
Board Member Hoffmann asked where would the gates be that are mentioned in the text.
Mr. Whitham stated that on the site plan between home plate and the first base line there is a
break in the fence.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if there is only one gate.
Mr. Whitham responded, yes.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she asked at the site visit if there were going to be any
plantings done to help soften the appearance of any of the buildings from Pine Tree Road. Ms.
Hoffmann asked if Cornell has thought of any plantings.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 29 AUGUST 5. 1997
APPROVED - AUGUST 19. 1997
Mr. Whitham stated that Cornell has not thought of the size of the buildings being that much
of a consideration. The roofs of the building and the walls will match the existing Reis Tennis Center
in terms of color and materials. Cornell did not think of shielding or hiding the building as part of the
project being proposed
Chairperson Wilcox asked if that included the dug outs.
Mr. Whitham responded, yes, because they cannot be seen from Pine Tree Road.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he walked along Pine Tree Road there is a natural
area between the field and Pine Tree Road that could be considered a buffer from the softball field.
Mr. Whitham stated that Cornell University would prefer to keep that area as a natural area.
Board Member Cornell asked if there would be ample parking in case there are championship
softball games being played the same time a tennis tournament is happening.
Mr. Whitham stated that all of these facilities are controlled by athletics and by their central
planning. He has been assured by Cornell that they would not hold two tournaments in the same
site at one time.
Board Member Cornell asked if there would be ample parking in case it is busy in all the
facilities.
Mr. Whitham stated that the parking area Mr. Frantz indicated earlier is a big parking lot that
is rarely filled.
Attorney Barney stated that this is a women's field.
Board Member Ainslie stated that the women's softball games are getting popular.
Mr. Whitham stated that the answer to Ms. Cornell's question is that there is adequate
parking for large events on site.
Board Member Cornell asked if it would be easy for someone handicapped to get to this
area, that the walk is not difficult.
Mr. Whitham responded, no. This would be all at one grade. There would be no steps or
steep slopes between the parking area and the field.
Board Member Cornell stated that she knows that, she meant the surface of the walk.
Mr. Whitham responded, yes.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the 36 additional parking spaces are a
requirement to the Zoning Ordinance that there is one parking space for each five bleacher seats.
Cornell is proposing 180 maximum of bleacher seats.
MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Candace Cornell:
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 30
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
AUGUST 5. 1997
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary 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 Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Woman's Softball Field and its associated structures, as shown on the site plan entitled
"CORNELL UNIVERSITY SOFTBALL FIELD, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York ", prepared
by Appeal Goff & Associates, dated July 1, 1997, and other application materials, subject to
the following conditions:
a. Granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the required Special Approval for the
proposed project;
b. Revision of the site plan to include the name and seal of the registered land
surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary survey and
the date of survey;
C. Estimate of the cost of improvements (excluding the purchase cost of land) to be
prepared (preferably) by a licensed professional engineer.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals,
determines the following:
a. There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by
the applicant;
b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely
affected as a result of the proposed project;
C. The specific proposedt change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that "Woman's" Softball Field should be changed to
"Women's ".
Board Member Cornell asked why "CORNELL UNIVERSITY SOFTBALL FIELD, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York ", does not state women's softball field.
Mr. Whitham stated that the revised site plan could be modified to state women's.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 31 AUGUST 5, 1997
APPROVED = AUGUST 19, 1997
Attorney Barney stated that the title of the site plan is fine. The field should not be
designated for women only, because Cornell may want to draw a bigger crowd and want the men to
play.
Attorney Barney stated that condition 2c, should be revised to read "Estimate of the cost of
improvements (excluding the purchase cost of land) to be prepared by a licensed professional
engineer or a licensed professional landscape architect."
Board Member Bell asked why does the resolution refer to cost here.
Planner Cornish stated that it is part of the site plan checklist and it is on the application.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that in response to Ms. Hoffmann's suggestion on
landscaping that another condition be added to read "the revision of the site plan to specify that the
existing meadow area to the north of the Reis Tennis Center building be maintained."
Chairperson Wilcox asked how should the area be maintained.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it should be maintained in it's natural state.
Board Member Cornell stated that when the Conservation Board did their open space study
ranking this area fairly high.
Board Member Ainslie asked what happens when the area grows up to thistles.
Planner Cornish stated that the area would be brush hogged.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it should also be added "that those area which are
disturbed be restored to meadow vegetation." Cornell is proposing to stock pile soil.
Mr. Whitham asked if meadow vegetation means that it is mowed once a year as opposed to
letting it go back to regenerate, what does Mr. Frantz mean. Cornell would be looking for meadow
vegetation for tall grass and brush hogged once a year.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the site and construction notes say that the
existing lawn /meadow area remains protected.
Mr. Whitham stated that Cornell would be extending the area.
Planner Cornish asked Mr. Whitham if he is preferring this area to remain meadow so it
would be mowed once a year.
Mr. Whitham responded, yes.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that to maintain a meadow state people would need to
cut down trees that would start to grow.
Planner Cornish stated that if the land is mowed once a year, there would not be shrubs.
The Planning Board needs to decide what type of vegetation they want to see. Mr. Whitham is
preferring that the land would be a meadow and be mowed once a year.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 32 AUGUST 59 1997
APPROVED - AUGUST 194 1997
Board Member Ainslie stated that he thinks it would be unsightly if there are thistles and
sumac next to the softball field and tennis courts.
The Planning Board decided not to go with Mr. Frantz's suggestion and let Cornell decide
what should be done with the land.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Comell, Kenerson, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
(NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #7.)
Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the Softball Field at Cornell University at 10:33 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS:
Board Member Cornell stated that she read the report from Ichthyological Associates
regarding the examination of the proposed park area for the Monkemeyer property. She thought the
Town wanted an independent opinion on this. Mr. Kanter mentioned that several times for an
outside independent opinion needs to be gathered. When the scientists from Ichthyological
Associates visited the property, they were occupied both times by the representatives of Mr.
Monkemeyer, so they both worked on this. Her experience in the field when doing delineation with
other people, there are discussions on things seen. The report strikes her funny in that the report
does not seem completely independent if the developer's representative was there at the same time.
The report mentions that they contributed to this.
Chairperson Wilcox asked if anyone else from the Planning Board seen the report from
Ichthyological Associates.
There were no other members of the Planning Board who has seen the report from
Ichthyological Associates.
Board Member Cornell stated that the beginning of the report states "Please find the
enclosed report of our wetland inspection of the three Monkemeyer Parcels near East King Road. I
conducted most of the site work on Monday, July 14, 1997, accompanied by Mr. Monkemeyer's
representative, Barbara Rooter." This does not constitute an independent outsider.
Chairperson Wilcox suggested that Ms. Cornell take the matter up with the Planning Staff.
Planner Cornish stated that the matter would be going before the Town Board on Monday,
August 11, 1997.
------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Director of Engineering Walker stated that at 206 Forest Home Drive, there is a Town owned
foot path walkway that is ten feet wide that proceeds uphill between Forest Home Drive and Warren
Road. The home at 206 Forest Home Drive was recently sold to the Westmonts, and during the
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 33 AUGUST 5. 1997
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
process of inspection of the site it was noticed that the Town's walkway does not actually stay within
the ten feet bounds in the northwestern comer of the Westmont's property. The Westmont's have
offered to donate that area to the Town, which is 8 feet by 26 feet (73.6 square feet). At the advice
of Attorney Barney, it was suggested that a formal subdivision process be made. This Board was
notified of the conveyance with the idea that a formal subdivision would be done at the next meeting.
Board Member Cornell asked if the Westmonts would be required to pay the subdivision fees.
Director of Engineering Walker responded, no, there would be no subdivision fees because
the Town would be doing this application. When the surveying was done, the pin was found to be
outside of the trail. The trail is on the Westmont's property, and they do not want the liability.
Attorney Barney stated that his law office firm is representing the Westmonts.
-
---- - - - - --- - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - -- - -
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that Robert Shaw who has a subdivision off of
Hanshaw Road has not met the first six month deadline to convey the property to consolidate it to
one of the subject lots. Mr. Shaw is asking for another year. Mr. Shaw is having a hard time selling
the house. Mr. Shaw is attempting to get a mortgage release from the bank to purchase the
subdivided off land to consolidate with his current parcel.
The Planning Board decided to have Mr. Shaw come before the Board to be heard on the
extension he is requesting at the next meeting.
------------------------------------------------------ - - - - --
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she listened to the June 17, 1997 Planning Board
Minute tapes. She would like to propose a change to those minutes as follows:
Page 15, paragraph 3, states "Board Member Hoffmann stated that there are developable
pieces of land being made into park areas. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she needs to see it laid out as
a community park.", should be changed to read "Board Member Hoffmann stated that they are
pieces where developable land juts into the park area. She would like to see how it could be laid out
to become a community park."
MOTION made by Candace Cornell, seconded by Gregory Bell:
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby accepts the proposed change to the June
17, 1997 Planning Board Minutes to be revised with Eva Hoffmann's correction as shown above.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
----------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 34
APPROVED - AUGUST 19, 1997
AUGUST x,1997
Chairperson Wilcox stated that there were five members of the Planning Board who took the
site tour to the proposed Women's Softball Field. The site visit was not published, but everyone was
invited.
Board Member Ainslie stated that all the members were called about the site visit.
Attorney Barney stated that under the Open Meeting's Law if there is a group of members
represent a quorum or more discuss business pending before the Board should notify the public. In
actual, the Board could relax a little bit as long as the Board did not take any action at the site visit
and not discuss policy and decision at the site visit.
The Planning Board discussed briefly the Open Meetings Law.
------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Chairperson Wilcox stated that Ms. Cornish will be leaving her employment with the Town of
Ithaca on August 20, 1997. She will be working for the City of Ithaca as a Development Review
Officer for the Planning Department and a Staff /Landscape Architect Park Planner.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the August 5, 1997, Meeting of the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
Prepared by:
Deborah Kelley,
Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder
-7
Mary Brya ,
Administrative Secretary for the
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
TOWN OF IT1 ACA PLANNING BOARD
126 East Seneca Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, August 5. 1997
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard.
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination, Proposed Retail Garden Center, 1059 Danby Road.
7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to a Special Approval for the proposed construction of
a retail garden center proposed to consist of a +/- 4,320 sq. ft. store, six greenhouses (each 21 ft.
X 48ft.) totalling +/- 6,048 sq. ft., outside nursery storage and display areas, parking and other
appurtenances, to be located at 1059 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.2,
Business - "C" District. Evan Monkemever, Owner; Terrence Roswick, Agent.
8:20 P.M. SEQR Determination - Continuation from July 15, 1997 Meeting, Alumni Field Lighting, Cornell
University, Campus Road.
8:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed
installation of four (4) light poles each approximately 110 feet in height, each mounting up to 36
floodlights with 1,500 to 2,000 watt metal halide lamps, said poles and lights to be erected on Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, or on that portion of Alumni Field in the Town of Ithaca
bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Tower Road, Residence District R -30. Cornell
University, Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent. (The July 15, 1997 Public Hearing on this matter was
postponed.)
8:55 P.M. SEQR Determination, Proposed Softball Field, Cornell University, Pine Tree Road.
9 :05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to a Special Approval for the proposed construction of
a softball field and appurtenant facilities, proposed to be located on the north side of the Reis
Tennis Center, located off Pine Tree Road approximately 1,000 ft. south of the Pine Tree
Road/Ellis Hollow Road intersection, on portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 60 -1 -6 and
60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. Cornell University, Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent.
8. Approval of Minutes: July 15, 1997 (in packet)
9. Other Business.
10. Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY
BRYANT AT 273 -17478
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFADAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Karen McGuire being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Secretary for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been..duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in Town of Ithaca,
Town Hall. 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca New York on Tuesday, August 5th 1997
commencing at 7:30 P.M. as per attached
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Bulletin Board. Front & Entrance of Town Hall.
Date of Posting
Date of Publication:
2.
Karen McGuire
Town of Ithaca.
July 28.1997
July 30.1997
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 2COday of J' «.1 1997.
""'9)r ►'u011C, State of New York
Registration #01SA5044003
filename: p &paf My Co f
mmission Expires Coun y
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, August 5, 1997
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that
Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on
Tuesday, August 5, 1997, at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following
times and on the following matters:
7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to a Special Approval for the
proposed construction of a retail garden center proposed to consist of
a +/- 4,320 sq. ft. store, six greenhouses (each 21ft. X 48ft.)
totalling +/- 6,048 sq. ft., outside nursery storage and display
areas, parking and other appurtenances, to be located at 1059 Danby
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.2, Business "C" District.
Evan Monkemeyer, Owner; Terrence Roswick, Agent,
8:35 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval
for the proposed installation of four (4) light poles each approximately
110 feet in height, each mounting up to 36 floodlights with 1,500 to
2,000 watt metal halide lamps, said poles and lights to be erected on
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, or on that portion of Alumni
Field in the Town of Ithaca bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Tower
Road, Residence District R -30. Cornell University, Owner; Scott
Whitham, Agent,
9:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to a Special Approval for the
proposed construction of a softball field and appurtenant facilities,
proposed to be located on the north side of the Reis Tennis Center,
located off Pine Tree Road approximately 1,000 ft. south of the Pine
Tree Road /Ellis Hollow Road intersection, on portions of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 60 -1 -6 and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30.
Cornell University, Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent,
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support
of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person.
Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs,
will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring
assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the
public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, July 28, 1997
Publish: Wednesday, July 30, 1997
The Ithaca Journal Wednesday, July 30, 1997
le als �
PANNING BOARD CA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC
Tuesd NF.4 VGS
y aY.Auo 5. 1 th.
Chairpderson off he 0f th,
GIVEd NOTICE IS HEREB`
N that Publir
will be held by the Planning
Board of the Town of Ithaca
on Tuesday, August 5, 1997,
at 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, N.Y., at the Following
time and on the following
matters:
7:45 p.m. Consideration of
Preliminary Site Plan Ap-
proval and recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Ap-
peals with regard to a Spe-
cial Approval for the pro-
posed construction of a retail
garden center proposed to
consist of a +/- 4,320 sq. ft.
store, six greenhouses (each
21 ft. X48 ft.) totalling +/-
6,048 sq. ft., outside nursery
storage and display areas,
parking and other appur-
tenances, to be located at
1059 Darby Road, Town of
Ithaca Tax parcel No.
43- 1 -3.2, Business "C" Dis-
trict. Evan Monkemeyer,
Owner; Terrence Roswick,
Agent.
8:35 p.m. Consideration of
Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval and a Rec.
ommendation to the Zoning
C Board of Appeals regarding
Special Approval for the pro-
posed installation of four (41
light poles each
3 approximately 110 feet in
height, each mounting uP to
36 Hoodliahta with 1.509 to
2,000 watt metal halide
lamps, said poles and lights
to be erected on Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
63- 1 -8.2, or on that portion
of Alumni Field in the Town
of Ithaca bounded by
Campus Road, Wing Drive
and Tower Road, Residence
District R -30. Cornell Univer.
sity, Owner; Scott Whitham,
Agent.
9:05 p.m. Consideration of
Preliminary Site Plan Ap-
proval and recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Ap-
peals with regard to a Spe-
cial Approval for the pro-
posed construction of a
softball field and appurtenant
Facilities, proposed to be lo-
cated on the north side of the
Reis Tennis Center, located
off Pine Tree Road
approximately 1,000 ft.
south of the Pine Tree Road/
Ellis Hollow Road intersec-
tion, on portions of Town of
Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 60-1.6
and 60.1 -8.2, Residence Dis.
trict R -30. Cornell University,
Owner; Scott Whitham,
Agent
$aid Planning Board will at
said times and said place
hear all persons in support of
such matters or objections
thereto. Persons may appear
by agent or in person.
Individuals with visual impair-
ments, hearing impairments
or other special needs, will
be provided with assistance
as necessary, upon request.
Persons desiring assistance
must make such a request not
less than 48 hours prior to the
time of the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
July 30, 1997 273 -1747
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
SEQR
Preliminary Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
Russo's Garden Center
Northeast Corner, Intersection of Danbv and King Road
Planning Board, August 5, 1997
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by James Ainslie
WHEREAS:
l . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and further, a recommendation to the
Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special ?proval for the proposed construction of a retail garden
center proposed to consist of a 4,320= square foot store (30' X 144') and 6,048 square feet of greenhouse
space (6 greenhouses @ 21'X 48' square °t each). outside storage and display areas, parking and other
appurtenances, to be located at 1059 Danny Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 43- 1 -3.2, Business "C"
District. Evan Monkemeyer, Owner, Terrance Roswick, Agent.
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 August 5, 1997 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning Staff, a
preliminary site plan entitled " Russo's Garden Center ", dated May 20, 1997, revised 6/12/97, 6/13/97, and
6/21/97, prepared by Cornerstone Site Planners, 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;
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.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Cornell, Bell, Kenerson.
NAYS - None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
nis a
McGuire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca. Mary Bry�, Admilive Secretary.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
Preliminary Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
Russo's Garden Center
Northeast Corner, Intersection of Danby and King Road
Planning Board, August 5,1997
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Robert Kenerson:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and further, a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed
construction of a retail garden center proposed to consist of a 4,320± square foot store (30' X
144') and 6,048 square feet of greenhouse space (6 greenhouses @ 21'X 48' square feet each),
outside storage and display areas, parking and other appurtenances, to be located at 1059
Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 43- 1 -3.2, Business "C" District. Evan Monkemeyer,
Owner; Terrance Roswick, 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 August:'), 1997, made a negative determination of
environmental significance with regard to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on August 5, 1997 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the
Town Planning Staff, a preliminary site plan entitled " Russo's Garden Center ", dated May 20,
1997, revised 6/12/97, 6/13/97, and 6/21/97, prepared by Cornerstone Site Planners, and
additional application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval as shown on the
preliminary site plan labeled " Russo's Garden Center ", dated May 20,1997, revised 6/12/97,
6/13/97, and 6/21/97, prepared by Cornerstone Site Planners, and additional application
materials subject to the following conditions, all to be submitted prior to final site plan approval:
a. Applicant to submit a revised site plan which shows an area designated for truck
loading/ unloading with appropriate turning radius, the height of the proposed flag
poles, the construction materials of all proposed parking areas and access drives, a
planting schedule, and the location of handicapped parking.
b. Revised site plan to show additional buffer/ landscape plantings, acceptable to the
Director of Planning in the area east of the proposed garden center, between the project
area and the Montessori School.
64
r
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
Preliminary Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for
Russo's Garden Center
Northeast Corner, Intersection of Danbv and King Road
Planning Board, August 5, 1997
C. Revised site plan to show the elimination of the proposed Port-A -Jon
facility, to be replaced with a more permanent comfort facility for public
use, or indication that comfort facilities for public use are to be included
in the garden center building.
d. That any required variances be obtained from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals.
e. The estimated cost of improvements.
f. The final site plan be revised to limit the use of the two circular areas on the north to
picnic tables and chairs only instead of a chicken barbecue area and ice cream garden,
without prejudice to the applicant to later apply for a modified site plan if he be so
advised to have indoor facilities,
and subject to the further condition that the three trailers in the Northeast corner shall be
removed from the property three years from the date the first certificate of occupancy is
issued or, if earlier, by August 5, 2002,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the
following:
a• there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant;
b, the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a
result of the proposed project;
C. the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in accordance with a
comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffman, Kenerson, Ainslie, Bell, Cornell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Karen McGuire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca
Mary B
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME k ! (A- )tc:?� L41z 'I2.
PROJECT NUMBER CI qC'`-i Z3 Z
PREPARE= L�G'v.dvl.l ��I�I -I
= ITEM SUBMITTED
N/A = NOT APPLICABLE
W = WAIVE
COND = CONDITION OF APPROVAL
1. V Completed and signed Development Review Application_.
a. Development Review Escrow Acreement and Back -up
l Withholding porn (if require? ) (Only one (1) copy
each.)
2. .Z Payment of review fees.
4LDeposit of escrow.
3. V/� Fully completed and signed Short Environmental
Assessment Form, Part I (SEAFL, or Long Environmental
Assessment Form, Part I (LEAF). (See Town Planner as
to which to submit.)
4. ✓ 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. 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 heaTPr
lire, 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 bearinc.
11
A
.✓ Size, 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.
l=/ Size, location, proposed use, design_, and construction
materials of all proposed structures.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST Pace 2
f. 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. Location, design_, and construction materials of all
proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Landscaping plan and planting schedule including
location and proposed design of buff =rs.
j . V Location, design, and construct i or_ maceri als of all
proposed water and sewage facilities.
k. C/ Location of any existing or proposed fire and other
eme- rgency zones, including the location of fire
hydrants.
1. V/ Location,
proposed
utility,
abutting,
project,
name, and dimens
street and alley
drainage, or simi
or in the immedi
ions of each
and each exi
lar easement
ate vicinity
existing or
sting or proposed
within,
of the proposed
M, 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. Border lines bounding site plan sheets one inch from
the left edge and one -half inch from each of the other
edges. All required information, including signatures,
seals, dates and such information shall be within the
/ border.
p. ✓ Map scale in bar form, and north point.
q. Name of proposed project.
r. Name of Town, County, and State.
s. Date of Site Plan, including any applicable revision
dates,
t.
4L Key map (when more than one sheet is submitted).
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
6. z
Page 3
J
Name and seal of the registered land survevcr(s) or
engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary
survey and the date of survey.
Name(s) and address(es) cf all property owners and
cersons who have an interest in the site and of parcels
abutting the site, or within 500, cf the site,
including easements or rights -of -way, plus the tax
parcel numbers.
7. Estimate of the cost of improvements (excluding the
purchase cost Of land) to be prepared (pre = crab =.� % =y a
/ licensed DrOf°_ss.` cna' eng" LP_eer.
8. V Three (3) dark -1 ,'7° D_ r1nts O_ t_1P DrODCSe'. S1` °_
and 25 copies of all sheets of the proposed Site Plan
in reduced format (no larger than 11" x 1711) and ccov
OIL all other items required above (Except De- elopmer
Review Application and escrow forms)) .
plar.: or3 \prelimis . i:e
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
SEQR
Preliminary Site Plan Approval
Women's Softball Field
Pine Tree Road
Tar Parcel No. 60 -1 -8.2
Planning Board, August 5, 1997
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Gregory Bell:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary- Site Plan Approval for the proposed Women's Softball
Field and its associated structures. 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 August 5, 1997, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town
Planning Department, a site plan entitled "CORNELL UNIVERSITY SOFTBALL FIELD. Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York ", prepared by Appel Goff & Associates and dated July 1, 1997, and
other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance
with respect to the proposed action:
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.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Cornell, Bell, Ainslie, Kenerson.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimousl%-.
Karen vIcGuire, Secretary,
(cu_soft:'.sgr)
,l.
own of Ithaca. Mary
istratVe Secretary.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals
Women's Softball Field
Pine Tree Road
Tax Parcel No. 604-8.2
Planning Board, August 5, 1997
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Candace Cornell:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed construction of a
regulation softball field including two dugouts, two 90 seat steel bleachers, a press box, an
equipment storage building, a score board. and a home run fence, proposed to be located on
the north side of the Reis Tennis Center. located off Pine Tree Road approximately 1,000 ft
south of the Pine Tree Road/Ellis Hollow Road intersection, on the town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 60- 1 -8.2, Cornell University, owner; Scott Whitham, Agent,
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead
agency in environmental review with respect to Preliminary Site Plan Approval, has, on
August 5, 1997, 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 on August 5, 1997, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a site plan entitled "CORNELL LNIVERSITY SOFTBALL FIELD, Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York" prepared by Appel Goff & Associates, dated July 1, 1997, and
other application materials;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED.
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary 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 Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Woman's Softball Field and its associated structures, as shown on the site plan entitled
"CORNELL UNIVERSITY SOFTBALL FIELD, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
prepared by Appel Goff & Associates. dated July 1, 1997. and other application materials,
subject to the following conditions:
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals
Women's Softball Field
Pine Tree Road
Tax Parcel No. 604-8.2
Planning Board, August 5, 1997
a. granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the required Special Approval for the
proposed project;
b. revision of the site plan to include the name and seal of the registered land surveyor(s)
or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary survey and the date of
survey -
C. Estimate of the cost of improvements (excluding the purchase cost of land) to be
prepared by a licensed professional engineer or a licensed professional landscape
architect.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals,
determines the following:
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as
demonstrated by the applicant;
b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood
will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project;
C. the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed
project is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development
for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
.Admi
Secretary.
FINAL S;TZ ?LAN CHECY11ST
NAME
-70 7 2. Y5-�
V
C_ Cr
-TyVi "
anG
_
1
N/A
=
NCT A Pr,IC?:Z-?
:wC
w
=
rNAI V
t_he final
s_ =e p_a
COND
=
CONDITION OF
the T=wn
o.
--
1.
lComplet°_e"
anc
s
^e. °-;,e.ccmer=
-.
Ac_eemen -, Bac
Developmen=
: ? • _.N
=Jcrzw ana {-
_
2.
Payment o= acc_
=�
.na_ r.-r_�s� f..s as neecec anc
deposited in
an
escrow account.
3.
All other i =ems
Subm_= =ed w_ =h the preliminary S_te
p' an app li cat_on
w_=._ mod _f `i .� de acco d_� `,
i`a__�:_s ma ��_ _c ��
the aporova_
Given
by the Town Pla,114nc Beard.
4,
Record o= a_
ol_cat_on
=or and accrova'_ status o= a --
necessary per-n_
=s
frc :. cour_ty, s =ate, and, er federa=
agencies. Su
m_=
copies o= all permits or apercvals se
-
granted.
/
51
Detailed siz_nc
and final mat.ra_ specifications e=
all recll_rec
1 m..Y01;er^:=n_�
.
6.
�
Cons tr ct_en
Ge =
s c= all pr ^: GSed Str'1Ctur.S, r,adS,
=_!
water /sewace
facil_
=ies/ and of her iTiprovemen
.
7, co#40 One (
C_ Cr
T_; C:
anG
_ ___a_
-�_ pV
:wC
t_he final
s_ =e p_a
=. be re_a_ne^
by
the T=wn
o.
--
It: aca.
Mt,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR
Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval &
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Proposed Soccer Field Lighting at Alumni Field
Cornell Universitv
Planning Board, August 5, 1997
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to
the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed installation of lighting on
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, or on that portion of Alumni Field in the Town of Ithaca
bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Toyer Road, Residence District R -30. Cornell University,
Owner; Scott Witham, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to
act as Lead Agencv in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on July 15, 1997, and on August 5, 1997, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the
Town Planning Department, a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled "Soccer Field
Lighting" numbered LO I, L02 and.L03, prepared by Cornell University, Planning Design and
Construction and dated June 12, 1997, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with
respect to the proposed site plan.
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.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, cornell, Kenerson, Ainslie, Bell.
NAYS - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
of Ithaca.
Bryar( Administ4tive Secretary.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval &
Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Proposed Soccer Field Lighting at Alumni Field
Cornell Universitv
Planning Board, August .5, 1997
MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Eva Hoffmann:
WHEREAS:
This action is the Consideration of Preliminary- and
the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Ap
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2, or on that
bounded by Campus Road, Wing Drive and Tower
Owner; Scott Whitham, Agent, and
Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to
proval for the proposed installation of lighting on
portion of Alumni Field in the Town of Ithaca
Road, Residence District R -30. Cornell University,
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 August �, 1997, made a negative
determination of environmental significance, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on August 5, 1997, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the
Town Planning Department, a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled "Soccer Field
Lighting" numbered LO I, L02 and L03, prepared by Cornell University, Planning Design and
Construction and dated June 12, 1997, and other application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan checklists, having determined from
the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
installation of four light poles as shown in a site plan submission which includes drawings entitled
"Soccer Field Lighting" numbered LO1, L02 and L03, prepared by Cornell University, Planning Design
and Construction and dated June 12, 1997, and other application materials, subject to the following
conditions:
a. granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the required Special Approval for the proposed
project, and any necessary variances, including a height variance for the light poles; and
b. that the lights installed shall be Musco Sports Lighting. Inc. fixtures with Level 8 optional spill
and glare control or equivalent as approved by the Town Engineer; and
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval & Recommendation to
Zoning Board of Appeals
Proposed Soccer Field Lighting at Allumni Field
Cornell University
Planning Board, August 5, 1997
C. revision of the site plan drawings to correct all references to the proposed height of the poles to
120 feet or less. prior to the issuance of building permit, and
d. the site plan may be modified with the approval of the Town Engineer or Town Planner, to
increase the number of poles from four. up to no more than ten, with a revised site plan to be
submitted to the Town Engineer and Town Planner and be so approved before a building permit
is issued.
e, submission of an original or mylar copy- of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of
Ithaca.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the
following:
a, there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by
the applicant;
b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected as a result of the proposed project;
C, the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca.
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Ainslie, Kenerson. Cornell.
NAYS - None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Karen McGuire, Secretary. 1'o vn of Ithaca.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
PROJECT NAME F, t �i) !�oa L, fi4
PROJECT NUMBER q % 0 (p Z. y 3
PREPARER
lv /C' I-
= ITEM SUBMITTED
N/A = NOT APPLICABLE
W = WAIVE
COND = CONDITION OF APPROVAL
1. Y Completed and signed Development Review Application.
a. Development Review Escrow Agreement a.nd Back -up
Withholding Forn ( if required) (Only one (1) COPY
each.)
2. x Payment of review fees.
X Deposit of escrow.
3. Fully completed and signed Short Environmental
Assessment Form, Part I (SEAF) , ar- BEng- �n�-= r�r�meTMtal
(See Town Planner as
to which to submit.)
4. u 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. t Vicinity Map showing the general location of the
property and proposed project at a scale of 1" =1000' or
1"= 2000'0
b. r 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 . L7o' Exact boundary lines of the tract, indicated by a hea'TV
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. Y Size, location,
parking areas,
signs, lighting
and other exist
e. K Size, location,
materials of al
and use of all existing structures,
access drives, off - street loading areas,
pedestrian facilities, landscaping,
ing features pertinent to plan review.
proposed use, design, and construction
1 proposed structures.
PRELIMINARv SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
Page 2
f . -4- Location, design, and construction materials of all
proposed parking areas, access drives, and off - street
loading areas.
g. X Size, location, design, and construction materials of
all proposed signs and lighting.
h. Al '/r Location, design, and construction materials of all
proposed pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Landscaping plan and planting schedule including
location and proposed design of buffers.
j Location, design, and construction materials of a1i
proposed water and sewage facilities.
k. Location of any existing or proposed fire and other
emergency zones, including the location of fire
hydrants.
1. 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.
m 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. i{l 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• 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. c
q
r . Ad
s. X
Map scale in bar form, and north point.
Name of proposed project.
Name of Town, County, and State.
Date of Site Plan, including any applicable revision
dates.
Key map (when more than one sheet is submitted).
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CHECKLIST
Page 3
u Name and seal of the registered land surveyor(s) or
engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary
survey and the date of survey.
6. Name (s) and addresses) 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.
7. < Estimate of the cost of improvements (excluding the
purchase cost of land) to be prepared (preferably) by a
licensed professional engineer.
8. Three
and 25
in reds
of all
Review
olanbor3 \prelimis.ite
mb \5i14i96
(3) dark -
copies o
iced form
other it
Applicat
line prints of the proposed Sate Plan
f all sheets of the proposed Site Plan
at (no larger than 11" x 1711) and copy
ems required above (Except Development
ion and escrow forms) .
FINAL, SITE PLAN C='CQLIST
V '."1 T.I"•� J
-1 L.' J M
N //A N C T A?PLIC_ 3 .7
W WA.
CON DI = CONIDITION OF A. = ROv
De�ie1. Completed and S_g Ccmenz Review App.? CaZIC1:
Develocment Review EscrcGr
a^d 2ac.t Ul
2. / Payment of ado_ =_onal r =_-r,e,ti fee .
s as need.." " .,.-c
deoesited in an escrow account.
3 • All other iteMLS Su m_tted w_til the crellm__ ^_ary S-te
Plan apalicac_c :_ w__h mod_' _cations made accc_d_^c to
the approval Given by the Town Planning Board.
4 • R .I ° p= .ication for and a p=val status c.7 a_
necessary per«its from cou_z:y, state, and /cr fe^ =r-'
agencies. Submit copies Of all permits or ap_crovals so
granted.
5• Detailed sizina and final material specifications of
all recuired i�^rcvementS.
6 • Construction dec__ls of a..
..posed s` accu =es, roads,
water /sewace facili'=i_s, a-c ot::e= improveme*zts.
7 . On= (1) Original _na_ or mvl a: cccv and twc pace= ccp_es o=
tie final size elan to ce re_a_ned cv tn2 Town o.
I_naca.
Mb/