Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2000-06-20TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2000 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, June 20, 2000, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; James Ainslie, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (7:37 p.m.); Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jon Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (8:12 p.m.); Dan Walker, Director of Engineering (7:53 p.m.); Mike Smith, Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Mr. and Mrs. Scott Hamilton, 201 Christopher Lane; David Bravo - Cullen, Cornerstone Architects; Dan Pascone, Executive Director Better Housing of Tompkins County. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34 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 June 12, 2000, and June 14, 2000, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on June 14, 2000. (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. Chairperson Wilcox opened PERSONS TO BE HEARD at 7:34 p.m., and asked if any persons present wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed PERSONS TO BE HEARD at 7:35 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Linderman Creek Site Plan Modification, 1250 Mecklenburg Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Dan Pascone, Executive Director Better Housing of Tompkins County, stated they are proposing four changes. They are small changes. Two changes relate to the plan for the school district to pick -up school children. The original plan was to have a sidewalk leading to Route 79 so that the school bus could pick the children up at a certain point on Route 79. It was determined that the point was too close to the curve downhill. It was not a safe location for the school children. The new plan is to have the children walk out the entrance drive to Route 79 at a point further up the hill. It will be further away from the corner. As a result they are proposing to delete the sidewalk to Route 79. They are also proposing to add three light fixtures along the entrance drive. Mr. Pascone stated that neither of the changes would have a significant environmental impact. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Pascone stated that the other two items are the relocation of a dumpster pad and a storage building. The original plan did not include a storage building. They did add a storage building because the Town required them to put a lot of equipment in the garage. This did not leave room for storage. They would like to erect a small maintenance storage building. It will be located in the rear of the site. Mr. Pascone stated that they would like to move one of the dumpster pads. They found a location that is less conspicuous and more convenient for the tenants. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not characterize the changes as minor. She visited the site before the meeting. She feels that the current location of the dumpster enclosure next to building one is very noticeable. It is very noticeable as you turn to the right from the main road leading into the development. It is shielded on three sides, but it is open showing the dumpster towards the road and the houses. It is shielded away from the development. There is no enclosure on the fourth side. The dumpster takes up half of the space and the other half is empty space. It is not very attractive. It is a negative environmental impact. All dumpsters are facing in, with the open side toward the development. It is very unattractive. The site has been moved. If the dumpster is going to remain in the very obvious site then it should have some doors. There should also be plantings around it so that it is shielded from the development and outside the development. The doors will allow the garbage to be removed easily. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not see a need to eliminate the sidewalk. She does not think that the board intended to have the sidewalk only used by school children. The information in the packet mentioned that there was a steep slope in that location. She did not see a steep slope. There is a large berm that has been built up. Did the board ask for the berm? She does not remember discussing a berm in that location. She remembers the berm that goes along eastern boundary towards the residences along Route 79. Mr. Kanter stated that it is located toward the road. It is a fairly significant change. The sidewalk does not lead to anything. It is a major concern. He felt that he could not support putting a walkway in that location. He hopes that public transit will eventually come into the site. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not agree. She does not see that the situation is different today than it was when the board approved the sidewalk. Mr. Kanter stated that it does not mean that they did the right thing the first time. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she thinks that the board did the right thing. The walkway is not just intended for children. She assumes that parents would go with their children to get to the bus stop. There are shoulders along the road. There is a line painted on the shoulders. The line painted along the shoulder goes through the curve and up to Warren Place. It would be possible for adults to go out, cross Route 79 and cross into the neighborhood across from Route 79. The shoulders are wider and marked. It is not different from many other roads in the Town. She does not see a good reason to eliminate the sidewalk. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that they have received the letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning. Mr. Kanter stated that the County has indicated that a sidewalk should be built on Route 79. It is a good idea, but the State is not going to build it and the Town does not have plans to do so. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the dumpsters have an opening towards the interior of the site. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:47 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -60 — SEQR, Linderman Creek Site Modifications, 1250 Mecklenburg Road (Conifer Circle), Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to a previously approved site plan for the Linderman Creek Apartments, located on Conifer Circle (1250 Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12, Multiple Residence District. The modifications include adding three light poles along the entrance road driveway, constructing a 12 foot X 14 foot grounds maintenance storage building, eliminating the sidewalk to Route 79, and relocating the dumpster pad south to a location adjoining the Building #1 parking area. Linderman Creek Associates, L.P., Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey and Dan Pascone, Executive Director Better Housing for Tompkins County, Agents, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on June 20, 2000, 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, and an application packet that includes, among other information, a site plan labeled Linderman Creek Apartments Layout Plan (L -1), prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates and DLWArchitecture, P.C., final revisions May 17, 2000, an architectural drawing labeled Linderman Creek Apartments, Storage Shed (A -1), prepared by Daniel P. Glason, Registered Architect, dated 313112000 and revised 51812000, and other information related to the application, and 4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan; PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: Hoffmann. The MOTION was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to a previously approved site plan for the Linderman Creek Apartments, located on Conifer Circle (1250 Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12, Multiple Residence District. The modifications include adding three light poles along the entrance road driveway, constructing a 12 foot x 14 foot grounds maintenance storage building, eliminating the sidewalk to Route 70, and relocating the dumpster pad south to a location adjoining the Building #1 parking area. Linderman Creek Associates, L.P., Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey and Dan Pascone, Executive Director Better Housing for Tompkins County, Agents. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m., and asked if members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. Board Member Thayer asked how close is the sidewalk to the curve. Is there an obstruction if you were to walk across the road at that point? Mr. Kanter stated that there is a deep drainage ditch between the shoulder and the Linderman Creek property. There is no plan detail of how the crossing of the ditch would occur at the sidewalk. Board Member Thayer asked if there is enough time to walk across the road if there is a car coming up the hill. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she thinks that there is for an adult assuming that he or she do not have to walk very slowly. Mr. Kanter stated that this is the same location that the original driveway was proposed for. The State indicated that they would not allow a driveway in that location. The school bus indicated that they would not stop. He felt it was not a good idea having the sidewalk lead out to that location. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that Warren Place is just past the curve. After Warren Place there is a large parking area. Then there is a driveway to a residence. The walkway would come out beyond the driveway. Chairperson Wilcox asked what is the speed limit. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is 30 mph. Board Member Ainslie stated that he would not want to walk across the corner. Cars are not traveling at 30 mph. It would be dangerous. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the board knew that when the approved the walkway. There is a sign saying that there is a designated bike area. The shoulders are paved until you get into the City. Chairperson Wilcox asked what are the expectations for people who need to use public transportation to get downtown. Mr. Pascone responded that the nearest public transportation in on Warren Place. There are a couple different bus routes that do not go beyond Warren Place. There is a commuter bus that has runs in of the morning and evening to Enfield. People commuting to Cornell could use the bus. Eventually arrangements might be made to have the bus stop at the entrance drive. People living at the development that want to use the bus for shopping will have to walk to Warren Place. Chairperson Wilcox asked if Mr. Pascone thought that a path would be made where the sidewalk was intended to be. They are going to be walking down Route 79. Mr. Pascone stated that one way or another they will be walking on Route 79. TCAT might alter its route in the future. Some people might be dependent on the public transportation available at Warren Place. Chairperson Wilcox stated that people are going to cut across behind building one and two to get there. The question is does the board want to make it easier for them. They are not going to walk the road out to Route 79. They are going to find the shortest route. Mr. Kanter stated that it is more likely that people will cut down to where the drainage pipe goes under the road across from Warren Place. It would be a better place for them to cross. Chairperson Wilcox stated that people are more likely to cross near the City /Town line. Board Member Hoffmann asked why would it be a safer place for people to cross. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it is not safer. They are not walking on the shoulder of the road. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that it is at the middle of the curve. People would be able to see in both directions. Mr. Walker stated that it is not a safe place to cross. The location of the crosswalk is a safer location to cross. The sight distance for the drivers is much safer. The 30 mph speed limit starts below West Haven Road. He would not recommend this board sanctioning a sidewalk that would put people at the curve. People are not going to use it even if it is built. A safer place to cross is not located on the Linderman Creek property. A culvert was proposed as part of the walkway. The driveway for the adjoining properties is about 100 feet from the walkway. Board Member Hoffmann stated that if one of the points is to avoid having people walk along Route 79, then it would be better to have a walkway put in where it was planned to be. It is a shorter distance to walk after one crosses over Route 79. She also noticed that the project road is not wide. It does not have shoulders. There is a drop -off from the asphalt to the gravel area. There are no lines painted. She is not sure that it is a safe road for children to walk on in the condition it is in. Mr. Pascone stated that eventually there would be stop signs. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be shoulders and a place for children to walk to where the school bus will pick them up. Mr. Pascone stated that he does not believe that there are shoulders or sidewalks along the entrance drive. Board Member Hoffmann asked if they expect children to walk in the road. Mr. Pascone stated that they have been discussing with the school district to come into the project. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the board received a letter that the school is not agreeing to do so. They are only willing to do it for the students with disabilities. The other students will be walking on the road. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is not concerned. The road is very narrow. The students will be able to walk on the land beside the driveway. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would prefer to see the walkway built the way it was planned. There was the understanding that public and school buses would eventually drive into the project. There are people who like to walk. They will take the shortest route. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the board preferred to have the dumpster enclosed on all four sides PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that there couldn't be shrubbery around the dumpster because they would not be able to empty the dumpster. She would like to see all dumpster enclosed on four sides. Mr. Kanter stated that he does not recommend that enclosing all dumpsters be part of the resolution. The original location of the dumpster in question was more conspicuous than the proposed location. The new location is less visible. The first dumpster is at the main entrance. The Town would have a right to require screening of the dumpster in question because it is being moved. He would find it difficult to require it for the other dumpsters. Board Member Hoffmann asked if they were shown as being enclosed on three sides. Mr. Kanter stated that the dumpsters were shown exactly as they were built. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the main issue is the sidewalk. How does the board feel about the sidewalk? Board Member Howe stated that he would recommend keeping the sidewalk as originally proposed. Board Member Thayer stated that he also agrees to keep the sidewalk where it was originally proposed. Board Member Mitrano stated that she agrees that the sidewalk should remain. Board Member Conneman stated that the sidewalk should remain. Mr. Walker stated that the board might want to make a request to the NYDOT to consider allowing the Town to put a crosswalk in that location. Chairperson Wilcox asked what shoulder does the board want people walking down. Mr. Walker stated that they need to be walking on both shoulders. Pedestrians are supposed to walk facing traffic. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it takes them down to the inside of the curve. Mr. Walker stated that it is possible that people taking the bus would be able to flag the bus on Hector Street. The bus will make stops at different locations. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Planning Board would have to request the Town Board to make the request to NYSDOT. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox asked if the board should grant preliminary and final site plan approval and have a condition that they are not granting approval to the removal of the sidewalk. Mr. Kanter stated that he would have it as a condition that the board is approving it subject to modification of the site plan to add the sidewalk back in as shown on the original plan. Chairperson Wilcox stated that they would also have a condition that the relocation of the dumpster pad be enclosed on all four sides. Mr. Pascone stated that he is concerned about the operational use of the dumpster. It might be difficult for the person to have to open and close the gate. The burden is going to fall on the maintenance person. He wants the board to be sure that it is worth imposing the burden on him. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she wants to have it enclosed it on all four sides. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -61 - Linderman Creek Site Modifications, 1250 Mecklenburg Road (Conifer Circle), Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe. 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to a previously approved site plan for the Linderman Creek Apartments, located on Conifer Circle (1250 Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12, Multiple Residence District. The modifications include adding three light poles along the entrance road driveway, constructing a 12 foot X 14 foot grounds maintenance storage building, eliminating the sidewalk to Route 79, and relocating the dumpster pad south to a location adjoining the Building #1 parking area. Linderman Creek Associates, L.P., Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey and Dan Pascone, Executive Director Better Housing for Tompkins County, Agents, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on June 20, 2000 made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form part 1, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on June 20, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate an application packet that includes, among other information, a site plan labeled Linderman Creek Apartments Layout Plan (L -1), prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates and DLK/Architecture, P.C., final revisions May 17, 2000, an architectural drawing labeled Linderman Creek Apartments, Storage Shed (A -1), prepared by Daniel P. Glason, Registered PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Architect, dated 313112000 and revised 51812000, and other information related to the application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to a previously approved site plan for the Linderman Creek Apartments, located on Conifer Circle (1250 Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12, Multiple Residence District, as shown on a site plan labeled Linderman Creek Apartments Layout Plan (L -1), prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates and DLK/Architecture, P.C., final revisions May 17, 2000, an architectural drawing labeled Linderman Creek Apartments, Storage Shed (A -1), prepared by Daniel P. Glason, Registered Architect, dated 313112000 and revised 51812000, and other information related to the application, subject to the following conditions: a. revise site plan to add walkway connection to Route 79, as shown on originally approved plan, back into modified site plan; b. revise site plan to add full enclosure around all four sides of the relocated dumpster; C. submission of a mylar original or copy of the modified site plan (L 1 Layout Plan), as revised above. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that a request be made to the New York State Department of Transportation that a crosswalk marking and appropriate signage be added on Route 79 at the location where the pedestrian walkway meets Route 79. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: Wilcox. The MOTION was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Judd Falls Plaza — Phase 2 Alterations, Subway /TCBY Restaurant, 350 Pine Tree Road. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:17 p.m. David Bravo - Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, stated that they want to alter existing retail space. It is currently a hardware store. Previous to the hardware stone it was a restaurant. The alterations will return the space to a restaurant. It is an expansion of the current food operation, El-be's Deli. They will be running a Subway franchise. There will be a handicap accessible slope to the entrance. There is an existing window on the corner of the building. Plants presently cover it. The backspace is the kitchen. There will be some outdoor seating. There will be planter boxes. A curb will separate the driveway from the sidewalk. They are changing the existing signs with new lettering to describe the new restaurant. There will be two additional awning signs. It will be similar to the current awning. The hardware store will be eliminated. The impacts of the hardware store will no longer be there. The Ryder Truck business will also be eliminated. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is a slight slope. What is the difference between the lowest and highest point of the slope? Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded that it is about 8 inches. Board Member Hoffmann asked what is the distance at the widest point from the house to the outer most edge of the outdoor sitting area. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded that it is approximately 18 feet. Board Member Hoffmann asked how does is compare with total amount of space from the wall of the building to the edge of the parking area. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded that there is about a 24 foot driveway. Then there is 18 feet of parking against Pine Tree Road. Board Member Hoffmann asked where the curb would be located. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded that it is the edge of the sidewalk area. It is a handicap ramp at a slight slope. The curb will be at the edge and will become larger. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the curb would be at the edge of the outdoor seating area Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated that the edge that goes from that point into the building would be low. It will be cut down so that a wheel chair will have access. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann asked if the curb would be enough to protect the people sitting outside from interference with cars. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated that they are also putting planters next to the curb. There will be enough protection between the planters and the curb. It should be enough protection. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the elevation drawing states pizza in one area. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated that they are planning to serve pizza. Board Member Hoffmann asked if it is part of the Subway franchise. Scott Hamilton, 201 Christopher Lane, responded that the concept of this is going to be a food court with Subway being the main anchor. He is negotiating with other possibilities. Their operation demands and requires that they have a multitude of menu items to service their current bowling clientele and outside traffic. They do a large business catering to youngsters in birthday parties. The parties are predominately pizza oriented. He wants to provide diversity to his customers. Subway has an opportunity to provide co -op possibilities. It will allow them to bring in ice cream and pizza. The final details have not determined. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in the information given to the board it mentions Subway /TCBY. Mr. Hamilton responded that it is one of Subway's national co- partnering arrangements. They have an agreement with several national companies. Subway is currently under litigation with the parent company of TCBY. No new co -ops have been approved. The objective is to provide a multitude of menu items. Board Member Mitrano stated that she is for this proposal. She did find Mr. Hamlton's talking through the previous application rude and distracting. Mr. Hamilton stated that he apologizes. He did not realize they were disruptive. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the intent of this facility is to provide food service to the bowling patrons. Mr. Hamilton responded that they want to provide service to the bowling patrons as well as the general public. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the food space currently occupied would become part of this proposal. Mr. Hamilton stated that the kitchen area in the new proposal is the space of El-be's Deli. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney asked if the plans showed two coolers. Mr. Hamilton stated that they currently have two coolers. One of the coolers is used as a beer cooler for the lounge. Mr. Kanter stated that the lounge area would remain as it is. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there was a connection between the spaces. Mr. Hamilton stated that there are two doors. At the right hand entrance to the party room is a doorway that will lead into the Subway space. There are two bathrooms in the hallway, which serve the tenants of the other businesses. They may decide to have only one entrance into the bowling center. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be any restrooms to serve the patrons of the restaurant. Mr. Hamilton responded yes. There are two large bathrooms that service the bowling center. They have more than ample capacity for the additional service. Board Member Hoffmann asked where are the bathrooms located. Mr. Hamilton stated that they are not shown on the schematic. It does not show entire building. There are two restrooms with three stalls in each. They are located approximately 25 to 30 feet down the concourse in the bowling lanes. Board Member Hoffmann asked if he thought that those restrooms would serve the restaurant. Mr. Hamilton responded that both sets of restrooms would serve the restaurant. They want to encourage people to come into the bowling center. The bathrooms are being redone. They will be more modern, desirable and cleaner. There are large signs indicating the restrooms. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there would be trash receptacles in the outdoor seating area. Mr. Hamilton stated that they would be added as a matter of practicality. Board Member Mitrano stated that she always felt bad that Mr. Rowe had to pick -up trash. Why was Mr. Rowe required to do so and no one else? Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Zoning Board of Appeals required the condition. He also disagrees with the condition. The Planning Board is independent of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Hamilton is not an absentee landlord. The board has to rely on the fact that he will not want trash on the property. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Conneman stated that he assumes that Subway has carryout. Mr. Hamilton stated that the statistics show that 80% of Subway business is take -out. Mr. Kanter asked what is the projected proportion between customers that are at the bowling alley and customers that are new. Mr. Hamilton stated that the statistic is based on their average operation. This is going to be a different approach. He is hoping that they can increase the total volume based on bowling center business by about 20 %. Their bowling business has dramatically changed in the last 10 years. Historically it was a league, industrial format. It is now about 80% recreation. The customers do not stay as long. Board Member Ainslie asked if this Subway would have the same management as the Subway on Route 13. Mr. Hamilton stated that individuals own the current franchises from Binghamton. The Subways in Ithaca are separately owned. Attorney Barney asked if it is unusual. Mr. Hamilton stated that they are owned in clusters. Individual owners will own several stores. Often times independent stores will sell out and an owner will pick -up three or four. Attorney Barney stated that most franchises have the same owner. Mr. Hamilton stated that there was a Subway in Dryden and one in Lansing. Both stores closed and were bought by gentlemen from Binghamton. Chairperson Wilcox stated that in the package of materials there were demographic reports. Was there demographic data obtained from a source in this area? Mr. Hamilton stated that he approached Subway to buy a franchise. They are a real estate holding company and they select the site. Mr. Hamilton stated that he wanted the business at his site. He is the owner and landlord. He knows that Subway analyzed the property to determine if they felt it was a desirable and profitable location. Subway was very enthusiastic. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he works for Claritas. It is a demographic provider. They also do estimates. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the letter to Mr. Frost states that there are basic floor plans is provided. It mentions that detailed blueprints will be forthcoming from Subway Corporation upon site plan approval. What does it mean? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Hamilton stated that Subway has final authority on approving floor plans, the interior, and decorations. It is part of the franchise agreement. Until they have approval to house the operation, they are unable to have final plans. The plans will be close to what is presented to the board because there are restraints within the involved space. It only allows certain approaches to it. A sign might be changed. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is concerned about exterior signs. Mr. Hamilton stated that Subway does not have anything to do with the exterior. He has to use their approved logos. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the Subway logo would fit on the awnings. Mr. Hamilton responded that he does not know. He will bring the designs to the board for final approval. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board is only considering preliminary approval. Mr. Hamilton stated that his thought was that the Planning Board would approve the concept of a food operation. Then the specific design issues would be forthcoming and in much greater detail. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the board has often had problems with gas station and restaurant designs that the corporation requires individuals to follow. Mr. Hamilton stated that the logo is a yellow and green sign with "Subway" written on it. Chairperson Wilcox stated that under current zoning, anything that is changed to site plan must come back to the board. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is concerned that Mr. Hamilton does not know what will be in the food court besides the Subway. Mr. Hamilton stated that he knows what it will be. He does not know the name of the company. It will be pizza and ice cream along with Subway. It could be Purity Ice Cream. Board Member Hoffmann stated that if they were to be national franchises then there might be other signs. Mr. Hamilton stated that the drawings show ice cream and pizza written on the awnings. It may say Purity Ice Cream and it might be Noble Pizza. His plan revolves around the ability to have those three items. If he cannot accomplish the three, he will not go ahead with the project. The signage is not going to dramatically change. The colors are dictated. Board Member Hoffmann asked what would the large sign above the doors read. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Hamilton stated that the sign would read Subway and the name of the pizza company. He does not know if there will be an additional title to it. Their objective is to get the best quality food items in those categories that will have the greatest long lasting appeal to the community. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated that the large sign on the roof is an existing sign. The lettering on the sign will be changed. The existing box and lights will remain. The area of the sign will be the same. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the franchise might require that the sign must be back lit and bright colors. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded that the sign is currently back lit. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the franchise might have requirements that are in conflict with what has been presented to the board. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town has a Sign Law that has specific requirements. If what is being proposed is not in conformance with the Sign Law they would need to obtain a variance. The Planning Board would have to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals as the Sign Review Board. Mr. Hamilton stated that he has looked at many national companies. Subway is very dedicated to working with local communities. He spent a week and a half touring about 30 locations across the United States. Subway has gone into areas that have a colonial motif. They have changed everything but their logo to cater to the needs of the local community. He believes that they will not do anything that is going to be intrusive or contradictory to the Town of Ithaca. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the issue is that if it is compared to other fast food restaurants that the board has approved, when the board gave preliminary approval, the board had very detailed plans. By granting preliminary approval, the board sets conditions to be met before granting final approval. If those conditions were met, there was very little the board could do. There is some uneasiness because the plans are not as well formed. There is some concern that if the board grants preliminary approval, the board in essence is saying if the applicant meets the conditions, then the board is forced to grant final approval. Preliminary approval is the most thorough review. The board does not have the materials for a thorough review. Could the board grant preliminary approval to what is being shown, but place more weight on final approval? Attorney Barney stated that the board would be approving what has been submitted. The board could make as a condition the submission for and approval by the Planning Board as part of the final approval process. The board would reserve its right to approve it at the time it comes back before the board. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he does not want to give approval to something in a form that could be changed substantially and still be consistent with what the board was shown. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Hamilton stated that he is waiting with decisions that have to be made quickly and purchases that have to be made quickly. He is unable to do that if there is any doubt that the general acceptance with the modifications the board selects. He will conform to with whatever the board requires. He does understand the concern of the board. Mr. Kanter stated that the board might have to have two meeting for final approval if the board receives a submission that has items in it that the board is not comfortable with. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there was a comment from the County regarding traffic. Mr. Kanter stated that their comment dealt with the trip generation rates shown by the applicant as being questionable. Mr. Smith stated that he looked at the generation manual. The numbers referred to are evening rates. The peak rates that are specified are afternoon or lunchtime rates. There is traffic coming to the site for the hardware store and El-be's Deli. A lot of the traffic could be coming from the bowling alley. Board Member Hoffmann asked how would the traffic to the hardware store compare with the traffic to a restaurant. Mr. Kanter stated that they are not building a new restaurant. There is an existing restaurant. The Trip Generation Manual states that their numbers are based on limited numbers of studies. Subway provided numbers for specific operations. It showed real numbers. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:55 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -62 — SEQR, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Subway /TCBY Restaurant, 350 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -1 -1, 62- 1 -2.1, 62 -1 -2.2 and 62- 1 -3.2. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed alterations to the Judd Falls Plaza located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -1 -1, 62- 1 -2.1, 62 -1 -2.2 and 62- 1 -3.2, Business District C. Phase 11 alterations, which are the subject of the current application, include the EI -Be's food operation expanding into the adjoining space occupied by Judd Falls Paint & Hardware and adding the Subway /TCBY food franchise to the business. In addition to the interior changes, outdoor seating and fagade improvements are also planned. Scott M. Hamilton, Owner /Applicant; David Bravo - Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, Agent, and PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED 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 June 20, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Site Plan," sheet SDI, dated May 4, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza — Space for Subway Shop, "sheets 4 and 5, dated March 27, 2000, and "Judd Falls Plaza — Subway Shop Street Elevation," sheet 6, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as presently proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required with respect to the current site plan as presently proposed. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed alterations to the Judd Falls Plaza located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 62 -1 -1, 62- 1 -2.1, and 62- 1 -3.2, Business District C. Phase II alterations, which are the subject of the current application, include the El-be's food operation expanding into the adjoining space currently occupied by Judd Falls Paint & Hardware and adding the Subway /TCBY food franchise to the business. In addition to the interior changes, outdoor seating and fagade improvements are also planned. Scott M. Hamilton, Owner /Applicant; David Bravo - Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:56 p.m., and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:57 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann stated that on the last page, last paragraph of the same letter referred to previously, it states that there would be created a noticeable cosmetic improvement to the fagade. What is meant? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Hamilton stated that they have been trying to get away from the 1950 bowling alley appearance. He is hopeful that the change will make it much more attractive. It will be an improvement. Board Member Ainslie stated that the Ryder trucks would no longer be on the site. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the Ryder trucks were supposed to be on the other side of the building. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Planning Board is not enforcement. Mr. Hamilton stated that it was difficult for him to enforce it as well. Board Member Conneman stated that the terrace includes the large plant boxes and the curb. Would there be trash receptacles? edge Mr. Hamilton responded yes. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to see more planters along the curbed Mr. Hamilton stated that his wife would be doing the plantings. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there would be plants in the planters during seasons when there will not be tables outdoors. Mr. Hamilton stated that there would be plants in the planters. Mr. Hamilton asked what is the timetable for final approval. Attorney Barney stated that he has come in with less than the normal criteria. If he meets the conditions, it would take one meeting. He might want to allow room for two meetings. Mr. Hamilton stated that they couldn't start construction before September. He would like to have final approval before then. Will there be an early July meeting? Chairperson Wilcox stated that the early July meeting is July 4th. The board will not be meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that there are a number of items that he would not be able to get in for the early July meeting. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated that if the board grants final approval, there might be additional conditions. Mr. Kanter stated that he is concerned with the detailed blue prints. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -63 - Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Subway/TCBY Restaurant, 350 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -1 -1, 62- 1 -2.1, 62 -1 -2.2 and 62- 1-.1 9 MOTION made by James Ainslie, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed alterations to the Judd Falls Plaza located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -1 -1, 62- 1 -2.1, 62 -1 -2.2 and 62- 1 -3.2, Business District C. Phase II alterations, which are the subject of the current application, include the EI -Be's food operation expanding into the adjoining space occupied by Judd Falls Paint & Hardware and adding the Subway /TCBY food franchise to the business. In addition to the interior changes, outdoor seating and fagade improvements are also planned. Scott M. Hamilton, Owner /Applicant; David Bravo - Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on June 20, 2000, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 6, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate for preliminary approval, plans entitled "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Site Plan," sheet SDI, dated May 4, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza — Space for Subway Shop," sheets 4 and 5, dated March 27, 2000, and "Judd Falls Plaza — Subway Shop Street Elevation," sheet 6, dated March 27, 2000, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE I T 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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed alterations to the Judd Falls Plaza, located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 62 -1 -1, 62- 1 -2.1, 62 -1 -2.2 and 62- 1 -3.2, Business District C, as shown on PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED plans entitled "Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza — Site Plan," sheet SDI, dated May 4, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza — Space for Subway Shop," sheets 4 and 5, dated March 27, 2000, and "Judd Falls Plaza — Subway Shop Street Elevation," sheet 6, dated March 27, 2000, subject to the following conditions, prior to Final Site Plan Approval: a. submission to and approval by this board, of details of the exterior signs, awnings, facade elevations, detailed blueprints of the floor plan, and the outdoor seating area, including trash disposal areas, materials, colors, curbing, landscaping, and lighting, b. submission to and approval by this board of detailed plans of the outdoor seating area showing adequate physical separation from the adjacent parking area to ensure that vehicles will not be able to enter the seating area, C. submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan, with the above details, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Ainslie, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox stated that in the packet material, there was a brochure on the New York State Planning Federation. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he has attended two seminars. He would urge the newer Planning Board members to attend. attend Board Member Conneman asked when does Mr. Kanter need to know who would like to Mr. Kanter stated that they would need to know by early August. Chairperson Wilcox stated that potentially, this is the last meeting in this facility. Mr. Kanter stated that the scheduled move to the new Town Hall is the week of July 17th. The building will be closed for the week. The only July meeting is scheduled for July 18th. As of yesterday, the Planning Department had not received any applications for the month of July. As of today, there is one. It is the Ainslie subdivision coming back for a slight modification of approval. There was a slight change of the front lots at the auction. He does not know if it is worth having the July meeting for one item. He does not know if it could wait until August 1St. The week of July 17th would not be a good week. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox asked where would the board meet. Mr. Kanter stated that they have discussed it in their department head meetings. This room would still be available. Attorney Barney asked if the meeting could be moved. Mr. Kanter stated that the August meetings would be in the new building. The Planning Board will remain meeting on the first and third Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. There will be no conflicting court appearances. Chairperson Wilcox asked if they have an obligation to deal with the revised revisions to the Ainslie subdivision quickly. Mr. Kanter stated that he spoke with Al Folkerson, the surveyor. He submitted a revised plan. Board Member Ainslie stated that he was the third party. He turned his properties over to his son and daughter -in -law in 1987. His son had a final auction on both farms. He will have to leave the Planning Board because as of July 5t", he will be moving into the City of Ithaca into an apartment. It is necessary. His wife does not need the stress of a large house. This will be last meeting. He would not be able to vote being a City resident. Board Member Ainslie stated that he lived on the two properties for 70 years. He came here at 9 years of age. His term ends December 31, 2000. It has been very enjoyable. Chairperson Wilcox asked Board Member Ainslie how many years he has served on the board Board Member Ainslie stated that he has served two 5 year terms. When he first became a board member, farmers were 5 year terms. The other members were 7 year terms. Chairperson Wilcox stated that at one point the board expanded from 7 to 8 members. The eighth member was the agricultural member. Then the board went back to 7 members. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he would like to make a motion to thank Board Member Ainslie for his many years of service on this board. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -64 - Resolution of Appreciation - James Ainslie. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 1. James Ainslie has served on the Town of Ithaca Planning Board since May 10, 1993, and has been a dedicated and valuable member of this Board, and 2. Mr. Ainslie has indicated that he will be resigning from the Board because of a change in residency, NOW THEREFORE BE I T RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby expresses its appreciation and gratitude to James Ainslie for his many years of dedicated service to this Board and to the Town of Ithaca. A vote on the MOTION resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Ainslie. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Board Member Conneman stated that one person bought the seven parcels in the auction. Mr. Kanter stated that from what he understood from the surveyor, the buyer wanted 6 deeds. The 7 lots caused problems with the Health Department approval. It is a simple matter to bring the 6 lots before the board. They only need to combine 2 of the frontage lots. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there is a need to address the revised subdivision in a timely manner. Board Member Ainslie stated that he is not aware that it needs to be done quickly. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the board does not have a meeting on July 4th. The July 18th meeting will be difficult because of the move. Should it be pushed back until August, or should a special meeting be held in July? He does not want to schedule a meeting if this would be the only item on the agenda. If there is a reason why it needs to be done, then the board could schedule a special meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that they could tentatively cancel the July 18th meeting. If necessity calls for a special meeting before the August 1St meeting, then the board could set up a meeting for July 25th Board Member Howe stated that he would not be able to attend the meeting if it is held July 25th and he will not be able to attend the August 1St meeting. tH Chairperson Wilcox stated that he would not be able to be available July 25 PLANNING BOARD PAGE 23 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that they could keep the meeting on July 18t ". It is possible that the subdivision would not have to be revised. Then we might not have to have the meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that there was a memo provided to the board dated June 15`" from Supervisor Valentino regarding Mr. Frantz. Mr. Frantz has resigned his position. He will be continuing to work with the Town on some specific consulting projects. He will not be an actual Town employee. Board Member Mitrano asked why. Board Member Ainslie asked if he would still be involved with the parkland projects. Mr. Kanter stated that there are two specific projects that will be worked out in more detail. Board Member Ainslie asked who would be taking over. The parkland projects have a lot of work ahead of it. Mr. Kanter stated that they do not know at this point how it will work. They need to think about filling the position and how they are going to reorganize. Fortunately the summer is a slower time. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is sad to hear it. Mr. Frantz has been with the Town for a long time. He knows a lot of the history and what has happened. He is a conscientious person. Mr. Kanter stated that the board has the letter on the Southwest Area Land Use Plan. These are comments that the Town put together and sent as a response to the FEIS. It has been an interesting process. There were a lot of things that the Town asked for in the FEIS that were not done the way that the Town had hoped. The Town felt that they needed to be highlighted. It will not be done as part of the Generic Impact Statement. Mr. Kanter asked Board Member Howe if he had a question on the Route 366 bridge. Board Member Howe asked what is the status on the bridge project. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town Board put together a comment letter to the State. It indicated that the Town was hoping to consider something less than a four lane bridge. It did seem to create some problems. They have talked about relocating Judd Falls Road between Route 366 and Campus Road further to the east. Many people felt that it would create worse sight distance problems. The Town Board was interested in looking at alternate configurations for Judd Falls Road. Mr. Kanter stated that he and Supervisor Valentino attended the Joint Meeting of the Policy Planning Committees of the Transportation Council. Steve Vetter from the State was attending the meeting. He appreciated the comments. He understood the Town's concern. The State does not want to build a bigger bridge than necessary. The State wants to make sure that the bridge project meets the local goals. It has started dialog with the State. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 24 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that the board was given a letter from Bill Seldin regarding Big AI's. Chairperson Wilcox stated that attached to the letter is a handwritten letter from Mr. Frantz to Mr. Herzing. It is an interesting letter. Mr. Kanter stated that the last time the board discussed the item, the board was under the impression that Mr. Herzing would be coming back to the board with site plan modifications. Mr. Kanter stated that Mr. Frost, Mr. Walker and himself met with Mr. Herzing a few months ago. The meeting was to deal with the drainage basin and gravel parking area. Mr. Walker was very clear that what was built was not in conformance with what he had approved. It was not working. As indicated in the letter, it has been changed. Mr. Herzing has indicated that he is going back to the original approved site plan. The interpretation of Mr. Herzing and Mr. Seldin is that the lighting and the freestanding sign are items that they were able to modify under the previous section, 46(b). There is an ongoing dispute with the light fixtures. They had worked with Mr. Herzing to try to get a better situation than was originally there. Mr. Seldin's advice to Mr. Herzing is clearly stated in the letter. The gravel pull -off area has been eliminated. The drainage basin is now what was originally approved. The landscaping is what was originally approved. They did receive a fence height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Board Member Mitrano asked if Mr. Kanter and Attorney Barney are in agreement with the letter from Bill Seldin. Attorney Barney stated that he would not want to argue too much in front of a judge. The Ordinance did permit small changes that did not cost over a certain amount. There was no stated condition with respect to the lights. Everyone assumed the lights were going to be as shown. He saved money in changing the lights. The movement of the sign is not as clear. He has not seen where it is located versus where it was located on the site plan. If the board feels strongly about the sign, he would suggest that he or Mr. Kanter contact Mr. Seldin. They would express that the board would not argue the light issue, but the sign did move. Items can be moved a few feet, but not more without site plan approval. Board Member Conneman stated that there was another issue regarding where the truck parked when it unloaded gasoline. Has it been resolved? Mr. Kanter stated that it has been resolved in conjunction with gravel pull -off area. The gravel pull -off area is no longer there. There is not place for the truck to pull up. Mr. Herzing has indicated that he has informed the trucks to come in through the other entrance and back in. It is at an hour when there is not a lot of traffic. It is not a site plan issue. Mr. Herzing added a gravel pull -off area for the truck. Board Member Conneman asked if someone would verify the changes. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 25 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated that they would have to inspect and confirm the landscaping. Mr. Walker would have to go over the drainage area. Board Member Mitrano asked if they should set up a time when the board could go up. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to look at the site again. Mr. Kanter stated that he went back to his original plan. Chairperson Wilcox stated that in the past the Planning Board has relied on Town staff to do the appropriate site reviews to make sure that they conform to the approved site plan. It is their job. He might want to join Town staff, but he is not going to question their actions. Staff is aware of how the board feels. Attorney Barney stated that Section 46 (b) was amended shortly after the lighting change. From that point forward, any deviations from the approved site plan would not be subject to the old previsions of Section 46 (b). Board Member Conneman stated that the board told him that he would have to come back before the board. Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Herzing came in with a sloppy site plan. The board told him to have the site plan done by a professional. He decided not to come back before the board and to restore the property as it was in the original site plan. He does not have to come back as long as he is not changing the site plan. The issue is the sign. He does not think that they want the argue modifying the lights. Board Member Mitrano asked if Mr. Kanter would prefer if board members joined him for the site review or if he do the site review without members of the board. Mr. Kanter stated that he could go over the site. Then he could go up with interested board members. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is going to write a letter under his name as chair of the Planning Board to Mr. Seldin. He has quotes from the Planning Board. He is going to recite some of what Mr. Herzing said during the public hearing about the lights and how they would like. Legally he might not have done anything wrong, but morally and ethically he told the board one thing and did another. As chair of the board he is not happy. Attorney Barney stated that he would like to look at the letter before it is sent. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Mr. Seldin might not know both sides. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 26 JUNE 20, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano asked if TG Miller is still involved. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Mr. Herzing has gone back to the original site plan. Mr. Kanter stated that he did hire them to re -do the drainage calculations. It showed that the original approved plan had to be done. Modifications had to be done to bring it into conformance with the original plan. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is too bad when people look at things in legalistic ways rather than looking at is as saying things that they really mean. Attorney Barney stated that he does not remember Mr. Herzing being a problem before. Board Member Mitrano stated that there is a place for law. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the June 20, 2000 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:51 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carrie L. Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk.