Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2001-11-06NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED- NOVEMBER 2012001- AP P ROVED-AP PROVED FILE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2001 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 6, 2001, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (7:36 p.m.); Larry Thayer, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering (7:36 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra- Lehman, Planner. EXCUSED: Rod Howe, Board Member. ALSO PRESENT: Catherine Kellogg, 287 Enfield Falls. Road; Michael Husar, Cornell University; Edward Kellogg, 4 Gray Road; Peter Krusius, Trinity Lutheran Church; Robert Foote, Trinity Lutheran Church; Andy Noil, 1552 East Shore Drive; Mark Masler, 119 East Seneca Street; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Shirley Egan, Cornell University; John Guttenberger, Cornell University; Kimberly Martinson, Cornell University; Steve Wright, Cornell University; Mike Thompson, Oak Lane. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:33 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 October 29, 2001, and October 31, 2001, 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 October 31, 2001. (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 7:33 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:34 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEOR, Determination, Butler Three -Lot Subdivision, 227 Enfield Falls Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Mark Masler, 119 East Seneca Street — I am appearing for Mr. Butler on this 3 -lot subdivision. As the Planning Dept memorandum sets forth, Mr. Butler currently owns two contiguous tax parcels along Enfield Falls Road. We are simply seeking to divide those into three parcels. Currently, one of the parcels has land located on both sides of the road. We are seeking permission to simply segregate NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001-APPROVED-APPROVED those creating one parcel located north of the road and the other south of the road.. There is, a very minor boundary change between the two existing parcels south of the road so that a gravel drive will remain entirely on the parcel in which in which it is used. We would like to change the boundary lines. We do not anticipate any environmental impacts. Chairperson Wilcox - My assumption is that the southern block is sold. Mr. Masler - I believe. that would be part of the potential plan. Chairperson Wilcox - That would make sense and give a reason for why they want to clean up that boundary. Believe it or not , there is logging going on in the area right now. I think the logging is on the large parcel. Mr. Masler — I believe it is entirely on the large parcel. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:37 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 95 - SEOR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision ApRroval, Butler 3 -Lot Subdivision, Enfield Falls Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 33=144.2 & 34-1 -3.1. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 10 This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three lot,. subdivision on Enfield Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 334-24.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing Tax Parcel No.: 33 -1 -24.2 into two parcels, one north of Enfield Falls Road and one south of Enfield Falls Road; and subdividing. a strip from Tax Parcel No. 33 -1 -24.2 and consolidating it with Tax Parcel No. 34- 14 1. Karl D. Butler, Owner; Mark G. Masler, Esq., Harris Beach, LLP, Agent. 29 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on November 6, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff; a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Karl D. Butler, Enfield Falls Road- N.Y.S. Route 327, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, "prepared by T. G. Miller P. C., dated July 30, 2001; and other application materials, and 4, The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 2 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 209 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED 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. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. ADGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — October 2, 2001 RESOLUTION NO. 2001 =96 = Approval of Minutes = October 2.2001. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the October 2, 2001 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with grammatical corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Tally, NAYS: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision at 227 Enfield Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 =1= 24.2,. Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing Tax Parcel No. 33 =1 -24.2 into two parcels, one parcel north of Enfield Falls Road and one parcel south of Enfield Falls Road, and subdividing a strip from Tax Parcel No. 33 =1 -24.2 and consolidating it with Tax Parcel No. 34 =1 -3.1. Karl D. Butler, Owners Mark G. Masler, Esq., Harris Beach, LLP, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Catherine Kellogg, 287 Enfield Falls Road — We are the adjoining neighbor to this lot under discussion. I question where 227 Enfield Falls Road is on your records. It is not the right address. It may be 277 Enfield Falls Road and be a typographical error, but 227 Enfield Falls Road is a little house way down at the foot of the hill by the park. We need to straighten out the record.' Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. 3 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001 -APPROVED-APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — When I went looking for the site on Sunday, I too, ran into the problem that Mrs. Kellogg raises. I believe that the Public Hearing Notice may have the gentleman's own address: Mr. Masler — No, I am checking the application that we have submitted. I think it was a transposition. It is 272 Enfield Falls Road instead of 227 Enfield Falls Road, Attorney Barney — Mr. Master, I do not think that is right. 272 Enfield Falls Road appears to be the Mobb's house. Chairperson Wilcox— The houses across the street are 272 and 274 Enfield Falls Road. It should be in the range of 275 to 277 Enfield Falls Road. Ms. Balestra- Lehman — I do not believe there are any homes on the parcel. They would not have a house number assigned. Chairperson Wilcox — Does this go back to the Public Hearing Notice or back to the tax parcel numbers being incorrect? Attorney Barney — It is vacant land. It is clearly identified in the Notice by reference to the tax parcel number and the owner. Edward Kellogg, 4 Gray Road — The property beside it on the north side is 284 Enfield Falls Road, RESOLUTION NO. 2001 =97 = Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Butler 3 -Lot Subdivision, Enfield Falls Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 33 =1 -24.2 & 34 =1 -3.1. MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Larry Thayer, WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three lot subdivision on Enfield Falls Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 334-24.2, Agricultural District. The proposal includes subdividing Tax Parcel No. 33 -1 -24.2 into two parcels, one north of Enfield Falls Road and one south of Enfield Falls Road; and subdividing a strip from Tax Parcel No. 33 -1 -24.2 and consolidating it with Tax Parcel No. 34- 1 -3.1. Karl D. Butler, Owner; Mark G. Masler, Esq., Harris Beach, LLP, 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 Subdivision Approval, has, on November 6, 2001, 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 Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on November 6, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Karl D. Butler, Enfield Falls Road- NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20, 2001- APPROVED -APPROVED N. YS. Route 327, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T. G. Miller P.C., dated July 30, 2001, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval; as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that the such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -1 -24.2 and consolidation of a portion of 33 -1 -24.2 with 34- 1 -3.1, as shown on a plat entitled, "Subdivision Map Showing Lands of Karl D. Butler, Enfield Falls Road- N.Y.S. Route 327, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the approved plat, bearing the certificate, seal, and signature of the licensed engineer or surveyor who prepared the survey, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and b. Within 6 months of this approval, consolidation of the portion of Tax Parcel No. 33 -1 -24.2 with Tax Parcel No. 34- 1 -3.1, and submission to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for consolidation of said parcel. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Tally, NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Oxley Parking Lot located on NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1- 8.2 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 1 -1.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the removal of the existing barn, development of a seasonal pedestrian trail, constructions of a permanent paved 149 -space parking lot, landscaping and site lighting. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants Kimberly Martinson and Kathryn Wolf, Agents, Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf - The proposal is to replace a temporary use with a permanent paved 149 -car parking lot, removal of the existing storage shed, the construction of a seasonal trail, and the landscape rehabilitation of the eastern end of the property. We have made modifications to the plan as a result of conditions in the preliminary site plan approval. Additional landscape plantings were added at the entrance to the parking lot to provide better screening of the parking lot in that location. 5 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2012001-AP P ROVED-AP PROVED There was a request by the Board to provide additional screening on the west side of the drive. It turned out to be not feasible because of utility lines that are located in that area. We have also added additional landscaping along the edge of the parking lot to buffer the view of the parking lot from the trail. We did discuss at the last meeting that landscaping would not be feasible at the far edge of the lot that because of the drainage swales. The termination of the trail has been realigned to coordinate better with the proposal by New York State Department of Transportation (DOT). The final resolution allows the Town Planner to approve further modification if DOT modifies their plan. There was also a request by the Town Engineer to address the run off from the parking lot prior to the final production of the parking lot. As you all recall, the plan will be implemented in phases. In 2002 the storage shed will be removed and rehabilitation of the landscape will begin. The actual construction of the paved parking lot will not occur until some time in 2004, at which time, the peak demand for Duffield Hall contractors subsides. The concern was that it would be advantageous if some of the storm water drainage could be implemented before then. I believe that Kimberly Martinson has submitted a letter to Mr. Walker. It outlines a proposal that in the year 2002 storage shed will be removed. The gravel parking lot will be reduced to approximately the footprint of the final parking lot. The drainage swale'will be configured and excavated between the parking lot and the creek to capture runoff. It will improve the condition, although it will not be the ultimate solution. The subsurface pipes will not be installed until the parking lot is installed. The other request was to make sure any vegetation removed during the demolition of the retaining wall be replaced. Board Member Hoffmann — What about the timing of the construction of the trail? Ms. Wolf The trail could be constructed at the time that the landscaping is constructed. However, the Plantations intend to take several seasons to implement the landscape plan. The best approach is to eradicate all the invasive species and then plant. This will not be completed within the first season. The intention is that this trail will be completed at the time that the landscape work is completed. There is a similar situation with the drainage swales. The final grading would not be completed until the parking lot is complete. A path can be provided for that area until such time that the parking lot is complete. Board Member Hoffmann — Is there a sidewalk on the western side where the trail is proposed to end? Ms. Wolf — Yes, there is a sidewalk there. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Barney, I was curious about incorporating something into the resolution that specifically addresses the commitment made by Cornell and Ms. Martinson in their October 8th letter. Attorney Barney — Yes. We can incorporate language into the resolution. Board Member Mitrano — On the second map, it says, "Cornell University reputed owner' What does this mean? on NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001 -AP PROVE D-APPROVED Shirley Eagan, Cornell University — That is surveyor language. They say that because they do not want to indicate that the surveyor is guaranteeing that that is the owner and so R.O. usually means reputed owner. Chairperson Wilcox — I assume that the implication is that the landscaping will commence in 2002 and the entire project will be completed in 2004. Ms. Wolf — I believe that the proposal was that they would at least have substantially commenced the parking lot by 2004. Chairperson Wilcox — Why would it not be finished? Ms. Wolf — It would not be finished if they started late in the fall and they experienced bad weather. They would need to come back to finish some of the details in the following spring. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -98 = Final Site Plan Approval, Cornell University — Oxley Development Project, Route 366, west of Wilson Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 =1 -8.2 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 3144.2. MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Oxley Site Development Project located on NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -8.2 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -14.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the construction of a permanent paved 149 -space parking lot, removal of the existing barn, development of a seasonal pedestrian trail, landscaping, site lighting, storm water management and treatment facilities, and rehabilitation of the area east of the parking lot to natural green space. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Kimberly Martinson and Kathryn Wolf, Agents, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, did on October 29 2001 make a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on October 2, 2001, did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project, and 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals, on October 15, 20013 did grant Special Approval for the proposed project, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 6, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate for final approval, revised drawings C103 entitled "New Layout" and C- 7 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED 106 entitled "Planting Plan" both dated 101112001, prepared by Cornell University Planning, Design, and Construction, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Oxley Site Development located on NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -8.2 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31- 14.2, as shown on revised drawings C103 entitled "New Layout" and C -106 entitled "Planting Plan" both dated 101112001, prepared by Cornell University Planning, Design, and Construction, and other application material, subject to the following conditions: ae submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to issuance of a building permit, and. b, submission of documentation to the Planning Department showing that a Highway Work Permit has been obtained from NYS Department of Transportation, prior to the issuance of the building permit, and co that landscaping work is to. commence in 2002 and parking lot construction to commence in 2004, and do that the Director of Planning is granted authority to permit a minor modification of the site plan to adjust the east legs of the pedestrian path to correspond as appropriate to the NYSDOT project, and e. that the applicant reduce the size of the existing lot when the building is removed per the applicant's letter to Dan Walker dated October 8, 2001, and f. that the applicant maintain the drainage and stormwater filtering system as promised in its letter to Susan Ritter dated October 8, 2001, and go that the applicant, pending final completion of the footpath provide a mowed area in the general vicinity of the planned footpath for pedestrian travel until the final path is fully completed. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 15,000 +/= square foot wrestling facility at Cornell University, Campus Road east of the field house at the existing tennis courts, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67 -1 -13.2 and 63 =1 -8.2 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 =1 -2.1, Residential District R -30. The proposed facility will house the NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001-APPROVED-APPROVED wrestling program and provide a 900 seat arena, associated training facilities, locker rooms, and offices that can be dedicated to varsity wrestling practice and competition. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants Michael Husar, Project Manager, Agent. Michael Husar, Cornell University Planning, Designing, Construction — Since we were here the last time, there were some primary issues that came up. They were less involved with the site plan, as they were with the building configuration and the tower. So I was going to go straight to the tower and building configuration first and then address whatever site questions come up. We did lose the tower. On the west end, we brought the battered wall back to a vertical plain. We reduced the number of glazing features throughout the fagade by dropping some of the smaller windows that were accenting the columns. In general, the building is what we intended. We have our 900 -seat facility, arena, and program space that we were looking for. From a fagade perspective, we maintained the striated block work and we are retaining the aluminum glazed system and we're providing slate -gray metal roofing. From a materials perspective, we have a clear anodized aluminum framing system for the majority of the framing in the building. We have a metal roofing system, which is the barrel roof, the facias and the metal trim around the low roof. For the block work, what we are looking at is a darker block for the field, which is the majority of the building, a lighter block accenting the stripes. We are trying to pick a lighter block to be very similar to the strength conditioning building and the field house so that it brings the color across to the smaller building. The second question that came up involved the signage. As with most buildings on Cornell, what we choose to do is use a cast aluminum letter, which generally lists the building name and the facility. In our case, since the building has not been named yet, I simply say it un -named Wrestling Facility. Generally, the letters are 8 or 10 inches high. There are two styles, this one happens to be a vatica. There is a slightly different style that I could not get my hands on by this afternoon. Generally, they are set off on the block work by some spacers. I have simulated that by putting some spacers here to give you an idea. It gives it a little bit of a relief and allows a touch of shadow line as you look at the letters. They are generally pin mounted and they will be pin mounted directly into the block work. I propose that the lettering be fairly close to the ground level and near the main entrance of the facility. 1 think that we are up to purport ion. We are going to see how big a name it is. If it is a long name, we may need to go to two lines. Generally, the 8's and 10's are standard on campus. Attorney Barney — Is the rest of the facility an 8 inch or a 10 inch? Mr. Husar — I have suggested a 10 inch. We only rendered the main end, that is the south elevation. We also included elevations around the building. So from the west side, you will be looking at the block work banding pattern carried around the west side of the building. This is the standing seam metal roofing that you will see as it comes across the top. We have. one exit in the center, near the bleachers and there is a storage room along side here. The bleacher pattern on the west side is between these two doors and the second exit would be on the south side of the bleachers so that you will see two exits on that fagade. This is the main entrance as you are looking at it from the west. If NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001 -APP ROVED-APP ROVED you carried around to the back side, coming around from the east, we have a mechanical room down on the lower level, which actually carries into a two story space and allows us to draw air and such. We also have a mezzanine mechanical space, which services the building. Our ventilation comes from the second floor level, right along side the glazing. The bands of windows down here at the bottom are visitor's locker rooms, trainer's rooms, basically the support spaces for the wrestling facility. As you work to the east side again, this is where the low building starts peaking out and you wind up seeing the rooms for the lounge and some of the strip windows as you work around to the offices. Here on the east, you get a better view of the building. As you come around, you have got the lounge area and then offices as you work your way around back to the front facade again. These are not smaller windows, what you are really seeing is the curvature taking these windows and shortening them as you look at it in an elevation. For a site perspective, we mentioned the last time that we would be carrying the red maples that separating the parking lot from this facility by adding five red maples right at the base of the parking lot. Also carrying the red oaks around down to Campus Road and at the front, our landscape architect has provided four flowering Japanese crab apples, in order to provide a little color in front of the building as season allows. Board Member Hoffmann — Is this the same kind of roof that is on the tennis facility and equestrian center on Pine Tree Road? Mr. Husar — This is a metal standing seam roof. I am not familiar with the other facilities. Steve Wright, Director of Cornell University Planning, Development, Construction - Yes, that is the same type of construction. Those are standing seam metal roofs on the equestrian center and the tennis center. Chairperson Wilcox — I noted on the drawing provided that shows the sign, it would be a 10 inch letter. We should go with an 8 inch if the name is long. An 8 inch and then a 10 inch if the name is short. Board Member Conneman - I wanted to thank Mr. Husar. I wish everybody else that appears before us would bring samples. It is appreciated. Mr. Talty — When it rains hard, will you be able to hear it on the inside of the building? Does it matter? Mr. Husar - I suppose it adds to the ambiance of our wrestling facility. I am certain that you would be able to hear the sound of hammering rain. Mr. Talty — Is there any heat lost? Mr. Husar — It is an insulated system. The heat loss is taken into account. We do meet the energy code. From a noise perspective, there is a certain amount in the space, but there is not that sort of separation from the roofing material itself to the inside that you would not hear it. Mr. Talty — I see. Okay, thanks. 10 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - The tower was a nice touch. Mr. Husar — We did talk to the Zoning Board and raise the issue that if we were in fact able to put it in, we would want the opportunity to put it in at the height it was designed and did request the variance in that respect and were granted that permission. Board Member Conneman — You have the variances in the right heights to do that. Mr. Husar — That is true. We were just covering our options. Board Member Hoffmann — I assume that the height variance was for that particular design, not the entire building. Mr. Husar — The barrel roof meets zoning. It was only the tower that exceeded it. Mr. Wright — I think it did require that the map for the site plan approval be decided by the Town. Mr. Husar — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — As I look to this Board, I do not think any of us have a problem with the tower being put back in as part of the building. Mr. Talty — None at all. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -99 = Final Site Plan Approval, Cornell University Wrestling Facility, Campus Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67 =1 43.2 and 6344.2, City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 3144.2. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 15,000 +/- square foot wrestling facility at Cornell University, Campus Road east of the field house at the existing tennis courts, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67 -1 -13.2 and 63 -1 -8.2 and City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 314-1.2, Residence District R -30. The proposed facility will house the wrestling program and provide a 900 seat arena, associated training facilities, locker rooms, and offices that can be dedicated to varsity wrestling practice and competition. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Michael Husar, Project Manager, Agent. is] NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001-AP PROVEDAP PROVED 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, did on September 18, 2001, make a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on September 18, 20010 did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project, and. 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals, on October 15, 2001, did consider and grant the special Approval and height variance for the proposed project, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 6, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans included in a bound set of drawings and information entitled 'Town of Ithaca Final Site Plan Review — Cornell University Wrestling Facility" dated November 60 2001, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 15,000 +/- square foot wrestling facility at Cornell University, Campus Road, Residence. District R -30, as shown on plans included in a bound set of drawings entitled `Town of Ithaca Final Site Plan Review — Cornell University Wrestling Facility" dated November 6, 2001. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEOR Determination, Trinity Lutheran Church — Site Plan Modification, 149 Honness Lane Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Peter Krusices, Trinity Lutheran Church, 149 Honness Lane - This project was approved by the Board on November 4, 1998. Meanwhile, the parking lot expansion has been executed at the cost of $285,000, which is a lot of money for our members, most of whom are retirees or middle aged people who are living on a fixed income. We have spent all our contingency budgets and we are clean. So let me briefly.review the old site plan. What we are looking at is a modification of a parking lot for a church, whereby we expanded the number of parking spaced by factor of two. That all works fine, the contention now in the approval of the occupancy permit is two issues. The location of the ADA parking slots and the location of a couple of trees. If you look at the original site plan, the ADA parking spaces were located at the east edge, close to the main entrance of the building. In the new plan, they are relocated in the center of 12 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 2012001-AP PROVE D-APP ROVED the parking lot. The reason for that is as follows: when.this project was started, the plan was to keep the natural slope of .the terrain and no big excavations were allowed. When finally, this part of-the parking lot was constructed, it was determined that the slopes were not sufficient to meet ADA Code. That was something which the engineer and the builder had not really taken into account. They essentially made the error and the owner is holding the bag. A .compromise was reached and the parking spaces were located in the middle of the lot, where they are completely accessible following ADA guidelines. The slopes are fulfilled both for the parking spaces and the exit ramps for the people. I believe the number is sufficient to meet the number required by ADA state code. In the resolution, the Board is suggesting to place two additional ADA parking spaces, I believe in this location. I think the owner would be happy to comply with that. Those two places meet the code fully. We would be able to do that if that is desirable. Mr. Kanter —1 think that was on the original plan. Board Member Thayer — Why cannot they all be there, instead of having to cross traffic? Mr. Krusius — The slope gradually increases when you go in this direction. So keeping the 1 to 50 slope becomes difficult if you go further out. Again, unless one does excavation and re- paving, it is not really going to be feasible to do that. That is all I have on the ADA, so we would be happy to comply with the resolution which the Board is proposing and keep the locations in the middle and then add two more on the side. That way the people who would come from these spaces would have the walkway and.would not have to cross any traffic. Let's go on to the landscaping. If you look at the old plan, you can see that the idea was to have lots of trees provide visual blockage. One set of trees, down here, at the west perimeter of the lot and then another set of trees and shrubs surrounding the paved area for the parking. In addition, there was the suggestion to re -work the entire set of trees, Scotch Pines, which are here towards our neighbor named Aford. Most of that has been realized, but this particular neighbor was very stubborn and did not want to see any kind of change in the landscaping around his lot. As a consequence :of that, the decision was made to try to leave this area unchanged and not even put in a Scotch Pine because it would have shaded the garden of Afords. In addition, some of the locations of these plantings around the parking lot perimeter was changed and the types were changed, but they are essentially the same in both plans. Perhaps the only real issue there is that some of the sizes are smaller than originally prescribed. That comes from the fact the landscaper, at the time of planting was not able to find the right sizes and we were closing in on the fall and the plants had to go in. The decision was made to go with the smaller sizes. In addition, a year after the construction of the sidewalk, we have seen deterioration in the Norwegian Spruce row. Which was left standing when the parking lot was constructed and that is a consequence of ground water levels changing. Because of that, we can see several of these trees gradually dying and we had proposed, in the new plan, to put in a row of Austrian Pines, which would then gradually pick up when the Norwegian Spruces fade away. The planting size for these in our own plans was 5 to 6 feet, not 2 feet. The 2 feet was made by the draft person. We had proposed to go with 5 to 6 foot trees, which was something we discussed with Jon Kanter. That is essentially the rational for our proposal. We added up the costs for the Town proposal for the additional trees, which would double the amount of trees here and then would double the perimeter of shrubs on the other side and that would add a cost only over 1 % of the total project cost, assuming we would have Cayuga Landscape do it. In light of our clientele at Trinity, we would ask the Board to reduce that cost of additional expense, perhaps by dividing the amount of trees 13 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 209 2001 -APPROVED- APPROVED which you are asking us to put in by a factor of 2. We will be happy to comply with that, but doing the entire proposed amount seems to not only be quite a bit of cost, but it would also add crowing into this area and would be over planted. A final point of note is that when these plans were made, we were under the impression that there would be a bike path constructed that would run across the lot and we were not sure where to locate the trees._ We did not know if they would just be cut down the following year. That is still a concern in one area, if we were to fill this with trees and there were a bike path built, it would go right across those trees. Finally, I would like to say that this area.. may look empty at this time because one of the areas is where we plan to put in a garden. That plan has not been executed yet, but we have reserved that area for further planting. We did not have the desire to make it a forest; it was supposed to be a gardened area with walkways. Chairperson Wilcox — If you look at it from a SEQR perspective, it is relocating two handicap parking spaces and put in plants. Having said that I doubt there is any further discussion with regard to SEAR. Board Member Hoffmann — I think we should look at the path as part of the SEQR too. Is it something that provides a way for people to take a short cut, instead of having to take the longer route to Honness Lane for instance? Mike Thompson, 130 Oakwood Lane — The neighbors already do that on the path that runs from the front of the church. They use the parking lot and walk right through the stone pathway that we have provided down into the neighborhoods behind there. Board Member Hoffmann — Is that something that you approve of? Mr. Thompson — Yes, absolutely. Robert Foote, 129 Whitetail Drive — The original stone pathway we put in specifically for our neighbors, so they would have access. That was done before there was a parking lot. They were using it anyway and we thought we would make it easier for them because it was kind of hard in the wintertime, they had strollers and things. I do not know if you were referring to the bike path, but that was a Town proposal and we really do not know the status of that. Board Member Hoffmann — I was referring to the path that we had talked about earlier when the first proposal was before the board. Mr. Kanter — I think the status of that it that it does not have a status. It was an interesting idea, but it really was not something that the Town pursued very actively. I would say that in the context of all the other trails that we have in the works, this is not a high priority one. I would say any questions about what would happen with the trail are moot at this point, in terms of this particular site plan. It certainly is not a SEAR issue for now because there is no planned trail, no proposed trail at this point. Board Member Hoffmann — No, but there was one in the original plan. 14 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001-APP ROVED-APP ROVED Mr. Kanter — Well, not in the official plan, that is not correct either. The original draft plan, yes, but then the plan actually changed and did not include that trail. Board Member Hoffmann ,,,,:Not even verbally? Mr. Kanter — Not even verbally. There were references to it. Actually because of the uncertainty of it, it was dropped from the plan layout. That is not a change in this particular modification, so that is not a SEQR issue or a. site plan issue. It is a Town question as to whether that might someday happen. That is not something that we have planned or in the works for anywhere in the near future. Mr. Walker = I think we took different considerations on the site once the Storm Water Management Facility went in. It really was not a very good location for a bicycle path. The real need for a bicycle path was not too far down that came on to Honness Lane and provided any interconnection from the Slaterville Road area and from the subdivision behind the church. It really brought any bicyclist closer to the existing path as it goes across to Cornell. The site where the walking path is, that the church has provided, does provide a way for people from the end of that subdivision easy access to get up across and then easily walk across the parking lot. During the week there is not much traffic, so I think it is certainly serving the whole community quite well. Board Member Hoffmann — But that existing path, is that one that can be used by bicyclists, too? Or is it just for pedestrians? Mr. Krusius — It is not paved so if you use a bike, it is a little bit wobbly. It can be used. Board Member Hoffmann — But there are not any steps? Mr. Krusius = No, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:35 p.m. RE 2001 =100 = . Church Parking Lot = Modification, 149 Honness Lane. nal Site Plan MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. L 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the previously approved site plan for the Trinity Lutheran Church parking lot expansion project, located at 149 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 58 -2 =4 and 58 -2 -5, Residence District R -15. The proposed modifications include relocation of handicapped parking from the east edge of the parking lot into the middle of the lot, and revision of the planting plan to fine tune placement and types of plantings. Trinity Lutheran Church, Owner /Applicant; Peter Krusius, Agent. 15 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001 -AP PROVED-APP ROVED 21 The Zoning Board of Appeals granted Special Approval for the original parking lot expansion project on November 4, 1998, and 3. 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 4. The Planning Board, on November 6, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan drawing entitled "Landscape & Lighting Plan, Trinity Lutheran Church Parking Lot Enhancement Project" (Sheet L01), revision date 9126101, and other application materials, and 59 The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan modification. 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 not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the previously approved site plan for the Trinity Lutheran Church parking lot expansion project, located at 146 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's 58 =2 =4 and 58 -2 -5, Residence District R -15. The proposed modifications include relocation of handicapped parking from the east edge of the parking lot into the middle of the lot, and revision of the planting plan to fine -tune placement and types of plantings. Trinity Lutheran Church, Owner /Applicant; Peter Krusius, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at. 8:35 p.m. With no persons present of be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:36 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Were you surprised that the Town held you to what was approved as closely as they did? Rev. Robert Foote — My understanding was that in Murphy's Law, we were knocked down twice. Both by the contractor who went out of business and the landscaper who also was involved in that demise 16 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 209 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED of the business. I have always been suspicious that because of that, it may have been the landscaper trying to save his business where he bought smaller plantings, using the excuse that the large ones were not available. We are disappointed with our engineering firm, which did not do their job. They said that they would make sure that the plan was carried out. We paid them a lot of money. They did not do it. We feel victimized because we put out the money to have it done right and it was not done right. There were many people who thought we should not have paid the engineer to do what they did. Now, in hindsight, I agree. So that is my take on the issue. I am happy the Town held us accountable. I am sorry that the people who really failed to do the job are not being held accountable. Board Member Conneman — Did you make the last payment? Mr. Krusius — Money was held back for quite some time, but in the end, we decided to go ahead and pay. I have one question on point II. 1 am not sure I understand what the Board has in mind by referring to six evergreen shrubs at the northwest corner. Mr. Kanter- There is a recommendation for the six evergreen shrubs. That is over in this area of the parking lot, which was intended to recommend some supplemental screening for this view for this pretty open area to be compatible as it goes over along the edge. Chairperson Wilcox - Is it about ready to go to the final plan review? Mr. Kanter — There really is not very much shown on there. It is a little misleading when you look at the plan and you look at the area because it is quite a large open area on that corner. There is a pretty big open meadow, which lies between this house and the parking lot. When Mr. Krusius was mentioning some future plan possibly for a garden area, which would be a nice idea, we do not have any indication of that on the plan. We also fear that this row of Norway spruce is probably deteriorating and probably is not there for very long. The combination of those two things, and the large amount of area in here, led me to conclude that there really could be some revision of planting. Some of which could be of a very substantial size. The numbers that I put in there, I have no particular reason why those numbers have to be stuck to if the Board feels that those numbers are too low or too high. It is basically the Board's decision. These were just my own recommendations. You have to understand also that when we went through the inspections with the original landscaping plan, as has been mentioned, many of the plants were significantly undersized from what was originally shown on the plan, as well as a number of plants that were supposed to be planted were not. The intention was to come back in and try to get a plan before the Board that would serve the function that original plan was intended to, which was provide some screening of the parking lot for the basic residences. That is the primary concern with this planting plan. Mr. Krusius - Are you assuming that the last spruce tree would also go and that way we would have more room around the perimeter? There is a spruce tree that is against the curb, which cuts your green line in half, at this time. Maybe that one is going to die as well. It is still there. Mr. Kanter — Again, this is very generalized and was only intended to suggest that some additional evergreens would be along the perimeter. When I was up there on Sunday I took a look at those rows and those trees did not look very good to me. Maybe it is the season. 17 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Krusius — No, many of them are on their way out. There is no question about it. That is why we are proposing to re -plant with Austrian Pines. Mr. Talty — Traditionally, landscapers, guarantee their trees. Is it my understanding that these people are no longer in business? Rev. Foote — I think that they closed and re- opened. I tried to call Mr. Becker several times, he still has a secretary and still has a phone number and they answer it "Becker Industries ", but I think that they went out of business. I do not know if that is. to avoid what we were involved with or whatever other things, but he is still a landscaper. Mr. Talty — Legally, are you taking any action right now that would have any recourse? Mr. Krusius — No, we have not taken any action. Board Member Hoffmann.— I hear your request to plant maybe just half the number of plants that has been suggested. Mr. Krusius - We would be happy with this, unless the Board wants to pay for the other half. Board Member Hoffmann —What do you think of a solution where you do indeed plant half of them at the sizes specified now? Then permit yourself to plant the rest in a couple of years or within some time limit that we can discuss. So that eventually the whole planting will be in.. But it does not have to be that it is all done and paid for right now. Mr. Krusius .7 I just talked to the landscapers today and they said that putting them in this season is probably impossible because we are getting into frost now. It would have to be Spring 2002. 1 understand what you are saying and that could be something we could consider. Mr. Thompson — Is the occupancy permit held up until they are finally done? Also, this proposal has specific plantings on the perimeters with our neighbor that he does not desire to have done. Mr. Kanter — That we took into consideration and we did not see any impact with your proposal to go back to the existing plantings. Chairperson .Wilcox — Is that the neighbor who asked you to make the changes we just made? Mr. Krusius —Yes Chairperson Wilcox — And that neighbor is? Mr. Krusius — Aford, northwest neighbor. Board Member Conneman — The cost of this work would be 1 %. Have you held back that amount of money or more than that at the end of this? luse NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001 -APPROVED-AP PROVED Mr. Krusius — The church overspent the budget. So it is not a question of holding anything back. Board Member Conneman — I mean you held it back before you made the final payment to the contractor? Mr. Krusius — Yes, we did for a while. Then it was released in the end. Board Member Conneman — How much did you hold back? Mr. Talty — Just for the sake of conversation, being that the church is a business, why did you make the final payment? Rev. Foote- There was another issue that was not actually part of the planting concern and it was that we did hold back money, but the paver had failed to make some connections that he was supposed to have made. We held back that. There were some other problems in the back of the church that the paver had not done. We held back those payments until he corrected those things and in my recollection, he never did receive at least $1500. Mr. Thompson — They withheld money from the contractors ended up being used for re- addressing the drainage from the house at 155 Honness Lane. They had misaligned the drainage from that site and we had another contractor come in and, on those funds, re -do that properly. So, if you walked that site, you would notice the one cut on the asphalt, at that corner, which is a result of that. Rev. Foote — In addition, they did swallow some money because there was a mistake right behind the church with some other mechanicals, so actually, if we talked about the money that the paver ended up giving us, there was an additional amount of $3,000 to fix a problem behind the church involving drainage and some mechanicals. Mr. Talty — Traditionally, what is the recourse for a situation like this? Chairperson Wilcox — Traditionally, the original one. Primarily which will I think the only issue in front of th Member Hoffmann suggested one over a period of two years to put in were proposed and approved, it is to put together a site plan that serves the same purpose as project the enhancement views of the neighbors. e board is that it is a church and non - for - profit company. Board possible alternative would be to allow the church to space it out sufficient plantings to serve the purpose of the original ones that Rev. Foote — I think Mr. Thompson's question is pertinent, what does this do to the status of the Certificate of Occupancy if we try to abide by the suggestion and extend the period of plantings. The other issue that is in the back of my mind is that we had always wanted to put in the garden there and is that something that, if we decide to do in the next year or to, we have to get approved or can we just do it? Mr. Kanter — I think, under our new site plan threshold requirements that would probably be up to the discretion of the Town Staff, as to whether or not it would have to go back to the Planning Board for approval. It would be one of those aesthetic design- type issues, non structural, depending on its 19 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20,2001 -AP PROVED-AP PROVED magnitude and impact on the area. We would ask for a plan in house and not bring it to the Planning Board. Rev. Foote - Is there a plan that you are thinking about to doing over a period of two years? Chairperson Wilcox — I just mentioned, or mentioned a second time the suggestion that Board Member Hoffmann brought up was that you could stagger the plantings. Rev. Foote — You could do that., but in the terms of a Certificate of Occupancy_ (C.O.), would we have to get a temporary? Mr. Kanter — Unless, if you treated it as performance guarantee could put in place. guarantee committing to the future planting C.O. as the leverage to get the work done. some other improvements are treated; some kind of a Either a letter of credit, an escrow deposit or some other We normally do not do that. Normally we use permanent: Board Member Conneman — What is the problem with the temporary Certificate of Occupancy? The cost? Mr. Thompson — If we come back in six months are the going to be additional requirements? Mr. Kanter — Please understand, none of these are our additional requirements, these are what did not happen which was supposed to get done in the original plan. Chairperson Wilcox — You have an approved plan which met. requirements of this Board at the time. If you do that, then there is no reason for us to even be here tonight. Mr. Krusius — Can I get back to this proposed plan from Trinity and the difference between that one and what the Board has suggested here. It seems to me that both had the same goal of restoring the original intent of the landscaping. I would like to hear from the Board why we are off by so much. Why do you want so many more trees than Trinity for achieving the same goal? What was the rationale for doubling the number of Austrian Pines around the perimeter of the parking lot? Mr. Kanter — Basically, what it comes down to is this perimeter along the western side is quite bare. There are some plants there, but none of them are in any shape to create proper screening. Even with the proposed plantings on the plan, there is still quite a bit of room along the perimeter. We are not going to have'any significant screening at all. With this large meadow area, there is quite an open view .from two houses toward the parking lot and very undersized plantings throughout the area. The idea was to add some more of a naturalistic effect for the plantings to have in that area. We could argue over whether it should be four or five or three trees or if they should be five feet or six feet high, but basically it is really cutting corners, in terms of defining what you should do. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to add the point that Chairperson Wilcox was mentioning that this is a church, rather than a commercial establishment and how that makes a difference. The fact, at least in my mind is that it is a huge parking lot in a residential neighborhood and we have to look after the interests of the residents all around the church. That is what we, at the earlier time when we 20 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED- NOVEMBER 201 did the approval and now, were very concerned that supposed to. have been: No one in a residential neighk parking lot. I do not like to see that not being screened that I am here talking about this. MINUTES 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED all of these plants are planted as they were iorhood should have to look at a huge asphalt appropriately. That is the reason, in my mind, Rev. Foote — We want to make sure that our neighbors are happy. It is very important to us. I think it is possible that if we talk to the neighbors directly and ask them, in the course of the next six months or so, if the present plantings are sufficient. Would that make a difference with the Board? The other thing that is in the back of my mind is that for forty years, we have always had cars parking right where they are parking now. We brought the parking lot closer. We also raised the grade so that it is harder to see those cars now. Before, the grade was lower and they were much easier to see. Board ..Member . Hoffmann — Forty years ago there were not that many. houses. The situation has changed around the church. I do not feel that I want to see anything pass other than what was proposed the last time. I would be willing to allow what I proposed earlier; that the plants do not have to all go in at once, it can be a timed process. If they had all gone in; even at a smaller size, they would have grown by now. Mr. Kanter — Some of the trees were planted at a much smaller size than the plants shown. Some are not doing well and some are just still very small, since they did not grow very well. It was a very dry year this year. So they are still very under -sized and that is one reason you do not want to start with under -sized plants to begin with when you do a planting. It takes a lot longer for them to get from that two foot to five foot height than it would if you started at five feet to go to the seven or eight feet height. Rev. Foote —If we get the plantings in place next spring, all of the ones that you are asking for, would we have to re- appear before the Board again in the spring? Chairperson Wilcox — Our purpose is to resolve this so that you do not have to come back. Rev. Foote — So we could do an on -site inspection and that would appease the Board? Chairperson Wilcox — We do not enforce the rules. The Zoning Officer probably would. They are the ones that found the issues and brought it back to the Planning Department. Mr. Kanter — The Planning ,Staff .inspects the landscaping. Rev. Foote — I think we can raise the money. I have sat here and watched a huge proposal at Cornell get approved and I have to think ; "we are arguing about trees ". Board Member Mitrano — You have no idea what they went through. Rev. Foote — I know it is a residential neighborhood. To me, coming in juxtaposition, I thought that was really incredible, we are talking about trees. 21 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 205 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — They have been here three times before. They have been through a lot of changes. Rev. Foote — I. am just frustrated.. We have been doing this for three years. Chairperson Wilcox — It seems to me you have two choices; you have an approved site plan now and you can go with that and receive the Certificate of Occupancy. You then asked to have it modified, which is what you have done. Mr. Kanter will permit modifications, but he has certain additional items that I think the Board has agreed to accept. If you_ are not willing to accept the suggestions that he had, then I think maybe we should adjourn this for tonight and you sit down with Mr. Kanter and work something out that you both feel comfortable with and bring it back to this Board for approval. Mr. Kanter suggested that the other alternative is you can do some plantings in 2002 and 2003. Mr.. Krusius — I think this is getting a little too complicated. I think we want to resolve it in one stretch without being locked into horn to horn combat with the Board. We are asking two things: number one; is the Board willing to accept having the number of additional trees in your resolution as I..proposed originally and If that. plan is executed, grant us the Occupancy Permit. Or do we have to do 100% of what the Board has now put into this resolution? Is there anything we can do about reducing the cost essentially of what the Board is proposing? I would like to settle this in one stretch instead of being back here every six months, or even worse, every couple of years. That is not beneficial for anyone involved. Chairperson Wilcox — I must rely on the judgment of the Planning Department.] do not always agree with them, but, in this case, I believe that what they are proposing is reasonable and appropriate to serve as what was proposed originally. Board Member Mitrano — I agree with them, too. Board Member Talty — I just like to make a point. I really liked what Mr. Kanter had to say. I think that your party should work it out with the staffers and the professional planners and come to a resolution outside of tonight. There may be ideas that we are not covering tonight, where we could be here another two hours. Once you have come to some sort of conclusion and compromise, I think at that time, .it would just be upon Mr. Kanter's recommendation. The Board truly values their decisions. At that point you could come back and we will be properly briefed at that time. Mr. Krusius — I do. not agree with that. Mr. Kanter- This is not really a game of negotiating. It is what is going to result in some reasonable buffering and screening of the parking area. If we got into the details of what was not planted and what was changed on this plan, the original plan called for an additional 13 plantings. There are a number of places where cost - cuttings have already occurred. It is kind of silly to talk about negotiating, this is a modified plan proposal. If you want us to sit down, we will do that. I do not see how much that would accomplish, we would end up coming back anyhow and probably have another long discussion about it . I would rather resolve it tonight as well. 22 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED- APPROVED - NOVEMBER 209 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Krusius — I think the owner would then propose to accept the proposal of the site plan resolution and be done with it. Board Member Mitrano — When Board Member Hoffmann was speaking before about plantings, thought that I would say something, then I chose not to. In light of some of these thoughts, I was going to say that I am usually not one of the ones whose out front on the plantings, but I certainly can say that in my time on the Board, our requests in that area are far-from unique they happen with almost everyone. Frequently, people do not seem to understand. They think it is something particular to their own proposal and it is not. We do it with every proposal. I would invite you to come to as many meeting as you like to see what we put all kinds of applicants through, not least of which is Cornell University. On that note, we would love to, but there is no special plus or minus going on with you folks. Board Member Conneman — Cornell, in their presentation twice before continually added some trees and other things that this Board asked and, in terms of the materials that they had, the last time I did not think they did a very good job. If they did not change that, I was voting against it tonight. Board Member Talty — We were extremely hard last time on that particular proposal. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 =101 - Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Trinity Lutheran Church Parking Lot = Modification, 149 Honness Lane. 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 the previously approved site plan for the Trinity Lutheran Church parking lot expansion project, located at 149 Honness Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 58 -24 and 58 -2 -5, Residence District R -15. The proposed modifications include relocation of handicapped parking -from the east edge of the parking lot into the middle of the lot, and revision of the planting plan to fine -tune placement and types of plantings. Trinity Lutheran Church, Owner /Applicant; Peter Krusius, Agent. 2. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted Special Approval for the original parking lot expansion project on November 4, 1998, and 3. 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 November 6, 2001, after reviewi ng. and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning Department, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on November 6, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a site plan drawing entitled "Landscape & Lighting Plan, Trinity Lutheran Church 23 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED- NOVEMBER 209 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED Parking Lot Enhancement Project" (Sheet L01), revision date 9126101, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE /T RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by. the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the site plan as shown in a site plan drawing entitled "Landscape & Lighting Plan, Trinity Lutheran Church Parking Lot Enhancement Project" (Sheet L01), revision date 9/26/01, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions to be met prior to issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy: a. revision of the Landscape & Lighting Plan (L01) to include the following: (i) relocation of two handicap parking spaces to the area adjacent to the drop curb just west of the church entrance; and revision of the planting list and plan to show a planting height for the Austrian Pines (PN) to be a minimum of five feet (rather than the two feet currently shown) and the addition of at least four more Austrian Pines to be added to the area northwest of the parking lot in a naturalistic grouping, not in a straight row; and (iii) the addition of six evergreen shrubs (e.g., small junipers or yews) along the northwest corner of the parking lot; and (iv) the addition of plantings along the western perimeter of the parking lot, including a mixture of evergreen and deciduous shrubs and trees, including at least six Chinese Junipers (JC) or similar evergreens that area minimum planting height of five feet, and be submission for retention by the Town of Ithaca of an original of the site plan drawing entitled "Landscape & Lighting Plan, Trinity Lutheran Church Parking Lot Enhancement Project" (Sheet LO 1), revised as required above. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 24 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED- NOVEMBER 20,2001-APPROVED-APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Board for the enactment of a local law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance relating to the definition of telecommunications facility. The proposed amendment would revise and clarify the current definition of telecommunications facilities and exempt certain types of equipment from regulation. This would apply to. all zones in the Town. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — What event or what set of circumstances precipitated this-proposed ordinance? Attorney Barney — As you know, we are engaged in litigation with the County over their County Communications Facility and when we were getting to the point of a Motion for Summary Judgment to examine the ordinances. When we examined the ordinances to make sure that indeed the County facility would be studied through the local regulation, when we came to the Town of Ithaca, the Town of Ithaca defines the telecommunications facility as "commercial'; (and then it goes on from there). My concern with the use of the word "commercial" in that context suggests that maybe a governmental use would not be a commercial use. The principle change that this makes is it deletes the work "commercial" . In doing it, we then clean up some of the other language to make it clear that it essentially intended to cover everything. So that is what this proposal intends. Mr. Walker I have a question on subparagraph II. There is this "equipment used by governmental unit or municipality that is expressly exempt from regulation ". Do you have any idea what those may be? Attorney Barney — That is basically just accepted in the State of New York for the federal government. I am not aware of any at the moment that would apply. Mr. Walker — Does an18 inch wire - width, attached to a roof or a chimney count as an antenna? Then I read this and it does. Does that mean an antenna smaller than a TV antenna, which is allowed in the Town, would also be required to come before a site plan review, by this definition? Attorney Barney — Correct. Mr. Walker — So all the antennas on the fire station would have to come in and the ones in the hospital? Attorney Barney — The existing ones would not. They are grandfathered in. Mr. Walker — We are talking about an antenna that may be, at the most, ten feet high, attached to a building that you can not even see because it is only a quarter inch in diameter. Attorney Barney — The trouble in trying to draw the line is that the ten foot high antenna may be attached to 20 or 30 or 40 foot high tower. Mr. Walker — They can put a satellite dish on top of the roof without anything. 25 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED- NOVEMBER 209 2001 - APPROVED- APPROVED Attorney Barney — The technology specifies that the satellite dish is a certain size. Mr. Walker- The Town has an antenna on its roof at the.Town Barns. We have got antennas on all of our pump stations in the Town that are ten feet tall. Attorney Barney The issues you are presenting are not affected by the subdivision. They are subject to the current specifications. Mr. Walker— If-we have to put up a new pump station, do we have to get site plan approval? Attorney Barney Under the current law you do. This has not changed any. If you are suggesting that we should amend it to put in a provision that says that it excludes up to a high of a certain feet. Mr. Walker — I was thinking no more than ten feet and no larger than two inches in diameter. Attorney Barney — It can not project more than 19 feet above the ground. Mr. Walker — When I saw that "any antenna ", this means that if you stick an antenna on the side of a building, you violate the law. Attorney Barney — I think the Town Board was concerned with the height, it could be a two foot high antenna, but if you put it on top of a 35 foot station, we want to regulate it. Mr. Walker — Why? Attorney Barney — I can not answer why. Mr. Walker — I probably should ask this question to the Town Board. Attorney Barney — By all means, do that. I think that, if it is anything, it protects above the height. Why do we regulate anything? Mr. Walker — We do not regulate television antennas. Attorney Barney — We regulate in a sense that they see the height as a certain feet from the ground. Mr. Walker — It is more obtrusive because TV antennas can be 15 feet long and six feet wide and you have got those stuck all over the place. One of these antennas on the Town Highway Barns only sits three feet above the roof. If you are not looking for it, you do not even see it. Attorney Barney — I think it is clearly an issue that the problem is the view, but do we want to accept that anything that is no more than four feet long or three feet long. You have to be careful when using that definition. Mr. Kanter — Did see the County's response letter? This is one of the few letters that we get from the County. It indicates that they have a problem and this may have either county, community or state 26 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 209 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED impact. Therefore, requiring a super majority vote from the Town Board when they vote to enact the law. I do not think that applies to this Board in terms of a recommendation necessarily, but it certainly will bind the Town Board to make sure they have more than the normal quorum when they vote on this on Thursday. RESOLUTION NO 2001- 102 - Proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zonin_q Ordinance Relatina to the Definition of Telecommunications Facility Recommendation to the Town Board. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. WHEREAS. 1.. The Town Board has proposed a "Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Definition of Telecommunications Facility, "and 2. Said proposed local law would revise and clarify the current definition of telecommunications facility and exempt certain types of equipment from regulation, and 3. The Town Board referred said proposed local law to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation, and 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 6, 2001, has reviewed the above - referenced local law, and a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and 11, prepared by the Town planning staff for the Town Board, which will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed local law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that.. a. There is a need for the proposed local law amending the Zoning Ordinance relating to the definition of telecommunications facility, and b. The existing and probable future character of the Town will not be adversely affected; and C, The proposed local law is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed "Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to the Definition of Telecommunications Facility." 27 NOVEMBER 6, 2001 MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED - NOVEMBER 20, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM : ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the November 6, 2001 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:29 p.m. Respectfully. submitted: Lori Quigley