Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2004-03-02FILE DATE V LP•p TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2004 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, March 2, 20042 in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering (7:21 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Michael Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner, EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member. OTHERS: Pamela Peabody, Coy Glen Rd; Mark Mecenas, West Haven Rd; Scott Howard, West Haven Rd; Paul Levesque II, HOLT Architects; Ann Byrne, 137 Hopkins Road; Larry Hoffman, HOLT Architects; Patrick Leahy, 527 Highland Rd; Dan Aneshansley; 118 Glenside Rd; Will Burbank, 132 Glenside Rd; Elena Flash, True Walsh & Miller. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and accepted for the .record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on February 23, 2004 and February 25, 2004, 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 February 25, 2004, 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 7:05 p.m. and asked if any member of the public wished to be heard. With no persons present, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a reco Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow illuminated church sign with a copy- change Adventist Church, 1219 Trumansburg Road, 42, Residence District R -15. Ithaca Seventh E. Thompson, MD, Applicant, mmendation to the Zoning Board of a 24, square foot freestanding self= section for the Ithaca Seventh Day Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 264M Day Adventist Church, Owner; Mark Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to give a brief description of what is being proposed? PLANNING.8OARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Greg Kaseski, 441 Bostwick Road — Sure. In 1980 we had a sign that was granted to our church for a sign permit that was granted our church for the construction of a sign. 'I have been living and working here for like the last four years. I work over here at Center Ithaca helping people find jobs. I have been part of the church for about that long. After the permit was granted, I understand that the church members building the sign chose to add an internal illumination of florescent bulbs and apparently that was not part of the initial permit, but it wasn't done intentionally. It wasn't intentional. and it was 6 by 4 and it had illuminated panels, but they kept them away from the street, they had the thing kept away from the street and it was pointed right to the sign, not to distract anybody that was on the road driving. I was in the church the day that one of the young people from Cornell, one of the college students, misjudged the turn and took out the sign along with her car. She didn't get hurt physically. Her pride was a little hurt when she came to the church. But we told her hey don't worry about it, we needed a new sign anyways. It had been up there for about 23 years and we had the light. It was outdated and needed to go, but we weren't thinking it was going to go that way. We would like to keep some of the same features of the sign. The only difference from what we've had is and its really... its going to.be professionally done, but is two lines of text that would be basically as Mark has indicated there that could have the name of the Pastor and the time. And it would be kept to the specs that are within the proposal, the 24 square foot sign and it wouldn't be any more than 6 feet by 4 feet and it would be illuminated to two lines of copy, change text and that text is behind the glass and its with a key. It would be very professional. We don't think it would detract from the aesthetics of the sign or the community. I actually think that corner, if you look at the old sign that was there, there is a picture of it thereon the back. I'm surprised it is even standing after that happened, but the new sign will actually be much more aesthetically pleasing to the community. It is more contemporary and it would enable us to have a little more visibility than we've had.because part of the reason why she hit, she didn't see it. She turned in, she didn't see that she was supposed to turn a little sooner. So this may help prevent that. we are just requesting that we could have this kind of a sign that we've used in the existing structure. There is two basically like trees. They are telephone poles that have gone down and they are cemented into the ground. We are still going to use those: That is going to be the same basis, the cement, putting in everything. It is really, really solid.. It is going to built on the same base and the sign will be up on top of that. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? I'm not concerned about what they may put up on their sign like I might be with other applicants. You understand that you are only here for a recommendation. It is up to the Zoning Board to have them consider. I will ask you to zip back over there and we'll give the public a chance to speak. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Board Member Talty — I'm fine. 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 2012004 Board Member Conneman — I'm fine, too. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm fine as well. Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to be sure that I understand correctly. The name of the church would not be illuminated, it would be against some background. It would just be the two bottom lines that would be illuminated, right? Mr. Kaseski - It would be coming from the sides. It wouldn't be the actual name or the text: 'It would be like flood lights. If you have floodlights shining on a picture, it would basically be like that. The source of the light would be coming from the street side, so it wouldn't be shining at all towards the street. it would be shining away from the street and kept up from the bottom, shining at all towards the street, it would be shining away from the street and kept up from the bottom shining toward the church away from the street. Chairperson Wilcox — Similar to the. way it is, or was. Board Member Hoffmann — Somehow I thought that it said that it was illuminated from inside the sign before. Mr. Kaseski — It is behind the glass, but there is like lights that are in the corners. Board Member Talty So the actually lights are protected from the glass. Mr. Kaseski — Yes. I'm almost positive. I was reading through this before I came and that's my understanding. Right now because the temporary sign, what we've done is affix the light that is right to the sign because there isn't any glass or anything for it to go under and its shining...) think they are going to keep the same setup, the same configuration of the light would be up against the sign right next to it, so like behind the glass, a smaller light. Board Member Conneman = I think Eva's question is, would it light if the Seventh Day Adventist Church and the message board or the entire thing. Mr. Kaseski — I think it would light the whole sign, is my understanding. Board Member Conneman. — That is what I understand from what I read, which is not different from what you have now, right. Mr. Kaseski — Right, yeah. Board Member Hoffmann — You did this one, Chris. 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,' 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Ms. Balestra — It is my understanding as well that the entire sign will be self illuminated that includes the Seventh Day Adventist sign itself and.the copy change area. Mr. Kaseski — What that might be, I can find out for sure, but it might be you know how you have the bulbs the panel, and then it would light the whole piece. Ms. Balestra — I believe the original sign was sort of self .illuminated in that respect to be bulbs inside and this would be the same thing. Mr. Kaseski — But we wanted to make sure it would be really professional and not take away from the community and actually kind of dress it up a little more than it was before.. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. Mr. Kaseski — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. So moved by the Chair. Board Member Conneman — I'll second it. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. Because there is a slight question here, I might want to add a "c" that says that the method of illumination be consistent with the existing sign. That is kind of what we were lead to believe that it would be lit in the same fashion. The Zoning Board will make the final determination, but I think that is consistent with what we heard. Is that okay with you, George? Board Member Conneman — That's okay with me. Chairperson Wilcox = All those in favor? Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone opposed? Any abstentions? The motion is passed. Thank you very much. Do you need assistance? Mr. Kaseski — No. I can get it. You've got the button there, so I'll be good. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -008: Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, Sign Variance — Seventh Day Adventist Church, 1219 Trumansbur_g Road, Sign Review Board MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed replacement of a 24 square foot church identification CI PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 sign located at 1219 Trumansburg Road, Tax Parcel No. 26.442, with a sign of the same style and dimensions, would not be out of character for the neighborhood and community, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that .the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as . the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals .approve the request for a. sign variance for the replacement of a 24. square foot freestanding self - illuminated church sign with. a copy- change section, located at. 1219 Trumansburg. Road, Residence District R -15, where self - illuminated freestanding copy - change signs are restricted. in Residential Zones. The approval shall be subject to the following conditions: a. The proposed sign shall not exceed 24 square* feet in total sign area, as defined in the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, and b. The proposed sign shall be limited to two lines of copy- change text area, and C, The method of illumination be consistent with the illumination used for the previously existing sign. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty. NAY: None The motion was declared to.be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Sapa /Center 2 -Lot Subdivision, 621 Elm Street Extension. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:15 p.m. Pam Williams, 9 Townline Road — I am an architect practicing in Ithaca and have been hired by Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center to design a house for their proposed lot on Coy Glen Road. and I am representing them tonight at this meeting. Would you like me to describe... Chairperson Wilcox — If you could give a couple minutes overview of what is being proposed? Ms. Williams — Sure. It is all nicely detailed in the packet of information, but the proposal is to subdivide off .57 acre parcel having frontage on Coy Glen. You can see it here in your aerial view. I guess that would be it. This one is Coy Glen here. The .57 acre parcel would be separated from the 5.2 acre parcel and that is where Kirk and Sharon.live at 621 Elm Street Extension. 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any-environmental impacts? Ms. Williams No. it seems that... Chairperson Wilcox = Specifically, any environmental impacts with regard to the subdivision? .Ms. Williams — No, from the Short Environmental Assessment Form that Town planning staff seems to determine that the creation of the lot would have no significant environmental impacts. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions for the applicant? Board Member Talty — I had a question. My question was, the shape of the proposed parcel. I was just wondering why you didn't parallel it or have the same lot line as the other lots that are above. Ms. Ritter — Kevin, I should answer that. Because that line is not drawn...nobody from assessment, .I just drew it in, so it is roughed in there on the aerial. Board Member Talty — Okay. I'm fine. Ms. Williams — But that is the shape of the parcel. That must be the existing lot line. Board Member Talty — Not a problem. Chairperson Wilcox - I know that there is someone who might speak. We will get through the environmental review, then we will open the public hearing and at that time you can speak if you so choose. We aren't ignoring you, Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to ask a question. You mentioned that you were going to be designing a .house for the applicants. Is that going to be located on this parcel? Ms. Williams — The new lot, yes. Board. Member Hoffmann — On the Coy Glen Road? Ms. Williams — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — So access would be from Coy Glen Road where there is a fairly steep bank from that lot coming down from Coy Glen Road it looked like to me. Ms. Williams — There is. There would have to be some grading for a driveway` there, but I walked on it and its doable from what I can see. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann — l also happened to meet Mr. Burbank, who is here in the audience when I was .up there looking today and he mentioned that he had seen a very large tree that he hoped it would be possible to keep. Ms. Williams — Kirk Sapa wants to keep as many trees on the lot as possible. He is really concerned about doing that. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Ms. Williams - Yup. Board Member Hoffmann Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox = Any other questions or comments with regard to -environmental review? Would someone like to move it then? Board Member Howe — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. There being Chairperson Wilcox � Is anyone opposed? And there are no abstentions. The motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -009: SEQR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Sapa /Center Two -Lot Subdivision, Coy Glen Road /Elm Street Extension, Tax Parcel No. 29 -8 -5.1 MOTION made by Rod Howe, Seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This. action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.57 +/- acre parcel, having road frontage on Coy Glen Road, from the existing 5.2 +/- acre parcel having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension. Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 3. The Planning. Board on March 2, 2004, 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, and a survey drawing entitled "Kirk Sapa & Sharon Center, Coy Glen Road (Mil. Lot 65) (T) Ithaca, Tompkins Co., N.Y." dated June 12, 2003, certified by G. Bruce Davison L.S., 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. 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, Howe, Talty. NAY: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29 =8 -5.1, Residence District RA5. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.57 +/- acre parcel having frontage on Coy Glen Road from the existing. 5.2 +/- acre parcel having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension.. Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. and asked if any members of the public wished to be heard. Pamela Peabody, 278 Coy Glen Road — I guess Eva did mention one of the major concerns I had as well as Will, was the huge trees and some of the ecosystem and the environment itself is a major concern to me. We had a very large home go in recently within the last two years and a lot of construction took place further down Coy Glen. It really disrupted a lot of the ecosystem I believe by walking around back there. I'm not opposed to this subdivision, but I am very concerned as to what kind . of affects it will have on the environment. I guess my concern would be to know more about what kind of home is going in on that property and how she can feel that this will not disrupt the ecosystem at all with this kind of home, going in. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else this evening? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 There being no one, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — I think my comment to use is that we have already made the determination that there will be no significant impact. I'm .not going to sit here and tell you that there will no environmental impact. You do anything there is an environmental impact, but the Board has made the determination that there will be no significant environmental impact which is the subdivision of the property, which is what is before us this evening. Can I ask the applicant... where did she go? Can I ask you to come. back up here and talk about what the owners plans are more specifically about what they plan to do? I was going to ask do they plan on selling the parcel or keeping it, but think you already said something that indicates they plan on retaining the parcel. Ms. Williams — It would be a rental property. Kirk wants to help build it. At is going.to. be his retirement project ... to build. Do you want me to describe the design ... the preliminary? Chairperson Wilcox — Just less than a minute ... an overview. Ms. Williams — It is about a 2,000 square foot house, not real big. A one story.with a partial basement and it really works with the grade and steps into the hill. Minimal development around the house and as a I say, he is really concerned about keeping the site as natural as possible and.that means a lot of trees. Chairperson Wilcox — Sewage disposal is the issue, right? Ms. Williams — Right. Chairperson Wilcox - Whether you pump it up hill 500 feet or pipe it down hill 1,000 feet or have a septic system. Ms. Williams — In fact, Kirk was hoping not to have to have a septic system because he doesn't want to clear the land any more than he needs to. . Chairperson Wilcox — There is the potential that the County Health Department, if it is determined to go to septic system, it is possible that the County Health Department might not approve it given the lot size. Ms. Williams — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — So if that happens, then either the subdivision is not ... if the approval does not occur from the County Health Department then the subdivision cannot legally occur and he can either decide to increase the lot size or to abandon the subdivision. Expensive... oh, Dan's here. What is the cost to put in sewer per trench foot? 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Mr. Walker — Depends on how long you want to go? On Coy Glen Road there, it would be $50 to $60 per foot range. Chairperson Wilcox — So 1,000 feet is $50,000 and if you go 450 feet that is obviously about half the price, but you've gotta pump it up hill. Mr. Walker — You are actually putting. a force main in and you could probably put it in, in the $30 price range per foot because it is a smaller pipe and takes less of a trench and you don't have to have the constant grade. Chairperson Wilcox — It is still an expensive proposition. Mr. Walker — Now, those prices are based on Town costs. A private contractor might be able to put it in less expensively, but you do have to cross the road and the right lining of it to get to where the sewer is probably entails crossing a fairly long length of the road, which would need to be repaved and things like that. Chairperson . Wilcox — All right. Anybody else? Would someone like to move the motion? Board Member Talty — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman. Any changes? Board Member Conneman - I assume the Health Department will monitor this? Chairperson Wilcox — They have to approve...if indeed ... one of the conditions of the approval is getting approval from the County. Health Department for the septic system should it be determined that that is the way they are going to go before I would sign the subdivision plat. Mr. Walker — The adjoining property that is down hill from this one did put in aseptic system, but they have a much larger lot. I don't know how large that system had to be. Chairperson Wilcox — Motion and a second favor? Board — Aye. If there is no further discussion, all those in Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody opposed? . Any abstentions? There are none. The motion is passed. Thank you all very much. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2004 -010: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Sapa /Center Two -Lot Subdivision, Coy Glen Road /Elm Street Extension, Tax Parcel No. 29 -8 -5.1 W] PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, Seconded by. George Conneman WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the . proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.1, Residence District R45. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.57. +/- acre parcel, having. road frontage on Coy Glen Road, from the existing 5.2 +/- acre parcel..having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension, Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant, and 21 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 March 2, 2004, 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 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 2, 2004, 2004, has .reviewed and accepted as adequate drawings entitled a survey drawing entitled "Kirk Sapa & Sharon Center, Coy Glen Road (Mil. Lot 65) (T) Ithaca, Tompkins Co.,. N.Y." dated June 12, 2003, certified by G. Bruce Davison L.S., 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 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 two -lot subdivision on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.1, as shown on the survey drawings entitled "Kirk Sapa & Sharon Center, Coy Glen Road (Mil. Lot 65) (T) Ithaca, Tompkins Co., N.Y." dated June 12, 2003, certified by G. Bruce Davison L.S., subject to the following conditions: a. granting of the necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and b. approval from the Tompkins County Health Department for installation of a septic system, or submission to the Town of plans to connect to the municipal sewage system, prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and 11 c. submission for signing by original or mylar copy of prints, prior to filing with submission of a receipt Department. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 the Chairman of the Planning Board of an i final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann,. Conneman, Howe, Talty. NAY. None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center — Radiation Oncology Modification, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:26 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — This has been an interesting little project. Do we have the wireless microphone with us tonight? Okay. Well, we're being very , very careful about making sure we record.' Male voice —1'll come over here, I think it will be fine. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Name and address and the floor is yours. Paul Levesque, HOLT 'Architects, 217 North Aurora Street — I'm here tonight acting as agent for Cayuga Medical Center. As you've said, the project I am here to discuss is the addition for the Radiation /Oncology at Cayuga Medical Center. The purpose that I'm here for is for consideration for modification to the final site plan approval that we received on September 2, 2003. Essentially what's happened since we last met, with. you is we've gone through, finished the contract documents and, as we were designing the project, there was a couple of modifications that we made and so, I am here to explain what those are. I'll talk from here and then I'll hop up in a second and point it out or something. The first one that we are going to talk about is, there was-. an addition of approximately 2700 square feet of additional measurable to the size of the building. Most of that addition actually happened on the basement level, actually it's the first floor level of the hospital, which is below grade. Essentially, what happened is we increased the mechanical room size for a number of reasons. One of them is, as we got farther into the project there was some existing site utilities that we had to leave access able. The other reason was that we had to get air into the building and so we had to either make a concrete duct trench or essentially inhabit the space. If you look at the second floor plan up near the top and center, you see, at the top of it, there was a garden there and 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 underneath that was concrete retaining walls that were already as part of the original project. So, essentially, all we did was push out and. use those existing site improvements that we were-pro . p . osing as new exterior walls. That was the majority of the additional space that we added. The other small amount was here, if you look at the second floor plan, the center one, down near the end of it there is a small gray stripe across there. We actually had to 'increase the vault size. When we got the final equipments selected by Cayuga Medical Center for the linear accelerator, .it was lightly different then the original one that we designed around and it caused us to make a larger vault. The second item that was changed since we met with you guys last was the original canopy of the building was near the entrance. I'll stand up .again in a second and point that out to you. What we decided as we were proceeded through the project, was to extend the canopy out to the drop. off location in the parking..lot and to. also extend the canopy into the medical office building, so now a patience being dropped off in front of this building will actually be able to walk undercover, all the way into the medical office building. It's never. been that way in the past. We've also provided a wind screen along that walkway, which will be made out of glass to temper the weather. This right here, this gray hedged area, is the additional canopy and it actually goes back here and up to the medical office building. This is the addition that I was talking about before to the mechanical room. This is what we had proposed to you earlier and that .is the area that we added. This is the third floor plan and that is the, roof of the canopy so that you can see how it goes in. Originally, as we presented it earlier, the canopy was only over in this area. Chairperson Wilcox — Then there's just that little piece over on the left side., which is labeled the enlarged accelerate ball, right? Mr. Levesque — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me ask, as I always do, are you aware of any environmental issues related to this modification? Mr. Levesque — I am not: Chairperson Wilcox — Does it increase the footprint of the building at all? Mr. Levesque — Well, yes and no. It does increase the measurable footprint of the building, but my point being is that there was already site improvements. AS we proposed it before there was a retaining wall along this wall. If you look at the building, this here is the northern elevation and this right here, was a concrete retaining wall that was already in there as a site improvement. What we did was extend the mechanical room out to it. So, the measurable square footage of the building, yes, is larger, but it hasn't increased the site improvements I guess. Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else? 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann — You mentioned that your size has increased form nine thousand some thing... Mr. Levesque- It was approximately. 10,000: Board Member Hoffmann - .12,000. Mr. Levesque — Up to.12,700. Board Member Hoffmann That's in the last stage from the last increase, but what about from the original proposal, how much has it increased? Mr. Levesque — From the original proposal, when we came to you guys was for a site plan approval for a building that was approximately 9,975 square feet. Today, it is ... Are you talking about the intermediate time that we came? Board Member Hoffmann- Yes. Because it seems to me that first it was one size, then it increased a little bit and now it has increased again? Mr. Levesque — That is not correct, no. It hasn't really increased from the first time I was here. The second time we were here was for other issues. At the point where we had been there before, the canopy had not been added and the mechanical room had not been extended. Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions regarding Environmental Review? Would someone like to move the SEQR Motion? So moved by Kevin Talty. Seconded by Eva Hoffmann. If there is no further discussion, all .those in favor? Anyone opposed? No on is Opposed and there are no abstentions. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -011: SEQR: Site Plan Modification, Cayuga Medical Center — Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -3 -2.1 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, Seconded by Eva Hoffmann WHEREAS. 1. Consideration of Site .Plan Modification for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. The modifications involve an increase in the size of the Radiation Oncology addition by approximately +1-2,725 SF for a total of +1- 12,700 SF, and an extension of the walkway canopy. The Planning Board previously granted approval for the three- 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,'2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 story addition to the northwest corner of the existing hospital building on September 2, 2003. Cayuga Medical Center at..lthaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant, 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 March 2, 2004, has reviewed,and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and plans entitled "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SKI), "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SK2), both dated January 28, 2004, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., and.other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a. negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty. NAY: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. The modifications involve an increase in the size of the Radiation Oncology addition by approximately +l- 2,725 SF for a total of +l- 129700 SF, and an extension of the walkway canopy. The Planning Board previously granted approval for the three -story addition to the northwest corner of the existing hospital building on September 2, 2003. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant. I. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:33 p.m. 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox - My only comment is the canopy, I think, is a nice addition. I wish or we had.thought about it we you were here before. Anybody else have questions of the applicant? Mr. Barney — I have one. Chairperson Wilcox— Be my guest Mr. Barney. Mr. Barney — Did you ever get the approval from the State that we were discussing some time before. Mr .. Levesque —Yes. All the conditions have been met. Chairperson Wilcox — In fact, I had information, I think, it may not have been the last meeting, maybe the meeting before, I had a letter indicating that they had approval from the State. So, we're all set there. Any other questions? I'll ask you to take a seat. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board, you probably have heard this now three times, we ask you to come to the microphone, we ask that you give us name and address.and we would be very interested to hear what you have to say. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:35 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — WE should intersperse some of these with some of the more controversial things, shouldn't we. I have no questions, I'm all set. Board Member Hoffmann — No, and I think it looks like an improvement. Chairperson Wilcox — The canopy is certainly an improvement. Most of the addition is underground of partially below grade. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and they sound like improvements too because they improve. the air circulation. Board Member Howe — I'll make the motion. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by Kevin Talty. There -being no further discussion, .all those in favor? Anyone opposed? No one is opposed. There are no abstentions, the motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -012: Site Plan Modification, Cayuga Medical Center — Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel. No. 24= 3-2.1 MOTION made by Rod Howe, Seconded by Kevin Talty. 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,-2004 APPROVED APRIL 209 2004 WHEREAS: 1. Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. The modifications involve an increase in the size of the Radiation Oncology addition by approximately +1 -2, 725 SF for a total of +/ -12,700 SF, and an extension of the walkway canopy. The Planning Board previous .granted approval for the three - story addition to the northwest corner of the existing hospital building on September 2, 2003, Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant, 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 Modification, has, on March 2, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1; submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 2, 2004, has reviewed and accepted. as adequate, plans entitled "Proposed Radiation Oncology .. Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SKI), "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SK2), both dated January 28, 2004) prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for 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 20 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants approval for Site Plan Modification for the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. The modifications involve an increase in the size of the Radiation Oncology addition by approximately +14,725 SF for a total of +142,700 SF, and an extension of the walkway canopy, as shown on plans entitled "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SK1), "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SK2), both dated January 28, 2004, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., and other application materials. 17 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty. NAY: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Glenside Park 5 -Lot Subdivision, Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Representing the owners is this gentleman. Male voice — Can I use your map? It is a lot more colorful than mine. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen if you are here for this particular item and you wish to come around in order to view. Will is sitting there nodding his head. You know this area by heart, don't you? If you would like to come up and gather around behind us, you are welcome to so that you can see the map while the gentleman is speaking. Name, address. It can be professional or otherwise. Patrick Leahy, 527 Highland Road — I'm acting as the agent for Mr. John Young, who is the owner of the property. I have been working with him on this for some time. We'd like to ask for preliminary approval on the `Glenside Park Subdivision, which is basically .a five plot subdivision of a 44 acre plot, located at the intersections of Coy Glen, Glenside Road and Floral Avenue. There is a lot going on here so, if I may; I will just'run through, kind of piece by piece what we envisioned. By way of background, it seems to us that back in the 1920's there was plans to build this little neighborhood out, but only a few houses every really were built along Glenside Road. Over the years, quite unintentionally and, I think at no ill -will to the other neighbors, there were some encroachments by some of the individuals along Glenside Road or maybe encroachment is not the right word. There is really only one encroachment of that other building. I think just areas where some of the neighbors were using land that maybe were a little beyond their boundaries. We noticed that when working on this project so we thought it made sense to try to adjust some of those in the process. So, what we did, basically, was we cut it into six plots. Let me run through them. Lot number 1 has already come to this Planning Board for approval and. it was conveyed to the Town for the construction of the new pump station. Lot number 2 is a lot that we proposed, which you'll notice doesn't meet the minimum road frontage requirements.. This right -of -way here, some years ago, might have been cleared away to build a road, but the .road was never built, which would have provided frontage to Lot 2 and also to this plot here, Which is the Turco plot. We envision, hopefully getting approval for that lot and then getting approval for that lot and then getting the necessary easement language so that we can access that lot. lu PLANNING.BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Lot number 3 is a sever acre parcel, which we would like to propose donating to the Town for a park. My understanding is that there is at least a preliminary discussion at the Town Board meeting to discuss this and I think the feedback was pretty positive. It's not suitable, really, for a playing field, but we think that it would make a really nice park for hiking or picnicking or what have you. I have tow kids so that if you want to put a "tot lot" in there or something, we would certainly be one of the users of it. It would have access both off of Flora Avenue, with a: little 15 foot strip here, as well as, we'd also include language to allow access this 32 foot right -of -way. Lot 4 would be a second lot that we might put up for sale, which we believe meets all of the R -9 Residential zoning requirements, as does Lot 5 here on Floral Ave. Then the idea that Mr. Young has is to retain Lot 6 for future' purposes. Although, at this time there are no specific plans to develop. this. If he were to, I guess the thinking is there is enough frontage here on Coy Glen Road .to build a public road and it would probably have to be a cul -de -sac of some kind with a number of lots off of that. As mentioned, he has no plans at this point to develop that land. These parcels A through G are all areas that are donations form Mr. Young to the adjoining neighbors o settle some of those encroachment issues that were discovered in the process. So, our hope is that, provided we got the easement language sorted out, we got the approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, we got the final maps together, went to the Town Board for final approval of the park, that we might be able to get final approval for this. Chairperson Wilcox — There was something in the papers that we were presented about the potential that one of the neighbors might buys one of the lots? Mr. Leahy — Yes. I am sorry, I should have mentioned that. There have already been conversations with the Cooks that own this lot, here, to potentially buy Lot 2, Now, I do not envision them consolidating it, but rather keeping it as a separate lot as a buffer perhaps or some other future development. Those discussions have taken place. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there something about maybe Mr. Turco or Mrs. Turco possibly buying that Lot 2? Mr. Leahy —To be honest, I am not aware of that. It was my understanding that the Cooks were most interested. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. Environmental concerns, issues? Mr. Leahy — Not that we are aware of, no. Chairperson Wilcox — We are creating three building lots, three potential building lots. Mr. Leahy — Right. Well PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — We have the potential for park land, which is an environmental asset, a plus: I'm all set for now., Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question, actually, about the park. It came up in Part 2 of the Environmental Assessment; it was something you prepared, Jonathan. You mentioned that this land in Lot 3, would be used for passive park purposes, rather .then active ones. Then you say that it also could accommodate storm water management improvements, if. necessary. I assume that would only be necessary if Lot 6 would be developed, but I am a little concerned about a Town Park being accepted and then may be used for purposes for like that Could you explain what you had in mind? Mr. Kanter = Well, that was my own wording. That was not the applicant's and I was not intending to imply that the park would be used for storm water management purposes for further development of the remaining lot. Simply that sometimes properties that are turned over to the Town, if there is a reason to put in any kind of storm water improvements, whether. it be for the park itself or other surrounding issues, that may be something the Town would consider doing. Again, it had nothing to do with the future development of the remaining parcel. If that is developed, that would obviously have to take care of it's own storm water. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I guess my concern would.be that it could potentially diminish the value as a park if one were to use it as a park if one were to use it for other purposes. Mr. Kanter — It would be easy enough for me to strike that wording from the EAF and you can approve it without the wording in it. It's just discussions that we've had amongst ourselves as staff. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but you wouldn't have mentioned it if there wasn't reason, I imagine. Mr. Kanter — Well, there really was no specific purpose or reason for my putting that in there. Again, I was reflecting discussions that we'd had. That's as simple as it is. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Thanks, Chairperson Wilcox — If the large lot should ever be developed, potentially the donation of the land of the land to the Town for a Town park, would also potentially deal with the need to have open space for the additional Lots that would be created if the Town should accept the park, for example. That might meet the future open space needs of.the area. Is there anything else you would like to say? Members of the Board? Okay. My feeling i s that there might be some environmental issues that people would like to speak about. If there isn't, that's fine. So, before I actually get to the Public Hearing with regard to the proposed subdivision, is there anybody here who would like to address the Board about 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 the environmental issues related to this, given the area. If you speak now, you will still get the chance to speak as part of the Public Hearing when we consider the preliminary subdivision. Inaudible male voice from the audience Mr. Kanter — They are all up and available for discussion. Steve Sweet, 115 Glenside Road — In fact, if I could, my property is on this side of the road and so my property doesn't abut the proposed {park. I would just like.to speak on, essentially, what that current parcel of property is being used for. families like mine in the neighborhood. Where it's sort of been socially defined as being a public zone. So a typical afternoon with me with the kids is to go out and wander through that property and we would go and turn over rocks and we would look for salamanders and that type of thing. If that property remained in sort of a communal stage, I would see it as really contributing to the continued positive climate of the neighborhood. If you haven't been to the Glenside Neighborhood before, it's really.quite unique because it's architecturally unique, it's in keeping with a real historical feel to that part of Town and it's a very interesting place. The land, as it is, undeveloped is a very, very positive, positive thing. A modest park like that is really keeping. the keep the neighborhood with a form that really works well for my family. So, that's very quickly kind of it. Do you guys have anything to add? Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Matthia Hesse, 112 Glenside Road — I actually live right here attached to one of the properties that is probably going to,be sold and developed. We obviously, have a huge interest that it basically stays as it is. We have a nine year old daughter, she goes out there almost every afternoon, plays in the woods. So, one of the reasons why we actually bought this property a little bit more than a year ago was actually that it is quiet and not very much developed and so we would like to save this. Chairperson Wilcox — On, the other hand, you wouldn't deny the owner the right to subdivide his own property? Mr. Hesse — No. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay, okay. Thank you. Dan Aneshansley, 118 Glenside Road — Part of the missing ten seconds. Just a couple of spots up from where was just pointed out to you. We've lived there since 1976. Our children are all grown for the most part, but that particular area that you see in green is a place that has been used by children in that area as long as we have been there and before. I see this as a great opportunity to save that and preserve it in this particular fashion as just an open space. Environmentally, I think it's a marvelous area with lots of nature. We get wild turkey back in there, we get deer, a whole variety of species of 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 animal that just make it, I think, a very unique area. We see it as a very positive step to take. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. Anybody else? Will? Will Burbank, 132 Glenside — Which is adjacent to this. I just wanted clarification. I also, as you know, am on the Town Board and talking with both the neighborhood and with the Board, the thinking was that this would be a passive park. The wording, actually, is recreational. There is a potential that at some point, there might be development in surrounding areas that might cause the passivity to be changed and it would become . more active. There is, as you may know, within the City, to the north, a proposed subdivision on the failed Wiesbread development off of 13A and I'm not too sure what is happening, but something is happening. So, this, once again, provides a buffer between the existing neighborhood and whatever may come in the future. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Thank you all. Comments, in regard to Environmental Review? Eva is thinking. Board Member Hoffmann — No, I don't have anything more. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Comments from staff? Who would like to move the SEQR. Review? So, moved by Road Howe. Seconded by George Conneman. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anyone opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -013: SEQR: Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Glenside Park Subdivision, Glenside Road and Five Mile- Drive, Tax Parcel No. 30- 1 -1 MOTION made by Rod Howe, Seconded by George Conneman WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1, Residence Districts R -15 and R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and the remaining 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off 7 small parcels to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment problems. John F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant, and 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on March 2, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Glenside Park Subdivision, Located Off Glenside Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S., dated 10/30/2003, 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: 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, Howe, Talty. NAY: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision. Approval for the proposed 54ot Glenside Park subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1, Residence Districts R -15 and R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off seven small parcels to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment problems. John. F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:54 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else you wish to say at this point? Male voice- No. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Questions from the Board, at this point? There are none. Ladies and gentlemen you can speak again if you so choose. This is a Public Hearing. If you wish to address the Planning Board, you know the drill, name and address, have a seat. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:56 p.m. .Chairperson Wilcox — Is Mr. Young here by the way? Mr. Leahy — No he is not... Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to thank him. It seems to be a sensitive.., we don't know what's going to happen with the large parcel, but if he truly is in fact donating those small parcels to the adjacent land owners, again the park is, at some point he would have to create some open space, potentially would have to have some open space if ..he were to divide the large parcel, but doing it up front is certainly a nice gesture. It certainly is appreciated. Mr. Kanter — And also, this is larger than he normally would need to. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Mr. Barney. Mr. Barney — I was just asking Jon or Dan, the 32 feet for the access, is that adequate for getting to park in the back? Mr. Walker — Yeah, the roadway is basically built. This also coincides with our 20 foot wide waterline easement. They maintain that and keep that mowed. The only area where we'd maybe need more width is down at the bottom of the gorge, where we would have to get in there is we were going to put a culvert in, but I think the 32 feet is still adequate for that for a ten foot wide driveway type entrance. Mr. Barney — There's.not.two way traffic going down it? Mr. Walker —No, it would basically be a driveway into the park, not a roadway, no. This is envisioned as more of a neighborhood type park, so we would not anticipate putting a parking lot in there at all. It would basically be accessed by maintenance vehicles. Mr. Kanter — And then there's the 15 foot strip that actually goes down, physically to Five Mile Drive, that could be a walkway or some. kind of a pedestrian access. If needed, it could also serve as an emergency way to get maintenance vehicles in there is we needed to. Chairperson Wilcox The 32 foot right -of -way is, essentially, going to be a long driveway to serve the lots that are there, plus this new flag lot that's being created. Okay. Mr. Barney , any other questions? 24 PLAN NI,NG.BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Mr. Barney — That was all. Mr. Kanter — Also, I'll just emphasize the variances needed, especially because the park parcel itself requires.a variance, so that will definitely be a requirement for frontage. Chairperson Wilcox — As Mr. Barney is pretty fond of saying, just helicopter them.. in, right? Any further discussion? So moved by the Chair. Seconded by Eva Hoffmann. All those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is anyone opposed ?. There is no one opposed. There are no abstentions. Thank you very much..You'll.be back, potentially, when this comes back to us, should it come back to us. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -014: Preliminary Subdivision' Approval, Glenside Park Subdivision,.Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive, Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1 MOTION made by.Fred Wilcox, Seconded by Eva Hoffmann WHEREAS: 1: This action is consideration of Preliminary Subdivision. Approval for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1, Residence Districts R45 and R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and the remaining 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off 7 small parcels to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment problems. John F. Young & Susan M, Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant, 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 March 2, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 2, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Glenside Park Subdivision, Located Off Glenside Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, It prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S., dated 1013012003, and other application materials, 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed Glenside Park Subdivision located at Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 =1 -1, as shown on a survey map entitled "Glenside Park Subdivision, Located Off Glenside Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, prepared by Lee Dresser, L.S., dated 1013012003, subject to the following conditions, to be met prior to Final Subdivision Approval unless otherwise indicated: a. Obtaining the necessary lot width variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals (Lots 2 and 3) and variance for modifying a non - conforming lot (by adding Parcel G to Tax Parcel No. 304-12, which does not have frontage on a public road), and b. Acceptance by the Town Board proposed park area (Lot 3), and of the concept and location of the c. Submission of one mylar and four dark line prints of the subdivision plat, all signed and, sealed by the licensed surveyor who prepared the. survey, for signing by the Planning Board Chair, and d. Submission of access easement language providing the owner of Lot 3 (to be conveyed to the Town of Ithaca as parkland) a right -of -way for ingress and egress across Lot 2 to Glenside Road, for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town, and e. Consolidation of Parcels A, By C, D, E, F and G with adjoining Tax Parcels, as indicated in Note 5 on the Subdivision Map, within six months after Final Subdivision Approval, and submission to the. Town of Ithaca Planning Department of a copy of the requests to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for said consolidations. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Planning Board finds that proposed Lot 3 to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca 'as a recreational park meets the goals and objectives of the Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan, which designates the need for a future neighborhood park in this general location in the Town, and that the 7 +/- acres of the proposed park W PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,-2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 dedication more than adequately meets the .usual ten percent set -aside of the entire 44 +/- acre parcel, and therefore, no additional park set -aside will be required by the Planning Board in the future regarding any future subdivision of the remaining Lot 6. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty. NAY.` None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located on Coddington Road approximately' 870 feet south of Updike Road,. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.. 47=1 4, Residence District R -30: The proposal involves subdividing the 14.8 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots along Coddington Road and one 9 +/- acre lot which would be donated to the Coddington . Road Community Center for their recreational activities, John F. Young, Owner.; Patrick Leahy, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:00. p.m. Chairperson Wilcox = Again, if somebody is here for this, specifically, you are welcome to come up and view it from back here. Mr. Leahy — Our hope is to get some feedback on the following proposal. There is a 15 acre parcel, you pointed out, Mr. Wilcox, exactly where it is, just down Coddington Road, just south of the Coddington Road Community Center. The proposal is to subdivide this into five parcels. Parcel A, the largest of which, a nine acre parcel, would be the proposed donation to the Coddington Road Community Center. In speaking with Ann Morissette, the Executive Direct, we've identified that they do, in fact, in the summer, run a fair bit of programming and that they see some value in the wooded area. back here, as area for hiking and trails and things of that sort. So, we thought it would make sense to propose. a donation to the Community Center and then presumably combine the two parcels into one because there would be no additional access to this back portion. I know that has gone to the Board and they may comment on their interests themselves. The front four our thinking is to subdivide into four lots, serviced by a simple private road that would serve the front two lots and the two back lots. The two front lots, as they are designed here, do meet the R -30 restrictions on road frontage, but the two back do not, of course. So, we would look -to create flag lots and have the right -of -way certainly for the back tow owners across that private road:. There is municipal water here, but there is no sewer. So, the acreage, as we've outlined here meets the 30,000 square foot minimum that are required in R -30. Our thinking too is that we may have deed language that would prevent the front two * 'lots from having access from Coddington Road. Our hope was that we could limit the crb cut to just one and have everyone serviced, as it shows here by that private road, rather than to have driveways come out themselves. We also may deed that the driveways need to be 100 27 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 feet in or something like that, again, to keep any of the traffic in off of Coddington Road. We've calculated site distance, which doesn't seem to be a problem. I've spoken to Chief Wilbur at the Fire Department, he's indicated that any private road over 150 feet would require a turn around, which we envision building of course, but it wouldn't be 500 feet or longer, which would not necessitate putting a second hydrant in. I've spoken with John Andersen at the Health Department and he indicated that, even though it is a five parcel subdivision, he would consider it only four because this fifth one would be donated and combined with an existing parcel. Consequently, he said it wouldn't require a specific Health Department approval; rather the individual home owners would need to file for various permits. So, again, that is just kind of an overview. There is a lot of work yet to do, which we would bring back to the Board for preliminary and final approval. I could pick those off for you as I see them, if you would like. Otherwise, if. you have any thoughts on that. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm looking at a 15 -acre lot, give or take,.if you wind up with four houses on it, which is good. Arguably the back 60 percent isn't very buildable anyway. You've got a.200 foot wide NYSEG easement, which, on that, runs from top to bottom. Then we have that ugly scar, which runs sort of diagonal to it, where the natural gas pipeline was replaced or a new one was installed maybe five or six years ago. I'm trying to think when that came through there. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I'm not sure, to be honest. Chairperson Wilcox — That really limits the potential of building on the pretty sure. But, nonetheless, we wind up with four lots, all an acre a off of a 15 acre lot. The lots would have to be reasonably sized beca water is there and the Town would extend water to the Coddington Center, but we would need separate systems. Mr. Leahy In fact there is a hydrant there on the map. Chairperson Wilcox — Members of the Board? back portion, I'm id a quarter plus ise, as you said, toad Community Board Member Hoffmann — I just hope there wouldn't be any problem with the private road. Chairperson Wilcox — Is anybody concerned about five lots? I don't particularly like them, but sometimes they are okay. Would you Like to speak. If you would I am going to send you over the microphone. Kind of the way you are looking, you'd like to say something. Okay. . Mary Jo Bauer, 921 Coddington Road — I live across the street from the parking lot. Chairperson Wilcox — I need to ask you to either pick up the microphone and carry it with you or just sit or we won't be able to record you. IN PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Ms. Bauer — I'll sit, now that you know what I'm talking about. Even before I heard of this, before I received your letter in the mail, I have been concerned and I know this is not your jurisdiction, I am talking about speed limits, it is not yours and it's not the Town Board's, but I think it's something that needs to be taken into consideration, not for stopping this, but for getting the speed limit lowered. I have been doing a lot in the parking lot coming out where everyone comes out everyday. They've got one way in and the opposite end out and it is right down at this corner: The visibility is terrible in both directions and, I believe, it is a 45 mile per hour zone, which I think is much too high. Then, if you're going to add this private road, where you've got four more people .coming in and out of every day, I don't object, I just think we need to deal with the speed limit. That's even worse. They -will have worse visibility going to other way. There's just none. I had a terrible accident, not involving me, it landed in my front yard, from someone going too fast. If they had been going at a reasonable speed, .it wouldn't. have happened. That's my concern. Also, I don't know where your property line is here, if that's now all wooded, well starting at the road. I would hope that it would be less that way as a buffer, both for the people that live. in the houses, from the noise, it's `not bad noise, but it's still noise, from the Community Center, .especially in the summer, with the summer camp when windows are open and so forth. Otherwise, it would be great to have that nine acres back there. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. We do have a member of the Town Board here this evening, who has heard your concerns about the speed limit. Very good. This is not a Public Hearing, but if someone would like to. address the Board, please be our guest. The two of you have sat there very quietly and if you'd like to help us make a good decision, we'd be glad to here from you. Carol Bailes, President Coddington Road Community Center — We are right adjacent to this property. I would just like to say that we are very interested in getting this piece of land. Our summer camp has grown quite a. bit over the last few years and expanded into sort of middle school age children, who are not really children anymore and having extra space for them to spread out and play or maybe ride, mountain bikes, could be very useful to us. We're assuming that there won't be any additional liability for us, taking on this parcel and that's something that we would be looking into before we actually took it, but hopefully there wouldn't be any problems and we would be happy to have it. Chairperson Wilcox — Could this free up some of the cleared land where the kids play baseball and other sports. Do the camps tend to use that land now and maybe some of those activities can be shifted to this land instead? Mr. Bailes — I don't know if they can be shifted. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not searching for an answer, I am just trying to understand. 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Ms. Bailes — I think this is really more of an expansion really that people would be more spread out perhaps or using different parcels at different times. The -big ball field is a big empty space and so that's good for some things, but kids love to play in the woods. So, that's all I really wanted to say. Chairperson Wilcox— Would you take a question, if there is one? Ms. Bailes — Sure. Chairperson Wilcox- You all set? Very good. Board Member Conneman — I was kind of wondering about the speed limit. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes and having lived up there, I am aware .of how fast the cars go. Thank you very much. Board Member Conneman — I'm on the Transportation Committee for the Town and we have talked about this'. Chairperson Wilcox — Feedback to Mr. Leahy? Mr. Leahy — I failed to mention that one of the things we think that makes this quite attractive is this parcel deed here looks to have an old apple orchard on it and the trees come right to the road. It would be our intention to, or maybe it would be beyond our control, but I would think that anyone who purchased this lot would clearly want to leave those trees here, as well as the trees running along the'-property line.. The nice part about it is it's wooded quite densely in the back, other than the easements, but also in the front, so I think it could give a lot of options to a homeowner. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, I appreciate it. Any comments good or bad. I think silence means that we are comfortable with what's being proposed. Mr. Kanter — We've talked to Pat a little bit about the type of driveway that would be required. It would probably be something .like that other subdivision that we did recently on Burns and Slaterville Road, the Weidmaier Subdivision. That would be a very stable base so that emergency vehicles could get in and having the proper width so that's something that they would work with Dan on. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, this is actually .better than.the previous subdivision because we got a full 60 feet here, which would potentially be available to service the two back lots. Board Member Hoffmann — I was up there driving by today and I agree that it is a little hard to see what is coming along that road, not just outside this particular parcel, but between Burns Road and this area. Sight distances aren't too great. It is a difficult road. W PLANNING. BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 I think we would need to know more about specific sight distances for this site and for location of this road into the site. Chairperson Wilcox — The map in front of us does say the sight distances is 575 in one direction and 700 the other direction. That is measured by the surveyor. Mr. Leahy— Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. We probably would want an engineer, wouldn't we Dan? Mr. Walker — Well, surveyors can do measuring. I'm assuming because the surveyor is TG Miller and they have engineers on their staff also, they probably referred to them so we could probably get them to sign off on that also. They basically take, I think it is 32 inch height and they determine sitting in a car, what you can see over a rise and that's what it comes out to, that sight distance. That rise before the Community Center does create some sight distance problems- coming from the City going out. Again, if you're doing 70, it's not enough sight distance. If you are doing the speed limit, it should be perfectly safe. Chairperson Wilcox — You know, the speed limit is 45, which .means everybody is doing 50. Mr. Walker — Yeah. I think if you clocked it we could very well see speeds in the 60 to 65 speed range. Chairperson Wilcox — You have two issues. You have the people who are headed out toward Brooktondale, Danby that are speeding up because they had a 55 mile per hour speed limit sign coming up, that has been extended out to the other side of the interception with German Cross Road, but then you have people coming the other way that just don't slow down. So, therefore the idea of one curb cut with a shared driveway. Mr. Walker — And there is sufficient distance between that curb cut and the driveways from the Community Center there. Chairperson Wilcox — You have two driveways, that semi - circular nature of the parking ramp. . Mr. Kanter — We have talked to Pat about this before and I think he's talked to the County Highway Manager about this and I.think he is interested in seeing information like what we are talking about. here for sight distance. Mr. Leahy - That is our intention to do more of that work. I guess our hope was to talk with you tonight to make sure we're not doing work that is unnecessary. It is our intention next time we get together to have more of that information. 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, the proposal would be to subdivide of the back 60 percent of the separate parcel with the potential that it. cold be legally consolidated with the existing parcels. What if it wasn't legally consolidated? Would you have a significant issue with that? If that remained a separate parcel, what's labeled Parcel A on this? Mr. Barney — Yes. Well, it's a violation of our Ordinance, back to the helicopter thing. I think you: need to have some kind of a mechanism to get to it, if it's not going to be consolidated. Chairperson Wilcox = Now, they have provided a m. echanism to get to it. Can you point out that small, little piece right there. Mr. Barney — That's something that's consolidated. If that's not consolidated, it's not to a public road: Chairperson Wilcox — That's right, it provides pedestrian access from Coddington Road property onto this. Mr. Walker — There not accept that par.( a separate parcel. that if it was not Community Center Parcel C. is another option. %el, it could remain You can put that accepted by the parcel, then it we If for some reason, if the Community Center does part of either Parcel B or Parcel C and still. not be kind of a condition into the subdivision approval, Community Center and consolidated with the uld become either attached to either Parcel B or Mr. Barney — The other issue, of course is an agreement that you would have. to have between four parcel owners on that road way in terms of who is going to pay for what portion of the maintenance and .what level of maintenance is going to be required and who's going to determine that standard. It gets a little squirrelly sometimes. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you John. Mr. Leahy — May I ask a question? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes you may. Mr. Leahy — What, other than the Community Center refusing the donation,. is there something else that would potentially adversely affect whether we could consolidate it? Mr. Barney — I don't know what the taxing authorities would do with a 15 foot strip. That's basically all you have. Where it says "pipe found" on that strip, is. that the corner of the Coddington Road Community Center's property. Mr. Leahy — Yes. 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Mr. Barney — So, you basically have just that strip going. I've never seen them consolidate a parcel like this, but that's not to say that they couldn't do it, I just don't know. Mr. Leahy — Well, if it required a larger access point, we could make accommodations there, of course. Mr. Barney — You -could probably make it a little larger even for work vehicles to get back and forth, particularly if you want to do any kind of mow.i.ng. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney is there ever a good reason to leave a tax parcel without road frontage? Or do you just simply open yourself up to potential problems in the future, by some future board? Mr. Barney — Well, actually under the State of Law in New York if you create a landlocked parcel, unless you negatively assert that you don't intend to have access to it, it is what is called an easement of necessity that's created, which is what presumably would be across Parcels B and C or one or the other to get to this back parcel that is land locked. I don't want to use up the planner's function, but I think it is kind of poor planning to approve lots that don't have some kind of public road access to get to. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you John. I'm sorry, I'm just thinking here that it is more likely to never be developed, but that is sort of a short-term view of that. John is right, as usual. Mr. Leahy — You probably want to get out of here. Chairperson Wilcox - I miss the hostile crowd. Board Member Talty You won't have long to wait. Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, wait until Thursday night, I know. Do you need any more information form us, at this point? Mr. Leahy — I guess my only question and I don't know if it is for this group or for Mike, but just a pretty clear indication of what I need for the next meeting to accommodate everybody's issues, concerns, etcetera. I've got some notes from working with John and Mike and I've taken some other ones. Is that something I can work with Mike on? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. You won't find us. We're hard to find during normal business hours. Mr. Barney — I think it would be worth a call to Valeria Cogans at the Assessment Office to see whether there would be any problem consolidating the two pieces and probably it would be worth while, if it's possible, I don't know whether the community center would 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 be willing to commit early on in the process if you were to deed it to them if they would accept the deed and the consolidation stipulation. Mr. Kanter — And then also you mentioned the possibility of having the strip widened somewhat and that might be something to see if that might be. possible. Mr. Leahy I think that would make sense. Chairperson Wilcox — Parcel B is one and a half acres, it can.give up a little, bit more. Mr. Barney — Of you could bend it, bend the ground between Parcel B and Parcel C. Mr. Leahy — How wide would make sense? Doubling it? Mr. Kanter — 25 probably. Chairperson Wilcox — 30 was in my mind, but we kind of open. Mr. Barney — I don't know what the topography is. Mr. Leahy — It's pretty flat right there. Chairperson Wilcox — You all set sir? Mr. Leahy — Yes, thank you. Chairperson Wilcox = I think the Board is all set. Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen. Not.on the agenda, but I would like to move approval of the Minutes for Tuesday, February 17t , something we did not do at the last meeting. Do I have a second? Seconded. Board Member Conneman — Now, I read them in their entirety, but can I. vote on it? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes you may. Absolutely, you may. Would you rather we wait or would you like to submit your corrections? Board Member Hoffmann — I can bring them in on Thursday. Chairperson Wilcox — With your corrections? So, with Eva's typo corrections, all those in favor? Anybody opposed? No body is opposed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -015: Approval of Minutes — February 17, 2004 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe 34 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the February 17, 2004 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, I am going to put you on the spot, if you don't mind. Mr. Barney —It's not unusual. Chairperson Wilcox —'George Conneman and I had a brief discussion about Public Hearings and time limits for speakers and things like that. Do you want to talk about that from a legal perspective? Mr. Barney — Well, I think that you're raising it in the context of — Chairperson Wilcox — We're raising it in the context of recent meetings and things like that and I think that there is some interest. Board Member Conneman — John, had. we had a five minute limit rule with one minute spilling over, we could do this easily with a timer, I'll bring my timer, we would have gotten through that the other night. But there was one gentleman, whose name I won't mention, who went on and on and on and then, of course, he got nasty with Fred and everything else. That is one thing. The second thing is my colleague, out in the audience, my wife, who brought me here that night, said to me, you know there are a lot of people bent out of shape out there who felt, why is this guy from Cortland testifying before the rest of the people from the Town, why are these people from every place, don't Town residents have some priority in a Public Hearing that concerns them directly? It seemed, to me, that having had a five minute limit, we would have gotten trough what the purpose of the meeting was. Maybe we would have had to meet again, but maybe we wouldn't. have. Some people went on, it was completely disorganized. It seems to me that one can say at the beginning, you get five minutes and you've got to be organized. You can say, you get five minutes and you've got to be organized. You can say an awful lot in five minutes. You didn't time me when I started out the other night, but I gave all I had to say in less than five minutes. Mr. Barney — It's taken you three minutes to say all of that. 35 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,-2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member Conneman — That's because I am addressing the attorney, that's the problem. Mr. Barney.— In that respect, it takes about ten minutes to respond. Under the law, I'd have to go back and research it before I gave you an opinion, I don't want you to go to the bank on it, but my basic understanding is that a. Public Hearing is an opportunity. for the public to make it's comments, but it doesn't have to be an unlimited amount of time for every person who wants to make comments. I think you can safely. insert. a five minute limit, you could probably go as low as three minutes if you wanted to and say that that's it, ' we will accept comments up to that. If you want to supplement those comments by something in writing, you are perfectly. welcome to do so and pursue it on that bases. I think historically, we have not had too many occasions where people have abused the unlimited time discussion. We get Joel in here every fourth or fifth meeting and he goes on for a while, but I think everybody has heard him enough now to realize that it's better to let him ramble and he'll be done and go on. Fortunately, we haven't had a lot of people that cause that problem and in the absence of that, it is probably nice to let people speak as long as they want to. I think, in the context of what we just heard, for example, we are continuing this hearing on Thursday night, Fred and I talked a little bit about it and probably, it is not unreasonable, again, depending on how many people want to speak and how late it is going to go, to allow anybody who has not yet spoken to speak without necessarily a time limit, but then to set a very firm. time limit for anybody who is going to get up and speak for a second time, who has already had a chance to speak. So, then I would suggest maybe a two or three minute.limit to expedite the matter. So that everybody would have one free shot, and then, any subsequent discussions are limited to time so that you get to a point where you can make a decision at a reasonable hour in the meeting without dozing off. That's what I did when that one gentleman went on for a half an hour, I really had to work to keep my eyes open. Mr. Kanter — Although, when you say a free shot, the Chair, I think still has authority and discretion to try to guide that away from repetition. Mr. Barney — Absolutely.. Mr. Kanter — Repeating, not only what others have said, but what that person themselves has already said. Board Member Conneman — The problem was this woman in the front who wanted to give you one point, couldn't do it. Chairperson Wilcox — Doria wanted to speak a second time and I thought it was fair to let every person speak once before I let Doria speak a second time. Board Member Conneman — I don't agree with that. Mr. Barney — In fairness, that happens fairly frequently, somebody, the light goes on and they've got something else they want to say and they didn't say it the first time. It's 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 not a problem to give them a second shot, but I don't think that you want to give them a second .shot ahead of anybody who has not yet had an opportunity. to speak at all. I think Fred, was actually correct.' Board Member Conneman — John; when I was with the Bolton Piton Water Commission, if I made any contraction to the commission, it was when I was Chairman and I said anybody could say anything twice, but the third time you said it,.I would say, "you said that twice, that's nothing new." We cut our meetings down and that's how you do it. P. Chairperson Wilcox Now, were those public hearings or was that just discussion? Board Member Conneman — That was just discussion among the Board, but it seems to be the same principal, that we don't have to hear Joel saying ten times that somebody is a terrorist. You can say "Joel, that's one." Mr. Barney — We'll pick on Joel. The problem with Joel is that to suggest that he stop speaking is a greater effort and causes you more loss of time than if you just let simply let him finish and move on to the next speaker. Board Member Conneman — But I felt sorry because some people might have gotten to speak. Chairperson Wilcox — But that wasn't Joel's fault. Mr. Barney — No. Chairperson Wilcox — You asked about residents. Mr. Barney — I don't know that before a planning board there is any right to limit it to Town residents. I suppose you could establish a hierarchy if you wanted to. I know the City in their Board of Zoning Appeals will not let anybody speak unless they have a so- called standing. They define standing as, I think basically being either an adjacent land owner or one within a certain perimeter, I'm not quite sure what that is, and the chairs or representatives of neighborhood organizations that may not otherwise meet that requirement and city officials, so you can be a person that represents the 3Id Ward and you can talk about something that is happening in the 5th Ward. Basically, when the actual public as a whole is limited to people that really are in the immediate vicinity of the project, I'm not so sure that is wise either. Again, we're having one experience with one project, I'd hate to set a policy or see you set a policy that then people might find somewhat restricting in the situation like they had tonight, where nobody really had much to say at all and one of two people had what they wanted to say and were able to say it without taking up a great deal of time. Board Member Conneman — (Comments inaudible) 37 PLANNING. BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Did that answer your questions? Board Member Conneman — That answered my questions. Chairperson Wilcox —Does anybody else have questions .or comments? Board Member Howe — So is that how we are leaving it? That we are not going to set time limits and use some discretion, ask people not to repeat themselves. Chairperson Wilcox = I. mean, for example, as John said, we'll let everybody who hasn't spoken yet speak. Board Member Howe — Is it a continuation or do we have a new . Chairperson Wilcox— This will be a continuation. Mr. Barney — It was adjourned. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody who hasn't spoken, we will let them speak and then anybody who wishes to come up a second time, two minutes should be enough to state what they may have forgotten before. The other thing that I certainly will do is, with regard to some of the letters that I was asked to read, I may chose not to read them. One of them is particularly long and I think we've heard everything that's in it at least two or three times. Should the Overlook at Ithaca proposal get preliminary approval from this Board and zoning approval from the Town Board, and then come back for final, I think one of the things I will do is make it very clear to the members.of the public what it is when we consider something for final subdivision and final site plan, which is not a complete review of the project, but instead a determination if the applicant has sufficiently met the conditions imposed and see if we can limit the public's comments tot hat because that is what we are considering. I, frankly, don't want to sit here and have them, for the third time. We've had the Environmental Hearing, which we didn't have to go to public hearing, but we did. Then we had a Public Hearing for the preliminary. I don't want to hear it a third time. I I . Mr. Barney — I would suggest actually, if you are getting a mob scene again, at eh final approval, that you do consider setting a time limit. Again, you've . heard a lot of comments about the project and I think that anyone who's got anything new to say should be able to say it in a relatively short period of time and in fairness, not only to you, who need to function with a little bit of rest and not have to go into the wee small hours of the morning, but also in fairness to the other people who now have now have to come to a second meeting because they didn't get a chance to speak. I think it would make sense. Chairperson Wilcox — Including the applicant. Including the applicant and their.agents. Mr.. Barney — That's true. They're coming in from New York City, I think, the one guy. R: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann — I think one thing that you do, which is very good Fred, is you ask people, when you don't impose a time limit, but you ask them to limit themselves out of consideration for everybody else that wants to speak and it seems to me that that says it all. That you have to be considerate of everybody. I don't know if somebody is . particularly. long- winded, if it would help to repeat that. Board Member Conneman — Is it possible, John, to put in the call to meeting that people willing to make comments hopefully would be organized in their comments so that the Board can better understand exactly where they are coming from or something like that? Mr. Barney — In all honestly George my guess, well you could do it, but the people that you want to get it to aren't going to pay any attention. Board Member Talty — I have a legal question.. There seems to be quite a bit made of the clustering effect of this affordable housing and I would like to know if 'there is anything definitive in the federal law that disseminates exactly what clustering is. In other words, putting these affordable houses too close to each other. What is too close, what is too far away? There seems to be quite a bit of mention. about that. Chairperson Wilcox7 Is that question appropriately addressed on Thursday and not here? It's a reasonable question, but if we're going to address it tonight, I'd like to hear it- Board Member Talty — I'd like, to know so that when I read through all the documentation, I know what I am talking about. Mr. Barney — I think there is an easy answer to that. The clustering is really a Town issues. The Federal programs here that. they are dealing with are basically tax programs. I don't pretend to fully understand it, but basically you get very generous tax credits if you build housing that is for people with limited incomes, and depending on the limit that you have and the level of income that you deal with, you can get greater credits or lesser credits. Those credits can be sold to people that have higher incomes, they can then take them and use them against their own income tax and the sale of those credits then allows you to build the buildings, using that money, plus other financial sources at a lower net cost to the developer than you would otherwise have. So, that's sort of a very sketchy way of how the program works. I'm not aware of anything in the federal law that says if you have one affordable housing project at one location, that you can't have another one next door. It's really up to the local municipality, I think, to make those kind of determinations. That's really ultimately the determination that the Town Board will make because they will determine whether there will be a re- zoning or whether there won't be and if they re -zone with this project in mind then they are making the determination that they don't feel that there's a problem with the clustering and if they don't, then that would be one of the answers. 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Would you like to say something briefly? Female voice from the audience, inaudible Anne Byrne, 137 Hopkins Road — I would like to briefly express what I support on the Kyong property. I am in favor of creating — Chairperson Wilcox — Um- Ms. Byrne — It's quick: I can't come on Thursday. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, here's why I interrupted her. It's important that the other members of the audience hear it, it's important that the applicant hears it, it's important that Tracy hears it. I would encourage her to do it Thursday, but. if you can not do it Thursday — Mr. Kanter — In writing. Board Member Talty — In writing so that it's read into the record. Chairperson Wilcox - You can submit it in writing, that's really the best thing for you. Ms. Byrne — Can I submit it as well as speak to you tonight? Mr. Barney — It's not really appropriate. That's not an item that is on the agenda. Ms. Byrne — I know and I missed the 7:00 five minute deal. Chairperson Wilcox — And even at 7:00, I'm not sure that it would have been appropriate then, given that the Public Hearing has been continued. Mr. Kanter*— To do it out of the context of the Public Hearing, I think is not appropriate. Board Member Conneman — I had conversations with tem afterwards and they made a point; I think that that point, I think that that point that you made should be in writing. She made a point about some person in the Town that appeared to have a lot of apartments. Ms. Byrne — They do, but I'm not going to bring that up right now. I've been asked what the vision is and — Chairperson Wilcox — If you have a question about process, I'd be happy to answer it or something like that, but if you have comments, I'd ask that you either submit them in writing or have your husband — ,e PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2,2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Ms. Byrne — We're not going to be here because this is a special meeting. We planned on being here on all the meetings that we scheduled and both of these Town Planning Board Public Hearings have been special times. Mr. Barney — Let me suggest — Ms. Byrne — I asked to speak last time and didn't get called on so... Mr. Barney This is not the last Public Hearing on this matter. There will be probably, in some respects, as important as this Board is, the most important decision is the re- zoning and there will be a Public Hearing and I think it is tentatively scheduled for March 15th before the Town Board. I would suggest that you submit comments in writing to this Board, which then can also be passed on to the applicant and, if they're short, read, and if they're not, at least considered by this Board. Then if you want to make a personal appearance, do it at the Town Board when they are holding their Public Hearing. Ms. Byrne —You see, the guarantee is you never know when these meetings are going to be and there are special meetings. I don't know. I'm so frustrated with the process. Mr. Kanter — There is a reason for that, it is because we have not been able to, finish them during a regular scheduled times. Ms. Byrne — But the Public Hearings have not been on the regular scheduled time for this hearing. Mr. Barney — The initial hearing is on the regular scheduled meeting nights, but when we have to adjourn them or because of.the time pressure, we have to try to get them in, in a reasonable period of time when we already have a full agenda on other nights. Ms. Byrne — Can I ask you what the time pressure is on this project? Chairperson Wilcox — It's our time pressure, it's our staying here late, it's the investment of time that we are putting into it as citizens and volunteers and we don't make good decisions after 10:00 or 10:30, so, if we're not done by 10:00 or 10:30, we schedule another hearing. Ms.. Byrne — I certainly can appreciate that. Chairperson Wilcox — It also does no good for us to schedule hearings a month apart because then the information that we got a month ago, you know, you have to go back and re -read it all. It benefits us and you and everybody to have that information fresh and to continue the discussion, I think, in a timely manner. Ms. Byrne — Thank you. So you won't hear this, that's what I'm hearing right now? I need to put it in writing and type it up and maybe you'll read it and hopefully it will be heard. 41 PLANNING.BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20, 2004 Board Member Talty - Fred reads things into the minutes all the time publicly. Ms. Byrne — But you just said that you were not going to read these letters into the minutes and my family is not going to be here to read this'. Chairperson m Wilcox — Let . e explain. I'll be glad to. I'll give you five minutes of my thinking here. At one meeting, I had. three letters to read, none of those three people were at the meeting or if they were here, they didn't speak, they didn't take advantage of the opportunity, so I read the letters. Now, I am getting letters from people who have had ample opportunity to speak and also want me to read the exact same thing. That doesn't seem to be appropriate, okay? Now, if there is new information, I will read it: If you cannot appear, you did not speak last week, if you cannot make it, I will read your letter. I will tell you that, everybody has heard it. Ms. Byrne.— But are you setting yourself up now? Chairperson Wilcox — Within limits. If you write twelve pages, I will summarize it. Ms. Byrne It's not. It's about a two minute. Chairperson Wilcox — There are some people who are abusing the privilege of the floor to. speak and then they submit a long letter and then they submit a long letter and then they want me to read that too. If they provide new information, that's fine, but they are not providing new information, we are hearing the same thing a third time ad a forth time, that doesn't serve anybody. It doesn't serve you or your neighbors or the applicant or the Board or the staff. We've heard it, we don't need to hear it again. I don't need to read it in because there is no reason to read it, it's the same information. Ms..Byrne — Okay. Mr. Kanter — Also, even if it isn't red into the record, they are attached to the minutes and become an official part of the meeting record. Chairperson Wilcox — I try to read things in if people ask me to. It's not random, whether I decide to or not, let alone with what Mr. Merritt thinks. I've got to. Never mind. I'll do it Thursday night. Ms. Byrne — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business to report. 42 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES MARCH 2, 2004 APPROVED APRIL 20,2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to go home. You want to offer a Motion to Adjourn? AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the March 2, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca. Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:42 p.m. Resp ctfully Submitted, 43 TOWN OF IT,HACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, March 2, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a 24 square foot freestanding self - illuminated church sign with a copy - change section for the Ithaca Seventh Day Adventist. Church, 1219 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26 -4 -42, Residence District R -15. Ithaca Seventh Day Adventist Church, Owner; Mark E. Thompson, MD, Applicant. 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Sapa /Center 2 -Lot Subdivision, 621 Elm Street Extension. 7 :15 P.M. PUBLIC HfEARiNG: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.I, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.57 +/- acre parcel having frontage on Coy Glen Road from the existing 5.2 +/- acre parcel having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension. Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant, 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center — Radiation Oncology Modification, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris 13. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. The modifications involve an increase in the size of the Radiation Oncology addition by approximately +/- 2,725 SF for a total of +/- 125700 SF, and an extension of the walkway canopy. The Planning Board previously granted approval for the three -story addition to the northwest corner of the existing hospital building on September 2, 2003. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant. 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Glenside Park 5 -Lot Subdivision, Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed S- lot Glenside Park subdivision located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1, Residence Districts R -15 and R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off seven small parcels to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment problems. John F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant, 7:50 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan review for the proposed 5 -lot subdivision located on Coddington Road approximately 870 feet south of Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -4, Residence District R -30. The proposal involves subdividing the 14.8 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots along Coddington Road and one 9 +/- acre lot which would be donated to the Coddington Road Community Center for their recreational activities. John F. Young, Owner; Patrick Leahy, Applicant. 10. 12. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). Other Business: Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273- 1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD iS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -17476 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, March 2, 2004 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, March-2, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters. . 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a 24 square foot freestanding self- illuminated church sign with a copy- change section for. the Ithaca Seventh Day Adventist Church, 1219 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26 -4 -42, Residence District R -15. Ithaca Seventh Day Adventist Church, Owner; Mark E. Thompson, MD, Applicant. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located on Coy Glen Road and Elm Street. Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 29- 8 -5.1, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide off a 0.57 +/- acre parcel having frontage on Coy Glen Road from the existing 5.2 +/- acre, parcel having a residence at 621 Elm Street Extension. Kirk Sapa and Sharon Center, Owner /Applicant. 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Site Plan Modification for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R-30. The modifications involve an increase in the size of the Radiation Oncology addition by approximately +/- 2,725 SF for a total of +/ 12,700 SF, and an extension of the walkway canopy. The Planning Board previously granted approval for the three -story addition to .the northwest corner of the existing hospital building on September 2, 2003. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, Applicant. 7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed 5 -lot Glenside Park subdivision. located along Glenside Road and Five Mile Drive (NYS Route 13A), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 30 -1 -1, Residence Districts R -15 and R -9. The proposal includes subdividing the 44 +/- acre parcel into three residential lots for sale, one 7 +/- acre lot to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca for a recreational park, and 32.5 +/- acres to be retained by the owner for possible future development. The proposal also includes subdividing off seven small parcels to be consolidated with adjacent residential lots to correct existing encroachment problems. John F. Young & Susan M. Barnett, Owners; Patrick Leahy, Applicant: Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, February 23, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 The ithaca Journal Wetli estlav;,Feb}ruaryF25, 2004 TOWN OF ITHACX` PLANNING BOARD u NOTICEtOF..i 3� 1' - 4 „29 8 5 l *Resideni PUBLIC HEARINGS Dishict R 1,5•� The prgpos is,,,�t,o subdnide off a `0': Tuesda ; , w acre 4parcel haw a fronta�e 6n Coy Glen: Roc March.2, s of the 33 Board of� 1mgg d sign va a 24,squore' ng self -ill i sign ,!with-, e ;sectiow ;Day nd =Elm f Street 'Exti own of -Ithaca. Tax' V Center, n seated gt; • I0IANarris "X :: e Dates Drive; Town of.ltfiaca _ ,. Is Tax:?_PoiZeVt'No: _243 -2:1, o Residence'Distnct R30: The ,modifications mvolve; an in- d id m_the s¢e:ofsthe Ro- diahon, On cology;dddition e n. I 'b r9 mately, +/'1''.22;, sfo a oE 4' ,• .725 q nd'an'eztension of 'the �f'' Ewalkwoy' ;conopY" .The• 4. Planm Board ,ppreviously yyrante approval •'for the ttireestory ;addiAon':to 'the E. �fl0rth~westc rnefof4he.exist• ;ing hospital building =on )n september-- 2, 2003. al tL gYuga Meilic6l %;Center::at 1e tIWaC6- VOwner; _HOLT Archi- In ;tects, PC,_Apphcant _, , wd, :,;7.40. PM . Consideration n' A Provoffoa a : ropossed 5 P_ PP „ X -i P lot: GI nside Pork:'subdivF sion located along ;Glenside tRoad and Five•Mife�Dnv'e fNYS; Route • 13A),'Tovm: of IthacaiTaz Parcel No 301, esidence, .Districts 'R -15 and R0.f'The proposal in-. ,�cludes subdwiding.:the. 44. ±/ acre: parcel into. three re 'ii dentralaots for "sole, one 7 I' +- ; acre: lot Jo be _ dedi- "cated to! a To"wn-of.Ithaca for a recreational park; ;arid 73 _ :2.5= . + %- :•acres,to.�be re• ad'ined:6y`the.owner:for pas -siblg tures' development. `The; proposgVtolso' includes subdividing off seJen. small parcels.ao;be consolidated with ,adjacent residentialaots to cgrrect exisfing;s *erF croacfiment problems. John F Young•: "8 . ,Susan M. BdrneH, Owners; Patrick Leohy Applicant Said Planning Board.will ! at said times and said place hear, all 'persons in support of such matters orbbjectiions thereto: °Persons may ap-, .pear bY agent or in person. Individuals.withn visual inn- pairments; Viearing = impair- menhsor, "other 'special - needs,:will b14rovided with assistance ,as _, necessary, •upon request. Persons, desir- ! ing assistance - musC'make such o'request not less, than 48 hours-.prior to the"time;of . j the public hearing's." Jonathan Kanter; "AICP" Director of Planning . 273.1747 Dated: Mondayy, February 23, •2004 ' Publish: Wednesday,. . February 25, 200;1,: - TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARb SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: March 2, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION HOLT LC - S . ky(q P "l C 4 �4�L ! plc.` - .�. ��:�. �1�. �. Vr' TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say. that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New. York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tiot;a Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, March 2, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication February 23, 2004 February 25, 2004 t41� Q Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 25th day of February 2004, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Oualified Commission Expires December 26 t20 O6