Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2000-09-19Town of Ithaca Planning Board September 19, 2000 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, September 19, 2000, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jon Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Planner. EXCUSED: George Conneman, Board Member. ALSO PRESENT: Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road; Sue Hamilton, 201 Christopher Lane; David Bravo - Cullen, 28 Lee Road; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Larry Hoffman, 55 Genung Circle; Joe Fitzgerald, 42 Bradley Street; Bob Andree, East Hill Citgo Gas Station. 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 September 11, 2000, and September 13, 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 September , 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 this segment of the meeting at 7:34 p.m., and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances for the proposed alterations to the Judd Falls Plaza located at 350 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 622 -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 formerly occupied by Judd Falls Paint & Hardware and adding the Subway food franchise and a food court to the business. In addition to the interior changes, outdoor seating and facade improvements are also planned. Scott M. Hamilton, Owner /Applicant; David Bravo - Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, Agents. David Bravo - Cullen, Cornerstone Architects, stated they are submitting more detail on the outdoor seating and elevation. They have a planting plan and exterior lighting plans, which they did not have at the prior meeting. The interior plan is more developed. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox asked if there is any change in the facade. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded it has more detail than before. The base color is the existing color of the facade. Board Member Howe stated there are many signs. Is "Chef Scooter's" the overall name of the food court? Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded "Scooter" is a nickname of Scott Hamilton. He decided to use the name for the incorporation. Board Member Hoffmann stated the signage has increased from the last meeting. The previous drawing did not indicate there would be three different signs. There was no sign stating Subway. It showed the pizza and ice cream sign. Mr. Bravo - Cullen replied the Subway sign is a requirement of the Subway Franchise Corporation. They are required to display the sign. Board Member Hoffmann stated it was explained at the last meeting the Subway sign was going to replace the existing sign. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated since that time, Mr. Hamilton had the opportunity to purchase equipment from a store in Troy, New York. He has also received more of the requirements of the franchise. Board Member Hoffmann stated the size of the sign has been doubled. The larger portion of the Subway sign is proposed to be backlit. There were three small awnings over the two sets of doors and the window in between. "Pizza" was written on one awning. "Ice Cream" was written on another awning. "Subway" was written on the last awning. These awnings have been replaced with a larger awning stating "Chef Scooter's ". There is an arrow pointing to the window below "Chef Scooter's ". At the bottom of the arrow it states "option, possible future interior window sign or signs ". on Drawing A2 also indicates on the window to the east of the door and to the Subway, "option, possible future interior window sign or signs ". Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to know why these changes have been made. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded many stores have window signs. Purity has a window sign. They would like to see "Purity" on the north side of the building. They are allowed a window sign on each side. They are not currently applying for a window sign permit. They are indicating they may wish to in the future. Board Member Hoffmann stated if the board approves the drawings, it does not mean that they are approving the options. It is something that needs to be an extra request later on. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated he knows they need to get a sign permit. The board might approve the concept, but they will still need approval for the sign permit. Board Member Hoffmann stated the board might not want to approve the concept. It is not part of the text. It is only shown on the drawing. Mr. Smith stated the applicant has applied for sign variances for the awning signs located on the front and side of the building. They also applied for a variance for the size of the sign on the front of the building. Chairperson Wilcox asked what do the regulations state and how far over the maximum allowed are they. Mr. Smith stated the sign is approximately 127 square feet. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the allowed is 78 feet of frontage. It translates into 78 square feet. He has also been under the impression that they could add the allowable square footage from both sides together. He was told that was not allowable. The extra square footage on the north side does not carry around the corner to the east side. They lose the 20 square feet from the north. Board Member Hoffmann stated she is aware that in the new outdoor seating area they are incorporating a ramp from the parking area. It is the new handicap accessible entry on the eastern side of the fagade that faces the road. There is also a handicap accessible entry on drawing A2 on the north fagade. There is a high curb. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the sidewalk along the north side of the building is ramped to the pavement. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there is going to be a handicap parking space near the ramp. There are some spaces available along Pine Tree Road. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated there are two parking spaces available across from the outdoor seating area. There are two spaces located next to the loading area. Board Member Hoffmann stated it would be helpful to have a handicap accessible space located at the end of the loading area. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated it is a possibility. The loading area was for the hardware store. It is not necessary for the Subway restaurant. The loading door is labeled service entry. He does not know if the other stores will need to use the service entry. If they do not need the loading area, then they could add a handicap accessible space. Chairperson Wilcox stated there are handicap accessible spaces on the east and west sides, but none on the north side. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated the curb is high outside the hair salon entry and the entry to the Subway. It would be impossible for a person with a handicap to enter at that location. They would need to go up to the corner. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated they would be able to access the sidewalk from both ends of the sidewalk. Board Member Hoffmann stated she did not see a handicap access to the sidewalk from the northwestern corner. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the main entrance to the bowling alley locates it. If someone wanted to go to the hair salon they would want to park at the east end. Board Member Hoffmann stated it would be nice to have a handicap accessible space available at that location. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated he does not have a problem doing it if the loading space is not needed. Board Member Hoffmann stated on drawing A2 the two windows on either side of the entry door do not look like they look on the drawing. They are very close to the bottom of the wall. Will they be changed to look like the drawing or will the drawing be changed to conform to what exists? A2 Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the intention is to use the existing windows. He will change drawing Chairperson Wilcox stated the drawings become the record of what is being done. Board Member Hoffmann stated she is glad to see the built -in planters with enough soil to sustain permanent plantings. It makes a better screen. She would like to see a row of trees in the grass strip where there are evergreen bushes along Pine Tree Road. There are not any overhead utilities to interfere with the trees. They could grow up and become beautiful. They would provide shade to the parking lot. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated they would look into it. They would have to carefully consider the species they might use. Board Member Mitrano asked Board Member Hoffmann what she thought would be appropriate. Board Member Hoffmann responded she would like shade trees rather than evergreen trees. Evergreen trees spread out on the bottom and could create problems. The shade trees would not interfere with traffic and they would create a nice visual row of trees with shade. The board prefers PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED native species. They would have to be trees that can withstand growing close to pavement. It should be different species than there are along the rest of the road. Variety is good. Mr. Smith stated it is a narrow grass strip. They will not be able to plant the same type of planting as across the street. The trees will need to be able to withstand the salt and snow from the road. Board Member Hoffmann stated it couldn't be worse than the plantings that are in East Hill Plaza. It is possible to find trees that can grow surrounded by pavement. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m., and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard. Hollis Erb, 108 Snyder Hill Road, stated that she concurs with the ideas that Board Member Hoffmann suggested. Trees would grow better than bushes in the narrow strips of grass. The snow would be piled directly on the bushes. Please keep the signs at a minimum. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Board Member Mitrano stated Mr. Bravo - Cullen mentioned that there might be a sign that was already purchased. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the Subway sign has been purchased because it was part of the package. Board Member Mitrano asked how large is the sign. The sign looks quite large. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded the Subway sign is 2 feet high and 13'/2 feet long. It is about 33 square feet. Board Member Mitrano asked does not Burger King have a very reduced sign from its usual sign Board Member Hoffmann responded yes. The board was told it was possible to get a smaller Subway sign to fit in the way it had in the previous drawings. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated that if they were to go strictly by the Sign Ordinance they would only have 78 square feet to work with. The Subway sign is 33 square feet. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the issue is that what the board was shown during Preliminary is different than what the board has been given for Final. The Sign Ordinance might allow it, but Preliminary approval was granted based on one set of drawings and he is seeing the reaction of the board to the amount of revisions. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Kanter stated the Preliminary plans included signs not showing detail. The reason the Planning Board included a specific condition to come to Final approval with details was because there were not details shown before. Chairperson Wilcox stated it might be different from what each board member thought they were going to see but is reasonable. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to know by how many square feet the current signs might be over or under what is allowed. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated they are allowed by the Sign Ordinance 78 square feet of sign area. The north side sign is 16 square feet. The allowed is 36 square feet. The signs along the side of the building are the same size. They are 2 feet by 8 feet. They felt the front of the building was different. The use of accent color is causing the sign to be larger. The sign itself is not larger than 78 square feet. Board Member Thayer asked if it is considered part of the sign. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated it was interpreted it would be. He thinks it depends on how accent colors are done. Chairperson Wilcox stated the Sign Ordinance considers it part of the sign. Board Member Hoffmann stated it is not clear if they are over the maximum allowed. Is it currently 127 square feet? Mr. Smith stated 127 square feet is the size of the proposed sign. Board Member Mitrano asked what is the maximum allowed. Chairperson Wilcox responded the maximum allowed on the east side is 78 square feet. Board Member Hoffmann stated it does not include the possible future interior window signs. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the window signs are a separate issue. They are allowed 4 square feet for window signs. Board Member Thayer stated the background of the sign is 3 feet and 6 inches. The letters are only 2 feet high. It does not have to have that much background. It would reduce the size of the sign. The sign is out of proportion with the pizza and ice cream sign. The letters are much larger. It looks off balance. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated they were trying to work with the pizza and ice cream sign. It is an existing box sign on the building. If there were nothing on the building they would have designed a sign that was 78 square feet. It is a box sign with a plastic face and fluorescent lights inside. Board Member Hoffmann asked if only the letters of "Subway" are lit or if the entire sign is lit. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded only the letters are lit. The green background is intended to be paint on the building. It is not necessary. He felt it made the sign look better. He also thought he could carry the 20 feet around the corner. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there is a smaller Subway sign to put over the door on the north fagade. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the sign is 2 feet by 8 feet. That size was picked because there is an existing box sign there that size. There are 6 2x8 box signs going down the side of the building. Board Member Hoffmann stated it looks better when there is a consistent sign. It is the reason she has trouble with the eastern fagade. It is different from what she expected to see. Board Member Mitrano stated the Subway sign is large compared to the pizza and ice cream sign. The letters are very large. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the pizza and ice cream signs were lit. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded it is a box sign. The lighting is inside. Board Member Mitrano asked if the board could ask for a smaller sign. Chairperson Wilcox responded absolutely. The signs as proposed are in some way objectionable to the board. It could be a visual reason. The board could determine the signs are okay. They do exceed the total square footage allowed. Board Member Mitrano stated she feels the signs are too large and they would give off too much light at night. She would like Mr. Hamilton to find a scaled down Subway sign. She stated the Subway sign is large and bright. It does not coordinate with the pizza and ice cream signs. She would like something more tailored because the rest of it looks very nice. It is going to detract from the awning. Chairperson Wilcox asked Board Member Mitrano what size she would like the sign to be. Board Member Mitrano stated she would like it to be congruent to the sign and lettering with the signs to which it is adjacent. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the Subway sign is 27 square feet. The other box sign is 49 square feet. If the paint is eliminated then they are under the square footage by 2 feet. The portion colored green on the drawing is paint. Chairperson Wilcox asked Attorney Barney to explain how signs are measured in the Sign Ordinance. Attorney Barney responded the border measures signs. The board needs to determine if they want the applicant to remove the green paint or does the board want to leave the decorative green paint, which increases the size of the sign. Mr. Smith asked if there would be 3 signs once the border was removed. Attorney Barney stated it depends upon how it is measured. If the Subway sign is considered one sign, then they could say the pizza and ice cream sign is one sign. It is being measured as one sign. Board Member Thayer stated the lettering for Subway is different on the drawing and diagram. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the diagram shows the actual lettering that is on the sign. Attorney Barney asked if the "S" and "Y" have an arrow. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded yes. Board Member Hoffmann asked if it has been included in the square footage. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated it has been included in the square footage. Chairperson Wilcox asked the board if anything has changed due to the sign being too large because of the paint on the building. Board Member Hoffmann stated it is a technicality of the regulations. There is also a discrepancy in how it looks. It is a sign with big letters next to a sign with small letters. It is not consistent in size. Board Member Howe stated it is very busy. He would prefer a smaller Subway sign. Board Member Thayer stated if he was selling pizza or ice cream he would be discouraged. All he sees is the Subway sign. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the other sign is larger in area than the Subway sign. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Thayer stated the letters are considerably smaller. It is the basic objection by the board. Mr. Bravo - Cullen asked if the letters were bigger would it be okay. Board Member Thayer stated the letters could not be larger because they would not fit on the sign Board Member Hoffmann stated the second sign is larger in area, but it is advertising two different businesses. Each sign is half the size of the existing space. There are 3 businesses. They need to have an equal size. feet. Board Member Thayer stated he agrees with Board Member Hoffmann. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated if each sign were 27 square feet then the total would be 81 square Attorney Barney asked why he used 27 square feet. Mr. Bravo - Cullen responded it is the size of the Subway sign. One issue is that what is proposed is over the allowed 78 square feet by 49 square feet. The extra square footage is paint. If the paint is removed they have 76 square feet. They are within the square footage of sign area. Chairperson Wilcox stated that alone does not make the sign acceptable. Just because they might need a sign variance does not mean that this board does not have an opinion on how the sign looks. Board Member Thayer stated the letter size is objectionable. Is there a possibility that the sign could be exchanged for a smaller sign? Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated he is not sure if they could purchase a smaller sign. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the fact that Mr. Hamilton may have already bought the sign is not a consideration to him. Board Member Thayer stated he is concerned that Mr. Hamilton has already invested in the sign Board Member Hoffmann stated it was Mr. Hamilton's choice to purchase the sign before the board reviewed it. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated he has tried to marry 2 existing signs and make it work graphically. The board might consider changing either one. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that she has the impression the board feels the letters "Subway" are too large. They would like to see the Subway sign reduced instead of the other sign being enlarged. Board Member Howe stated it would be nice to have similarity between the signs. They are not integrated. They need to look like they are part of the same business. Board Member Mitrano stated she would like the size of the Subway to be reduced to the size of the other sign. Chairperson Wilcox stated he understands the applicant's desire to use as much of the allowable square footage as they can and potentially exceed. The board's job is to make sure it looks reasonable. It is an attempt to save money rather than an attempt to have a fagade that looks nice. If there is some agreement amongst the board that they would like the sign changed he wants to make sure they are clear on what they would like to see. The alternative is to ask the applicant to come back with revised signs. The board could then review the signs at a subsequent meeting. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to see the changes be made to the sign before the board approves it. She does not want to put the burden on the staff in deciding if it were something they would approve of. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated he did a study of different possibilities when he designed the sign. The alternative is the same size letters without the green background. Mr. Bravo - Cullen presented the alternative sign configuration to the board. Board Member Thayer stated he felt the alternative looked smaller. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she preferred the alternative. Board Member Mitrano stated she liked the alternative better, but she would like to have the signs conform. It would look much nicer. Chairperson Wilcox stated the board agrees it is not unreasonable that the Subway sign looks like a Subway logo. Board Member Hoffmann stated very often corporate issues are pushed onto local communities. She does not necessarily like them. She would often like it done in a different way. It seems next to impossible to have it done in different ways. It is not big problem in this case, but in some cases it is a big problem. Signs are not designed to fit the location and the building. They have to conform to the image of the corporation and be identifiable. Chairperson Wilcox stated he feels the board would like to table the discussion and have the applicant return with revised drawings. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano stated she does not want to make the applicant to come back repeatedly if the board is going to disagree with the designs. Mr. Bravo - Cullen asked if they could confine the further deliberation exclusively to the issue of signs and be able to proceed with the rest of the work. They would not have signs until they had received sign approval. Attorney Barney asked what does the board want the applicant to come back with. The board needs to give them information to work with. Board Member Mitrano stated she does not want the green bordering and she wants the Subway sign to be the same size as the lettering in the other sign. Board Member Thayer stated he would like to see the same thing. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would prefer to see the same design. She would like the exterior lighting to be included in the drawings. She would like to see the north fagade corrected. Chairperson Wilcox stated the applicant could make the lettering in the other sign to be slightly larger. The board is looking for continuity in the signage and the way it looks. It is not there now. There is some issue about the square footage, but the real issue is the conformity of the signs. It is not visually pleasing. Board Member Thayer asked if the board could approve the application without the signs. Attorney Barney stated when an applicant is applying for Final Site Plan Approval, the Ordinance does not allow a building permit to be issued unless the Final Site Plan Approval has been given. The board could give Final Site Plan Approval conditional upon staff approving the size of the sign. The board could give Final Site Plan Approval eliminating the signs. The applicant would have to come back to revise the site plan. Chairperson Wilcox stated it is the responsibility of the board to review the signs. They very often delegate their responsibility to the staff. Mr. Kanter stated the board could approve Final Site Plan with the exception of the signs. The board could make it clear they are not approving any signs. There could also be a condition that the signs must come back to the board for further review. Attorney Barney stated it would be preferable if the signs were eliminated from the site plan. They could get a building permit. Then they would need to come back to the board for modification of the site plan to include the signs. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated he does not want to be put in the position that Mr. Hamilton comes back to the Planning Board and would like to use the original sign because he already purchased the sign or had the masons do their work. He does not want to hear an excuse down the road. Mr. Kanter stated he would prefer not being responsible for making the final decision on the signs Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to discuss the lighting. It is hard to tell how they are to be mounted. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated they are wall mounted. They can be adjusted. It is an unobtrusive wall light. They are not going to be very visible. Two lights will be mounted under the awning. aimed Chairperson Wilcox stated he had some concern about light spillage depending how they were Board Member Howe asked if the owning will be a year round awning. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the awning would be taken down in the winter. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to know for sure how the lights are going to be pointed. They have problems with lights that are not directed towards the ground. The glare of the bulb blinds people. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated the lights would be pointed down so they are only lighting the surfaces underneath. They are not intended to light the parking lot. The lights can be mounted in any direction. Their intention is to mount them so the light shines down. The lights have a bracket that screws into the wall. The fixture pivots on the bracket. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like the lights placed permanently so that they cannot be pivoted out. Mr. Bravo - Cullen stated they could do so. Board Member Hoffmann asked what staff thought of the lights. Mr. Kanter stated they are standard wall units. They are not different than what would be seen at the entrance of an apartment building. They could require it be mounted such that no horizontal spillage occurs off site. Board Member Hoffmann stated she is concerned about spillage and glare for people walking from the parking area to the restaurant. She would also like drawing A2 be corrected to show the appropriate size of the windows. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -80 - Final Site Plan Approval, Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza - Subway 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 Rod Howe. WHEREAS: I. This action is consideration of Final 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 formerly occupied by Judd Falls Paint & Hardware and adding the Subway food franchise and a food court 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 a Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, did on June 20, 2000 make a negative determination of environmental significance; and 3. The Planning Board, on June 20, 2000, did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project; and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 19, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate for final approval, plans entitled 'Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza - Site Plan," sheet SDI, dated May 4, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza - Space for Subway Shop," sheet SD2, dated August 15, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza - Outdoor Seating & Planter Plan, " sheet SD3, dated August 15, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza - Subway Shop Street Elevation," sheet A1, dated August 15, 2000, 'Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza Subway Restaurant - Neon Channel Sign Details," dated August 22, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza - Subway Shop North Side Elevation," sheet A2, dated August 15, 2000, 'Alterations to Subway at Ide's," sheet A3, dated August 15, 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 grants Final 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 plans entitled 'Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza - Site Plan," sheet SDI, dated May 4, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza - Space for Subway Shop," sheet SD2, dated August 15, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza - Outdoor Seating & Planter Plan, " sheet SD3, dated August 15, 2000, "Judd Falls Plaza - Subway Shop Street Elevation, " sheet A 1, dated August 15, 2000, 'Alterations to Judd Falls Plaza Subway Restaurant - Neon Channel Sign Details," dated August 22, 2000, "Judd Falls PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Plaza — Subway Shop North Side Elevation," sheet A2, dated August 15, 2000, "Alterations to Subway at Ide's, "sheet A3, dated August 15, 2000 subject to the following conditions: a. All references to signs on the east side of the new fagade, including the Subway, Noble Roman's Pizza, and Purity Ice Cream signs, to be removed so that there is no fagade signage on the ease side, such removal to be without prejudice to the applicant to apply at a later time for a modification of the final site plan to add signage as may be subsequently approved by this Board; and b. Modify Drawing A -2 to show current actual dimension of windows; and C. Modify drawing SD -1 to add at least one handicapped parking space adjacent to the handicap accessible entrance on the north side; and d. Modify drawings A -1 and A -2 to remove reference to optional window signs; and e. Modify all drawings to show exact location of three exterior lights, such lights to be installed in a manner that eliminates horizontal spillage; and f. Submission of a revised landscape plan to show deciduous trees appropriate to the circumstances along the east side of the parking lot adjacent to Pine Tree Road, to be approved by the Director of Planning prior to the issuance of a building permit; and g. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan as so modified to be retained by the Town of Ithaca; and h. Submission of details of proposed lighting fixtures for review and approval of Director of Planning, including demonstration of no horizontal spillage, prior to issuance of any building permits. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Wilcox. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances to update the canopy and canopy signage at East Hill Plaza Citgo, located at 301 Pine Tree Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 -1.13, Business District "D ". Cornell University, Owner; Andree Petroleum, Applicant; Robert Andree, Agent. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated his office represents Mr. Andree and Andree Petroleum in a variety of matter. They are not representing him in any connection to this application. Bob Andree, 3215 Wilkins Road, stated the canopy has square corners. They would like to remove the square corners and make them round. There is currently a stripe of color that goes around the canopy. They would like to replace it with a similar stripe, which has had the color blue added. The current signs on the canopy would be removed. In its place there would be 3 signs box channel letters that would be mounted in the middle of 3 sides of the canopy. The signs mounted on the canopy columns would be removed permanently. There is a stripe on the building. The stripe would be redone to match the stripe on the canopy. Board Member Mitrano stated she likes the rounded corners of the canopy. Chairperson Wilcox stated he assumes Mr. Andree has been asked to remodel by the corporation. Mr. Andree responded he was asked to make the changes with a deadline. Chairperson Wilcox asked if he had to pay for it. Mr. Andree responded yes. Board Member Mitrano asked if they have to have the Citgo sign on each side. Mr. Andree stated there are 3 Citgo signs on the canopy currently. He would be replacing the signs with " Citgo" centered on the canopy. He is removing 51 square feet of total signage and replacing it with 51.84 square feet. Board Member Mitrano stated they are also removing the small signs on the pumps. Board Member Mitrano asked what is meant by the company told Mr. Andree he had to change the image of the gas station. station Mr. Andree stated if he wants to sell Citgo gas, then he has to change the image of the gas Chairperson Wilcox stated he doubts that is the case. Board Member Mitrano asked what happens if the board does not like the changes. Attorney Barney stated if the board does not like it, then the board is not obligated to grant the application. Citgo is also not under compulsion to allow Mr. Andree to continue to operate a Citgo station. Mr. Andree is in a difficult situation. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano asked how is the board to know Citgo's exact position. Attorney Barney stated Mr. Andree has a Citgo representative. Mr. Andree stated the representative brings the information from the home office in Tulsa, Arizona. Board Member Hoffmann asked what happens if they do not make the changes. Mr. Andree stated he would no longer have a Citgo station. He would not be allowed to use the brand, buy their gas or use their credit cards. He would then have to contract with another company and image. Board Member Mitrano stated this has come up before with Burger King and McDonald's. Pressure from Planning Boards has caused corporations to reconfigure their images. Chairperson Wilcox stated the corporation suddenly makes available an alternative, which previously was not available. The board hears very often this is corporate image and this is the way they want it. Board Member Mitrano stated she is sympathetic to Mr. Andree's position to be caught in the middle, but there must be precedence where corporations have under pressure reconfigured their signage. Board Member Hoffmann stated they had a similar case with the BP gas station. Chairperson Wilcox asked what are the objections to the sign. Board Member Thayer stated the size of the letters is a problem. The background paint on the previous application caused the sign to be larger. How should the board measure on this sign? Mr. Kanter stated this is a different sign. This is a canopy sign, not a wall sign. The maximum height of lettering is the problem as opposed to the square footage. Board Member Thayer asked if the sign exceeded the maximum height of lettering. Mr. Kanter stated the maximum letter size is 6 inches. Chairperson Wilcox stated there are variances on the existing signage. He objects to the visual impact. The total square footage change is minimal. The problem is what is being counted are the 2 little signs under the canopy. They are hard to notice. At the top of the canopy the 3 Citgo signs are being replaced by large lettering. The square footage might be the same, but the tradeoff in terms of visual aspects is quite different. It is a big change. The board's job is to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The board does not approve or disprove the signs. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated signs are present to help people notice the gas station. She finds it hard not to notice the station. The freestanding sign in front of the gas stations calls attention to it. Board Member Mitrano stated she apologizes to Mr. Andree for him being in the middle. It is not to make him uncomfortable. Board Member Hoffmann asked if it would be possible for Mr. Andree to not have the music playing outside of the store. She has asked a few times to have the music disconnected, so that it only is on the inside the store, not outside. Mr. Andree stated it could be disconnected, but everyone else likes the music. She is the first person who does not like the music. It is not loud. Board Member Hoffmann stated it is loud and it is mixed music. She wants to choose when she listens to what music. She does not like music played in a public place. Chairperson Wilcox stated he likes music played at the pump. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:05 p.m., and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road, stated the visual impact of the suggested changes is louder than the old signage. She does like the rounded canopy corners. The blue stripe is unfortunate. It separates the building from Burger King and the fagade behind. The freestanding sign declares what the business is. It is the only gas station in the area. A product differentiation does not need to be made in the area. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -81 - Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances, East Hill Citgo, 301 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 -1.13. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. 1. This action is consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances to update the canopy and canopy signage at East Hill Citgo, located at 301 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 -1.13, Business District "D ". Cornell University, Owner, Andree Petroleum, Applicant, Robert Andree, Agent. 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 19, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled " Citgo Canopy Image Guide," received 911100, "24 PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Illuminated Channel Letters, " received 911100, "Standard Canopy with Perimeter Gutter System," pages 7 -9, received 911100, and "Special Canopy with Sloping Deck and Center Gutter System, " received 911100, and other application material. NOW THEREFORE BE I T RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for sign variances not be granted for the following reasons: a. The letters comprising the Citgo signage along the canopy to be too large; and b. The area lit in the evening would be larger than the existing signage; and C. The signage being removed would not be as noticeable as the proposed Citgo lettering that would be added to the canopy; and d. The existence of the freestanding Citgo sign already draws attention to the fact that this is a Citgo gas station. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR, Determination, Cayuga Medical Center Modernization Project, 101 Dates Drive. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Larry Hoffman, Holt Architect, stated the Cayuga Medical Center is 21 years old. They are proposing a modernization of a large portion of the facilities inside the building. The building is large enough to house the facilities. They are not proposing to add square footage. Medicine and healthcare is delivered in a different format now than it was in 1979. They are doing a series of renovations in the facility while the facilities maintain 100% operation. This project will not have an impact on the site. Site plan approval is required. There are renovations proposed for each floor of the building. The lower level of the building will have changes to executive administration, quality assurance, and human resources. There is also an area that will house conference rooms and an education center. The second floor of the hospital, north patient wing, is currently a mental health unit. They are proposing to convert the unit to a 20 -bed adult PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED mental health unit and a 6 -bed adolescent mental health unit. It requires minor partition changes. Most of the renovations will occur on the third floor. A much larger area of the building is affected. The first phase of the work is underway. They have started construction on the Cardiac Cath. Lab. Construction has started in this area with a building permit. There is about 18,000 square feet of space on this floor. It is being reconfigured to consolidate the ambulatory surgical function. In 1979 about 5% of all surgery was done on an ambulatory basis. Today it is about 85% to 90 %. The general system is one -day surgery. They will also be upgrading the Obstetrics unit to bring into line with the current method of servicing. They are adding a Labor /Delivery /Recovery /Post Partum room. In 1979 a women spent an uncomfortable day in a labor room. She was then put into a delivery room. Then she went to a patient room. The new system is the woman stays in one room. A lot of space has freed up in the existing building by the fact the babies are generally kept by the mother in the room rather than being kept in big nurseries. The labor and delivery suite is very different than it used to be. It is enabling them to expand the ambulatory surgery function. The surgery rooms or intensive care units are not going to be impacted. The billing and financial departments are being moved to the Medical Office Building. It will allow more critical functions to take place in the building. Before they can start another phase, they need to complete the previous phase. The Cardiac Cath. Lab is scheduled to be completed before the first of the year. Then they will start construction on the labor /delivery changes. The space for the areas is vacated and makes available the next space. These are functions that are critical to the hospital. The intention is to deliver the best healthcare feasible. They are committing major funds to the project. They would like to keep the ball rolling as smoothly as possible. Chairperson Wilcox asked if they are aware of any asbestos in the building that will be affected by the renovation. Mr. Hoffman stated the building was built post- asbestos period. There is no asbestos in the building. Chairperson Wilcox asked if he was aware of any radioactive materials in the building that will be moved as part of the renovations. Mr. Hoffman responded they would not be moved as part of the renovations. There are radioactive materials in hospitals. They are also tightly controlled. Board Member Mitrano asked how does the hospital dispose of tissue waste. Joe Fitzgerald, 42 Bradley Street Trumansburg, stated they have a detailed specific red bagging system. They have licensed vendors who remove the waste. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 20 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -82 - SEQR, Cayuga Medical Center Modernization Project, 101 Dates Drive, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Modernization Project consisting of interior renovations and modifications, located at 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, R -30 Residence District. All anticipated work will take place within the existing buildings. No site work and no alteration of the exterior facades of the buildings are proposed. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence Hoffman, HOLT Architects, P.C., Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on September 19, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning staff, and an application package entitled Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca Multi -Phase Modernization. Dated August 28, 2000, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan modifications, as proposed; 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, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Modernization Project consisting of interior renovations and modifications, located at 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, R -30 Residence District. All anticipated work will take place within the existing buildings. No site PLANNING BOARD PAGE 21 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED work and no alteration of the exterior facades of the buildings are proposed. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence Hoffman, HOLT Architects, P.C., Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:25 p.m., and asked if any persons present wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:26 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2000 -83 - Cayuga Medical Center Modernization Proiect, 101 Dates Drive, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval. MOTION by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Modernization Project consisting of interior renovations and modifications, located at 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, R -30 Residence District. All anticipated work will take place within the existing buildings. No site work and no alteration of the exterior facades of the buildings are proposed. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence Hoffman, HOLT Architects, P.C., 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 September 19, 2000, 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 September 19, 2000, has reviewed and accepted as adequate an application package entitled Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca Multi -Phase Modernization, dated August 28, 2000, and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cayuga Medical Center Modernization Project consisting of interior renovations and modifications, as shown in an application package entitled Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca Multi -Phase Modernization. Dated August 28, 2000. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 22 SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 3, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox stated the City of Ithaca is getting close to coming to the Planning Board for the approval of their construction debris disposal site. This is an item discussed early in the year at a Tompkins County Planning Federation meeting. The site is in the Town of Ithaca, but is located near the Town of Newfield, Town of Enfield, and State Park. There will be public interest in this proposal. Chairperson Wilcox stated the next meeting is October 24th Board Member Thayer stated he would be absent the October 24th meeting. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the September 19, 2000 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Carrie L. Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk.