Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-03-21FILE �-- DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT Fred. Wilcox, Chairpersons Eva Hoffmann, Board Members Tracy Mitrano, Board Members Larry Thayer, Board Members Rod Howe, Board Members Kevin Talty,. Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Towns Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED George Conneman, Board Member Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Nicole Tedesco, Planner. OTHERS Noel Shaff, 305 Nelson Road; Noel and Janet Desch, 132 Updike Road; Anne. Morrissette, Coddington Road Community Center; Carol Bayles, Coddington Road Community Center; Bonnie and James Warren, 2028 Elmira Road, Newfield; Frank Santelli, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors; A. M. Chambliss, Jr, 14 Middaugh Road, Brooktondale; Dave Auble, 111 King Road West; Tessa Flores, 154 Comfort Road; Scott Tobey, 903 Wyckoff Road; Robert Drew, Hunt Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors; Evan Monkemeyer, 123 King Road East% Jon Bartalati, Dal Pos; Herman Sieverding, IAD; Andrea Riddle, Montessori School; Chris Hodges, 16 Saunders Road. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on March 13, 2006 and March 15, 2006, 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 March 15, 20061 Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the Board. Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved SEQR Desch & Coddington Road Community Center Land Exchange, Updike Road & 920 Coddington Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen in the audience, if you wish to better view any visuals, you are certainly welcome to come up, around behind us, or to the side if that will assist you. Name and address. Anne Morrissette, Director of Coddington Road Community Center Anne Morrissette. I am the director of the Coddington Road Community Center at 920 Coddington Road, Ithaca.. Carol Bayles, President, Coddington Road Community Center Board of Directors I am Carol Bayles. I am the President of the Board of Directors at 920 Coddington Road. Noel Desch, 132 Updike Road Noel Desch, 132 Updike Road, representing my son William and I have support group with me, Janet and, Noel. Chairperson Wilcox — What is your occupation, sir? Mr. Desch — I haven't figured it out yet. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you going to make a short presentation? Mr. Desch — Well, on behalf to a certain extent of both of us, I think that the application is pretty straight forward and won't take a lot of your time to walk through it, but we would be delighted to answer any questions that you have. The some total of it all is that the proposedl exchange increases the value to each of the participants involved with the change. The land that goes to the community center is much more useful to the community center than it is to William and the land that is coming to William from the community center is more useful to William than it is to the community center. His parcel is kite - shaped narrow at one end and this would make it more or less rectangular so that you have more of a buffer to the creek and so on. So that is fundamentally it. Chairperson Wilcox — The swap is a benefit to you? Mr. Desch — To William. 2 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Desch — Our house is across the road, the other side of Updike. Chairperson Wilcox - And Anne, the swap benefits the Coddington Road Community Center? Ms. Morrissette — Yes. As you know, we built a new pavilion for the summer camp that is nearly on the old boundary of our original parcel. So the purple shaded area adds land that actually the kids enjoy playing on anyway. The Deschs have been very generous about letting us take little hikes that extend into their land. This will allow them a little more freedom to build their summer projects, their little shelters, and camps and things. It is very nice in there. There is a little bit of that we wouldn't have had before that the kids will enjoy. It also improves the access to the new land that was donated last year. As you can see there was a little tiny strip that was required to keep that parcel from being landlocked and now there will actually be a nice wide access to that property that is up back. Chairperson Wilcox — Have both parties seen the draft resolution? Mr. Desch — Yes. Ms. Morrissette — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox Particularly the requirement that any development on parcel 47.- 1 -11.4 be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the bank and the existing stream. You understand why? Mr. Desch — No problem. That is pretty much standard procedure anyway. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEQR. Board Member Howe — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — Any discussion or comments? Board votes on motion. Parcel No's, 47 =1 -11,3 and 47 -1 -11,4 K MOTION made by Carry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed land exchange located at 920 Coddington Road and Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, s 47 -1 -11.3 and 47 -1 -11.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves conveyance of approximately 3.4+1M acres of land owned by the Coddington Road Community Center to William Desch, adjacent property owner, and conveyance of approximately 2.5 +1- acres Of land owned by William Desch, to the Coddington Road Community Center. Will /am E. Desch and Coddington Road Community Center, Owners /Applicants, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on March 21, 2006, 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 'Survey Map Showing Land Exchange Between William E. Desch and Coddington Road Community Center, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New. York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P. C., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 1212812005, 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 for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Part II referenced above, 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. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None.._. _ ABSENT.• Mitrano. El Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING' Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed land exchange located at 920 Coddington Road and Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 47 -1 -11.3 and 47 -1 -11.4, Low Density Residential Zone., The proposal involves conveyance of approximately 3.4 +/- acres of land owned by the Coddington Road Community Center to William Desch, adjacent property owner, and conveyance of approximately 2.5 +/- acres of land owned by William Desch, to the Coddington Road Community Center. William E. Desch and Coddington Road Community Center, Owners /Applicants Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox = Questions. -with. regard-to--the actual subdivision? There are none. Would you please take a seat and give the public 'a chance to speak? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. One of three this evening. If you wish to address the Planning Board on this particular agenda item we ask you to please step to the microphone, give us your name and address and we'll be very interested to hear what you have to say. There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:11 and bring the matter back to the board. Are you all set? Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Board Member Talty — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Kevin Talty. Seconded by the Chair. Desch /CRCC and Exchange, Updike and Coddington Roads, Tax Parcel No's, 47- 141,3 and 47 -1 -11,4 - MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed land exchange located at 920 Coddington Road and Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel NM; 47 -1 -11.3 and 47 -1 -11.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves conveyance of approximately 3.4 +/- acres of land owned by the Coddington Road Community Center to William - Desch,- adjacent properly! owner, -and conveyance of approximate/ _ 2.5+ -acres of land owned by William Desch, to the Coddington Road Community Center. Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved William E. Desch and Coddington Road Community Center, Owners /Applicants, _ and - 7 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 21, 2006, 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 II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 21, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled 'Survey Map Showing Land Exchange Between William E. Desch and Coddington Road Community Center, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York, "prepared by T. G. Miller, P, C., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 1212812005, and other application materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED: 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 land exchange between the Coddington Road Community Center, located at 920 Coddington Road, and William E. Desch, located at Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. s 47 -1 -11.3 and 47 -1- 11.4, Low Density Residential Zone, as shown on a survey map entitled " Survey Map Showing Land Exchange Between William E. Desch and Coddington Road Community Center, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York," prepared by-T. G. -- Miller, P. C., Engineers & Surveyors, - dated- 1212812005, subject to the following conditions: a. Within six months of this approval, conveyance of the 3.4 +/- acres of Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3 (Parcel C- Coddington Road Community Center) to the owner of Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.4 (Parcel A- William Desch) and consolidation of the 3.4 +/- acres with Tax Parcel No. 47- 1 -Z1.4, the evidence of such consolidation to be submitted to the Town. Planning Department, and Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved b. Within six months of this approval, conveyance of the 2.5 +1- acres of Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.4 (Parcel B- William Desch) to the owner of Tax Parcel No. 471 -11.3 (Parcel D- Coddington Road Community Center) and consolidation of the 2.5 +1- acres with Tax Parcel No 47 -1 -11.3, the evidence of such consolidation to be submitted to the Town Planning Department, and c. Any future development of Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.4 shall be setback at least 50 feet from the top of the bank of the existing large stream that traverses the property (at the bankfull flow or water mark), with the exception of one driveway crossing to access the site, and d. Submission for signing by the Planning Board Chairman, of one mylar and three copies of the survey plat, revised to reflect and note the 50 -foot setback requirement noted in "c,' signed and sealed by the licensed - -- -- surveyor-- who prepared - - the -- survey, -- prior -. to filing . with the Tompkins County Clerk s Office, and submission of receipt of filing of said plat to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and Gentlemen, the next public hearing was scheduled and advertised for 7:15, therefore I must wait 2 minutes. PUBLIC HEARING - -Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Three Rivers Minim Golf & Creamery located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -10.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of an eighteen -hole miniature golf course, a thirty-space automobile and two -space bus parking lot, entrance drive, a small building for ice cream sales and storage, a gazebo, lighting, sign, and stormwater facilities. The proposal also. requires a recommendation to the Zoning Board of APPeals regarding the proposed sign variances. Bonnie and 3ames Warren, Owners/ Applicants; Robert M. Drew, Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, P.C., Agent. Chairperson - Wilcox - opens -the- public - hearing - -at 7:15- p:m: -- - VA Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox _ Again, welcome back. Name and address if you would please when you speak the first. Are you going to provide a formal presentation? Mr. Drew — Yes, I am. Chairperson Wilcox — Once again, ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to view the visuals, you are welcome to come up, around, behind us so it is easier for the public to see. The floor is yours. Robert Drew, Hunt Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors My name is Robert Drew. I am a civil engineer with Hunt. Our address is 100 Hunt Center, Horseheads, New York. I am here to represent the applicant in the site design portion of the project. There is before you architectural design and stuff like that and 'I'll have the client answer questions on that, but any specific questions on engineering of the site design and stuff like that I will be glad to answer any questions that I can. Do you want to- introduce everybody- before we begin-the presentation? Chairperson Wilcox — However you want to do it. Whatever makes you feel comfortable. Bonnie Warren, 2028 Elmira Road Bonnie Warren, 2028 Elmira Road, Newfield. James Warren, 2028 Elmira Road James Warren. The same. Chairperson Wilcox— Same address. Very good. Okay. Mr. Hunt — The project has not changed much since the last time we were here. We did add a few things and I think everyone here has the plans in front of them. This is --- just_the_site_ plan to show you where we are at. Doe_s_anybody not know where we are located? Everyone is familiar with location? Board Member. Mitrano — We're good. Mr. Hunt — Okay. I can skip that section and go right on through. Starting off with our site design, the biggest change we have made since the last submittal is the change in the driveway. We have added a couple of bus parking lots and we connected the driveway with Eddydale's so we can have nice loop driveway and easier access for the cars in and out of the site. So that is the biggest part. I made that due to the comments that I had from our local DOT office. They suggested a few of these -comments - and -so -I -said we- could do -that. -We talked with Mr. Eddydale and we worked a deal out with them and they were happy. The buses, I don't think the client 8 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved anticipates seeing a lot of buses. Maybe an occasional bus, maybe a school bus. It is just going to be occasional so we did provide that. We moved our parking closer to the building. That was one of the comments we had last time. We are going to asphalt that area so it will make it accessible for handicapped individuals.. There is going to be a sidewalk there so that they will have access into the building, the driveway and the parking area will be gravel until.a later time. We also added a bike rack near the building, per request from the Planning Board. The client did provide addition detail of that bike rack. We also showed the sign location and there was a comment in the letter about DOT approval for that. It is our understanding at this point, we don't have the deed yet, but we assume that this property is owned by the Town at this point. To this date, we don't think this is on the DOT right -of -way. So we will be able to have that solved once we get the deed to the property. Chairperson Wilcox — If DOT doesn't own it in your opinion, who owns it? Mr. Drew — The Town owns it. Chairperson Wilcox - Meaning, Town of Ithaca. Mr. Drew — Correct, but they are deeding that, correct me if I'm wrong, but they are deeding that over to my clients and that... Ms. Brock — That is a matter that John Barney has been working on. It is something that preceded my coming on as the Attorney for the Town so it is a carryover from the previous attorney. Mr. Drew — I believe that this property that the sign is on at this point is owned by the Town and will be owned by a later date by the client. That shouldn't be a problem. Board Member Mitrano — Susan, do you know how much... Ms. Brock — I don't know the specifics in terms of where the boundary lines are. Mr. Drew — If it is on the DOT property, we will get that right -of -way. I just wanted to address that. Chairperson Wilcox — Get that approval. Mr. Drew — Yes. Once that comes through. If it is required, we will get that approval. The actual course itself has not changed at all. The drainage has not changed. We did add an additional pad here for refuge. We will have a fence go around that. Easy E .Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved access with a truck so that they can get that so that we have added to the drawing. What else? I think that pretty much covers most of the site additions that we have made to the plans since the last submittal. Chairperson Wilcox— What about the fence? Mr. Drew — Very good point. We did add a fence, as you can see, right along in here. You can see our little points that go to it is number 8. That is a split rail fence, a low split rail fence that will be along the border of the property., as shown. This section of the fence may be on the DOT property. Like I said, I don't know until I get the deed and show the boundaries of the property on that. Again, if we need DOT permission for that or if they request we move it back, we will at that time. That is still the property in question. There was a comment about that. Chairperson Wilcox — We have in the draft resolution a condition that DOT has to _ _ap prove _that._._If_.DOT doesn't._approye _ it__a rid- the fence has to be moved onto their own property, is that a minor enough change that the applicant would not have to come back to this board for a modification? Mr. Kanter — That would be up to the board to decide, I guess. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, but...okay. Mr. Kanter — So keep that in mind. Chairperson Wilcox — Keep that in mind when we start crafting the resolution. I would hate to see the applicant come back just to move the fence. Board Member Thayer — Right. _Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. We'll get to that. Mr. Drew — I don't see any additional items on the plan from our last one. Any questions on the site itself before I get into details with the utilities and drainage and things like that? Chairperson Wilcox — We're all set. Go ahead. Mr. Drew — This is our grading plan. I will go through this real quick because your engineer has already reviewed this and it hasn't changed. We did provide a little more grading to the road because we changed the road, but that change is just minor. The - grading - -is: -such -that it,will- ._have a high..point_here_ and is. dropping_ back_ down to the Eddydale parking lot and access to the road is right even with the road as you come ift Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved into the road. So I think it is a 2% grade here as you come into the road. Across the parking lot, I believe there is a 3% grade across the parking lot, which will be very minor, very flat basically. We have a pond at the top here. This is going to be our catching swale and part of the pond is going to grab any type of runoff from the site and gather this, collect this and detain this and be drained out, across, run through our structure. This structure, here, is actually the emergency overflow, but this one is the normal structure where all your stormwater is going to go. It is going to come out here in this gutter and run across the field as is does today. This system is made to mimic that type of system and spread it out and less the impact on any type of erosion, things like that. Chairperson Wilcox — Before you go on, Dan, any comments? Mr. Walker — No. It's very well done. -Mr-.- Drew -- =Thank you._. Drainage -wise,__that__pretty_ much covers the drainage. We are for sanitary for the building those come in here and connect into the existing system, which is right out front. Very simple. It is a lateral system that is going to come in and hook to the building. It is not a new main or anything, it is just a lateral connection. So therefore there will be no health department requirement, approval for that. Water is going to be...there is going to be an additional lateral hooked in to provide the building with water. Again, that is going to be a later. It is going to be 1 -inch service. It is going to connect into the existing 8 -inch line down here that is between the old Turback's Inn so that is where that is located now. We are going to connect into that 1 -inch line, copper line, and that is going to supply the building with the water we need. Electric and stuff like that will be determined by NYSEG so that is not shown on the drawing. I don't believe there is going to be any cable or anything like that. The phone, that will be located with utilities if in time they choose to have that. We did upgrade the landscape plan. We added numerous species. I believe everyone has pictures and a list of the species that we have added to the landscape plan. We have gone through it in a little more detail. Buffered this area from the road and buffered this area in here. So I believe there is adequate buffer in the road and parking lot, things like that. There is a letter in there from Mr. Eddydale requesting that the buffer between the two properties be removed because he would like to see a clear view of ... as he feels, improvement of the area. So he wants to have that visual there. He requested that we remove that buffer between the two properties. That was discussed at that last meeting to be sure that we had a buffer there and in the mean time he requested us not to have that. Chairperson .- Wilcox --- Its- _- signed__by -- Alfred Eddy.- -Do.- you -know -why- Mr..Eddy wanted that to remain visually clear? 11 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Warren — He has had trouble With people breaking -in and he- figures that the little light that we have at night would help him. Ms. Warren — More visibility. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. Eva? Board Member Hoffmann - I was looking at the plant list and I was curious about the Dwarf Alberta Spruce since it was described as a dwarf and I decided to look it up and it grows very, very slowly. It said in the book where I found it that it grows to 7 feet tall in 15 to 20 years. It grows about 1 to 4 inches a year. So I am wondering if it is really going to be an effective screen and also how big a specimen would you be putting in to start with? . - - -Mr-. Drew Lthink...a - _- Board Member Hoffmann — It didn't really say on the chart. Mr. Drew - No, it doesn't really say. I guess I would have to refer that to the client. Did you have...? Ms. Warren — The landscaper was talking 4 to 5 feet tall. Chairperson Wilcox — When planted? Ms. Warren — When planted, yes. That corresponds to the other sizes of the other trees that we also expect for the landscaping. Most of the trees are all 4 to 5 feet so that we have some height there to begin with. Mr. Kanter — We could add that in as a condition. Chairperson Wilcox.— Potentially. Board Member Hoffmann — I also have a question about the fence later, but also about these Alberta Spruces, which also would be planted in the right -of -way, it looks like on the map. I'm a bit concerned about that, actually, having anything in the right -of -way. That is not something that we normally permit. Mr. Drew — I'm not sure which ones you are referring to. - Board - Member- Hoffmann - -I -am- talking- about- the - Alberta - Spruces -by the driveway. 12 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Drew - Again, I don't believe this is within the DOT right -of -way. I don't know a better way to screen that than to do something like that. It was a concern of screening the parking lot from the road and there is not much area to do that. I guess we could put that here, but we would still have a big gap here that would not be screened. In my judgment, that was the best place to put that to screen the parking lot from the road. Board Member Hoffmann - I was actually trying to figure out some of the distances here and you do have a scale, but these are reduced plans. Mr. Drew - They are half size. If the scale is on there you can multiply that by 2. Board Member Hoffmann - All right. Mr. Drew - I have an engineering scale, too. Would you like me to scale that for you? Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah. How wide would that driveway opening be? Mr. Drew - That is 24 foot. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I'll ponder this for a while, while we go on. Chairperson Wilcox — It's the same issue as the other as we brought up before, who owns that parcel. Board Member Hoffmann — Also, I question putting any structure whether it is a fence or plantings in the right -of -way along a road because it is there for a reason and I think there is a great risk of it having to be taken away or if something has to be done with the road by the State or the.Town or whoever owns it. Chairperson Wilcox.— Now if that parcel winds up in the applicant's possession, possibly... Mr. Walker — Well... Chairperson Wilcox - Go ahead, Dan. Mr. Walker - My understanding is when they rebuilt Route 13 as Route 13 many, many years ago, they shifted the location of it. So the original whether it was a County road or a State route at that time was abandoned by the State, but it was never transferred to any of the adjoining property owners. Normally when a highway is abandoned, it is split-between--the adjoining- property- - owners -on -- either -- side,- if-the - whole- highway is abandoned. If it were abandoned on one side, it would go to the adjoining property 13 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved owner unless there was another claim on it. But this came up as a question to the Town Board a while back and as Susan said, Mr. Barney has been researching that and handling that,end of it.. I don't believe the State has a desire to own it. Chairperson Wilcox - So if the State doesn't have a desire to own it, then the question is, does ownership revert to the Town or to. the adjoining property owners. Mr. Walker — I can't speak for the Town Board, but I don't know what benefit it is to the Town. Chairperson Wilcox - It wouldn't serve as a park, would it? Mr. Walker — Not really. Chairperson Wilcox = Okay. So if this piece of land reverts to the applicants, to the Warrens... Ms. Brock - I think it is actually being deeded from the Town to the applicants. Chairperson Wilcox Okay. Then if they have it, we don't have the issue of fencing and trees in the right -of -way. They have it on their own right -of -way. Ms. Brock - I've come up with some wording changes to the resolution to deal with that. So when we get Wit... Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thanks. Eva, you all set for now? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Mr. Drew — I am pretty much done with, the landscape plan unless anybody else had additional questions, if not, I can go on. This is the lighting plan. The last time we came here, I changed just before I came to the boards I changed the light fixture upon request to reduce the light spillage on the site. I did that before I came and I presented... everybody should have a copy of our new light fixtures. This plan here shows the level of candle watt power of the light at any given distance from this structure or anywhere on the site. So if you look at this drawing, you can see this "e" less than point one candle -watt power. Your "d" down here is one candle -watt power. So you can see...what this demonstrates is as you get to the edge of the boundary, there is very little light spillage from the site. That is essentially what this drawing is trying to portray. I think everyone understands that at this point. It is just basically a lighting contour like you would see on a grading plan. 14 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I have an additional question. There is some parkland and some protected land--to- -the east; -I guess it would be east of this and down hill. I don't...I can't remember exactly how close it is, maybe someone on staff knows where some of that land is, but I'm wondering if from down below you might still have a problem seeing those lights just like you can at Big AI's property where the canopy is up on a hill and from down hill you see those lights very well, whereas in a different situation you wouldn't see them. Chairperson Wilcox - It is Nicole's project, but she is not here, but can I ask you about the lighting, Mike? Mr. Smith - Yes. The lights that are shown here would meet the draft lighting law, the way they are with the cutoff. The light level showing at the edge of the property, it should decrease at that point. So there shouldn't be the spillage off the site. Board Member Hoffmann — You wouldn't see them anyway from below, either, even though they are... Mr. Smith Well, you are going to see something. The light just can't stop at the property line, but it has the full shielding and the cutoff. So the light isn't going up or out, it is just being directed down on the property. Board Member Hoffmann - I just was a little bit concerned about that land. I don't know exactly how close it is to this property, but there is some protected land and... Chairperson Wilcox — Is the Sweedler preserve back there? Board Member Hoffmann — I don't think that is the Sweedler preserve. I think that is the Lick Brook, but 'there is some other land there that the Land Trust has helped set aside and protect. Mr. Kanter — Actually I think the closer land is the future Black Diamond Trail land that the State just bought, which runs just a little to the east of this site. Again, that is an area shouldn't be being used during dark hours anyway. Chairperson Wilcox - All right. Do you want to bring up the nice color rendition? Mr. Drew — Sure. This basically is just a rendition of the actual course itself. It shows some of the feature around the course. You have your rock structures and some of your poles. It demonstrates what you are probably going to see out there. This is the layout that we are proposing. It has the clubhouse, gazebo, and all your greens. It has the_waterholes that we._are__going. to -have and stuff like. that and all the bridges and 15 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved stuff like that. So I it is just a nice color rendition of what you are going to see out there-once the project is complete. Board Member Hoffmann — That is very helpful. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions ladies and gentlemen? Bonnie, can you give us two minutes of the story on the proposed sign? I heard there was a story behind this. I'll tell you what I heard. I heard that you went to some effort to try to come up with a 4 square foot sign that met the Zoning Ordinance and after much work, you thought you had come up with something by splitting the sign into two pieces like that, each one being 2 square feet, 6 inches by 24 inches. Low and behold, you found out that apparently the way the Zoning Board reads, the way we measure the size of the sign that still exceeded the allowed. Ms. Warren — The 6 inches in between the 2 count. Chairperson Wilcox - And what you came up with is something that the way the sign is measure is actually 6 square feet. Ms. Warren — Yes. It is completely all vinyl. Just white. It will have the lettering on both sides. This just shows one side, but when it sits to the road here the sign will actually sit this way so it will have lettering on both sides. So coming from either direction you will be able to see it. Chairperson Wilcox - Personally, I don't. care whether they fill in the 6 inches in the middle or not. Board Member Mitrano — It looks kind of nice without. It takes away from the... Chairperson Wilcox recommendation to could allow you to bringing this up wz Zoning Ordinance. You can see through it and the resolution as drafted with our the Zoning Board says a sign of no more than 6 square feet, which fill that in and meet that 6 square foot requirement. My point for is to thank you for your efforts to try to get the sign that met the I think that was important to bring out. Board Member Hoffmann - I don't have a big problem with the size either, but I think the staff member made a good comment in suggesting that you orient it differently rather than having it parallel with the road; that it is set at an angle so that people who drive by can see it easier. Ms. Warren - It was a nice suggestion. ite Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter — Actually, if that is what you want to do, we should probably just say that the plan should be revised to show that new orientation. Chairperson Wilcox - Or the revised location, where the location is revised to change the orientation. Board .Member Hoffmann — And again, the sign looks like it is in the right -of -way so that should also be straightened out when that is settled. Mr. Drew - Yes. And the biggest thing, We don't have the DOT comments back yet so again there may be changes that they require that we don't know about. Whether we have to come back for any correction or comment that they have, I guess will depend on their comment. Chairperson Wilcox — Lets assume that the parcel of land is not owned by DOT. Lets _.assume._that_it will be in the Warren's _ possession. What could DOT require other than possibly moving the location of the curb cut on to their State highway? Mr. Drew - I don't know. I really don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — Because.they do have approval for the curbcut and the location. Mr. Drew — And that is existing cut that is there. It has been there for years. So... Chairperson Wilcox— So as long as you don't move it... Mr. Drew — That has been my understanding. We've left it alone. When I talked to the local DOT representative he did ask that we increase the size of the culvert that is there, the drainage culvert that is right next to the road. There is an existing 12 -inch right here now. He did ask me to increase that to a 15 -inch because that is their standard size. I agreed. -Board Member Mitrano — That sounds like a legacy problem. Chairperson Wilcox — Are there any other questions at this point? Board Member Thayer — I like your selection of trash barrels. Are you going to have.a cover on that of some sort? Ms. Warren — Yes. - -- Board = Member - Mitrano - - -I. :move. -the. motion. 17 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — We need to give the public a chance to speak. Mr. Drew — I like your thinking, though. Chairperson Wilcox — Are we all set at this point? Do you want to take a seat? We'll give the public a chance.. Ladies and gentlemen, once again this is a public hearing. If you wish to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, once again we invite you to come up to the microphone. Give us your name and address and we'll be very interested to hear what you have to say. There being no one, I will close the public at 7:44 p.m. Tracy, so moved? Board Member Mitrano — Yes, sir. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved. Seconded by Kevin Talty. Back to the Attorney and the Assistant Attorney. What do we have for changes based on the discussion? Ms. Brock — Under the resolved clause paragraph i, revise it to read, "submission of written permission from NYSDOT to locate the fence within any State highway right -of- way, if applicable ". And similar change under the "AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED" clause, paragraph b, "submission of written permission from NYSDOT to locate the sign within any State highway right -of -way, if applicable ". From the discussion it sounded like we also needed a condition for revision of the final site plan to show orientation of the sign perpendicular to Route 13. Also, this wasn't discussed, but I know in Nicole's memo to us there was some discussion about the height of the fence because if it is over 6 feet they would need to get a variance. If we want to deal with that... Chairperson Wilcox - Let me just look out there. They are kind of back there. Is the height of the fence under 6 feet? Ms. Warren - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Good. Ms. Brock — So we can add another condition stating, "revision of the final site plan to show the fence shall be not over 6 feet high above the natural grade of the property." That wording comes straight from the Zoning Ordinance. Also not discussed, paragraph d under the first resolved requires submission of evidence from the Ithaca City Fire Department that it has approved adequacy of access to the site and building and we have that now. So it would be appropriate to delete that I would imagine, unless you just want to leave it in because it doesn't particularly hurt to leave it in. V'E� Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — We might as well leave it in, but for the record we do have a letter dated March 16th from Tom Parsons, Assistant Fire Chief, indicating that in his opinion the project does not pose any access concerns for the Fire Department. So we are all set there. Mr. Drew — One thing we forgot to mention. We do have the DEC approval, too, for the disturbances the SPDES permit for the project. I don't think you have a copy of that letter, but we do have that here available if you would like to have a copy of that. Chairperson Wilcox — You can give it to somebody on that side. Ms. Brock — Those are my changes. Chairperson Wilcox — We wanted a condition having to do with one of the evergreens, Eva. The miniature... Board Member Hoffmann - That is the ones that are planted along the... Chairperson Wilcox = But didn't we want something to indicate that they would be a minimum of 4 feet? Mr. Kanter — Dwarf Alberta Spruce to be 4 to 5 foot minimum height at planting? Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I should look around here. Are we okay with that? You look quizzical, Rod? Board Member Howe — Nope. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Kanter — One other thing you did mention is that this is also going to require a sprinkler system variance so in their same trip to the Zoning Board that is going to be taken up. =I -don't know that we need to say that specifically in here, but we could in condition b, if you wanted to, we could add, " "acquisition of necessary variances for signage and sprinkler system or of any necessary variance." Chairperson Wilcox — Any necessary variances. Mr. Kanter — We don't even have to be specific, really. We could take out the word 11 signage" and just say, "any necessary variances." - -Chairperson--Wilcox Which letter ? --- -- 19 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter - That would be b, under the resolved. Chairperson Wilcox - Eva? Board Member Hoffmann - I still have a great deal of hesitancy about these parts that talk about allowing the fence and allowing the plantings in the right -of -way, whether it is DOT's or the Town's. Chairperson Wilcox Now wait a minute, what if it is their land? Board Member Hoffmann - But we don't know that that is going to happen. If it is their land, that is one thing, but if it is the right -of -way, then I don't know if it is appropriate to ask for permission to put things in the right -of -way. We don't do that, do we? Mr. Kanter - Not normally, but this is not your normal right -of -way as Dan did mention. The history of that right -of -way is such that the State is, I believe, is declaring that it has no intent or purpose for that land. I'm not sure that the Town has any concrete evidence, so to speak, that it is our land and, if that's the case, some kind of a Quit Claim deed probably is the approach that would be taken where we would basically say if we do have any rights we are giving them up to whoever. Chairperson Wilcox - To the adjacent property owners along State Route 13. Mr. Kanter - But again, that is what John Barney is researching and even if it turns out it is not Town land, if the State says that we don't need it because we are not using it for highway purposes so therefore, if it is State land, we don't care if the applicant puts structures on it and we hereby issue them permission to do that, I think we covered that in the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox - So this is not your normal right -of -way along a public _ thoroughfare _that serves a purpose, whether it is drainage or sidewalks. This is land, which we believe the State either has abandoned, will abandoned, has no use for, given the reconstruction of Route 13 in that neighborhood in that vicinity. Board Member Hoffmann it all along Route 13? Is it only in this area of Route 13 that this is the case? Or is Mr. Walker — I can't speak for other areas. I know that the road was straightened at some point between the original construction back in the 1800s and the way it is today and I remember back in the 1800s pretty well. That very often happens. You see different areas where ... well if you are familiar with 96 out through Trumansburg, just - north- of- T-rumansburg -you --get into Covert there. There are a couple of houses that have kind of a loop driveway in front of their house, that used to be the old State 20 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved highway until they moved it over. So that is fairly common when they have updated roads. Whether or not the land was maintained by DOT and DOT's ownership or if it was transferred back to the adjoining landowners, I can't speak for that in other areas. But very often all legal matters weren't taken care of if there wasn't anybody questioning it when they did it. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't want us to get in trouble by making these... Mr. Walker — I don't believe we will get into trouble if the local DOT engineer has been out there and hasn't said any complaints about it. I don't think there is a problem. Ms. Brock We are not requiring the State to give permission. What we are saying actually is, they cannot build the project as designed, at least in that area, if the State doesn't give permission. They will need to come back to us with a revised proposal for where the sign and the fence will be located that don't impinge on the State's highway right -of -way. If in fact the State owns it and says no we don't give permission. Mr. Kanter — Oh, that is the other issue that I think you wanted to address is if that is the case, do you want them to have to come back to this board or do you want to give some leeway for location if it has to be moved? Chairperson Wilcox — I see a couple of people shaking their head over on that side. Board Member Thayer — I don't think its necessary. Chairperson Wilcox — How can we craft something so that if the fence and the trees and the sign must be moved onto their existing property that the applicant does not have to come back to this board? Mr. Kanter - Perhaps just, "'submit revised plans to the Town for..." Chairperson Wilcox — Approval by the Director of Planning? Mr. Kanter — Either that or just for record purposes. Chairperson Wilcox — I usually like the '"for approval by the Director of Planning." Mr. Kanter — Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — I would prefer that, too, if the Director of Planning agrees. Mr. Kanter — Sure. I'll just pass it on to Nicole anyway. 21 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann - I sometimes hesitate to load things on you, Jon, that it really is our responsibility to take care of. Mr. Kanter - I appreciate that. Chairperson Wilcox - All those changes acceptable? Susan, you are happy? Ms. Brock - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Any further discussion? Board votes on motion. Golf Course and Creamer -v, -- 869 - Elmira Road,_ Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 35.- I mIO.2 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS; 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed Three Rivers Mini -Golf & Creamery located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35.- i -ia2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of an eighteen hole miniature golf course, a thirty space automobile and two space bus parking lot, entrance drive, a small building for ice cream sales and storage, a gazebo, lighting, sign, and stormwater facilities Bonnie and James Warren, Owners /Applicants; Robert M. Drew, Hunter Engineers, Architects & Land --Surveyors, P. C., Agent; and 26 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 and special permit approval, did, on January 17, 2006, make a negative determination of environmental significance; and 3. The Planning Board, on January 17, 2006, did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, with conditions, for the proposal; and 4. The Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, on January 23, 2006, did give the = -- necessary- interpretation regarding ice-cream-sales -as- an--accessory- use to a miniature golf course, and 22 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved 5. -- The Planning Board, - -at a Public Hearing held on March 21, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, subject to the conditions outlined below, site plan drawings, entitled, "Engineering Drawings for Three Rivers Miniature Golf Course & Creamery, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY, " prepared by Hunt Engineers,. Architects & Land Surveyors, date of revision February 2006 floor plans, elevations, and sections of the clubhouse, entitled, "Clubhouse and Ice Cream Shop for Three Rivers Miniature Golf & Creamery, Route 13, Town of Ithaca, New York, " prepared by Brian R. Buttner, RA, and dated February 20, 2006; generic drawings showing the elevation and plan of the gazebo, provided by Summerwood Products, A Division of Summerwood Outdoor; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, dated December 2005; "Engineering Report and Design Information for Three Rivers Mini -Golf & Creamery, " prepared by Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, dated December 2005;. and other materials ; - -- - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - - -- - NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: 1. 'That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Three Rivers Miniature Golf Course and Creamery, as shown on the drawings and details in the site plan submission, including "Engineering Drawings for Three Rivers Miniature Golf Course & Creamery, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY," prepared by Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, date of revision February 2006; floor plans, elevations, and sections of the clubhouse, entitled, "Clubhouse and Ice Cream Shop for: Three Rivers Miniature Golf & Creamery, Route 13, Town of Ithaca, New York, "prepared by Brian R. Buttner, RA, and dated February 20, 2006; generic drawings showing the elevation and plan of the gazebo, provided by Summerwood Products; and other application materials, subject to the following conditions prior to the issuance of a. Building Permit, unless otherwise noted.• a. Revision of the final site plan to show that all exterior lights, including those on the clubhouse, shall be fully shielded so that no light rays are emitted by the installed fixtures at. angles above the horizontal plane, in order to minimize excessive glare and light trespass, and submission of detailed cut -sheet showing the details of lighting fixtures and luminaries on the exterior of the clubhouse for review and approval of the Director of Planning; and b. Acquisition of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, - - prior to the issuance- of the necessary sign permit for the freestanding sign and prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy; and 23 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved c. Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy; and d. Submission of evidence that the Ithaca City Fire Department has approved the adequacy of. access to the site and building for fire and emergency service equipment; and e. Record of an approval from NYSDOT for a curb cut onto a State Route and /or a road work permit, prior to the issuance of any building permits; and f. Continued compliance with the conditions of Special Permit approved by the-P_lanning_ Board: on-January 17 -4q0 __including _there shall .be no amplified music; there shall be no lighting of the course when the course is closed other than security lighting; and evening hours of operation shall not extend beyond 11:00 p. m., and g. Submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material; and h. Submission to the Attorney for the Town of an easement agreement between the owners of the mini golf course site and the adjacent Eddydale site allowing cross access between the two properties, for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permit; and i. Revision of the Final Site Plan to show orientation of the sign perpendicular to Route 13, and j. Revision of the final site plan to show the fence shall be not over 6 feet high above the natural grade of the property, and k. If it is determined that the fence, sign, and landscaping are located within the State highway right -of -way and need to be relocated, submission of revised plans showing such relocation of fence, sign and landscaping to the Town for review and approval by the Director of Planning, and -1. - - Submission- of written- permission- from-- NYSDOT to- locate- the- fence within any State highway right -of -way, if applicable, and 24 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved m Submission of revised plans showing Dwarf Alberta Spruce to be 4 to 5 feet minimum height at the time of planting. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the proposed sign variance for the Three Rivers Miniature -Golf and Creamery sign, as shown in the details and drawing entitled, "Slgnage, " prepared by the applicant and submitted on February 22, 2006, subject to the following conditions: a. The sign shall not exceed 6 tt2 in area; and b. Submission of written permission from NYSDOT to located the sign within - --- any State highway right -of -way, if applicable. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mltrano, Thayer, Howe, Tatty. NAYS. None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Final Site . Plan Approval for the proposed Namgyal Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of multiple buildings (main building, monk's residence, student dormitories, student rooms /apartments, shrine) on the property totaling approximately 13,000 square feet, to house the local Namgyal Monastery branch in Ithaca. The plans also include- parking for 66 vehicles, five seasonal cabins and a bathhouse, a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:58 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you going to make a presentation? Alan Chambliss, 14 Middaugh Road What we thought- we- would -do is, -- Frank- and -I- would- take - turns- going through all the changes from the last iteration. So we'll just go through them in order. 25 Chairperson Wilcox - Very good. Name and address first. Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Chambliss - Alan Chambliss, architect, 14 Middaugh Road,, Brooktonda le, NY. Chairperson Wilcox - Very good. The floor is yours. Mr. Chambliss - So in the write up that was submitted last night, actually going back on what I just said, maybe we will hold off on exterior finishes and sort of get into those later. We have samples to show you, but maybe we should go through the technical stuff first. Actually, Frank, the first one is yours. Frank Santelli, TG Miller Frank Santelli, 203 North Aurora Street, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors. We submitted drawings to the Ithaca Fire Department during the last go around at the preliminary submission--phase: - There -were two main comments that we did get back from them.. One was that we add a second hydrant to the water system and this probably shows up on a couple different drawings. This is the utility extension drawing. Here is Danby Road and the main drive up and the parking facilities here. We have two different hydrants on the site. There is a site grade on the utility drawing that might to help get people situated. We've added a second hydrant so there will be two separate hydrants up on the site. One closer to the upper parking lot and then one along the loop road that leads up to the main site. I think the main reason was to provide some redundancy to the water system for the fire department. Another change was to widen the loop road at the rear behind the monks residents to the east and expand that area sort of to provide them more of a better staging area for fighting fires from the east side of the site. So that is ... we did submit the updated drawings to the fire department and I think they are happy with everything. I know that was a condition of the approval that we get something in writing. I don't know or whether we actually need a letter from the fire department or not. Chairperson Wilcox - A letter from the fire department would be nice. Mr. Smith - I did get an email a couple of days ago from Frank, which had messages below it from Tom Parsons that they did submit letter in January that you had all seen at the previous meeting and that the items listed had been included on the new plans and they were comfortable with it. I'm not sure if we need something additional at this point or not, but the 4 items that were listed have been addressed on the current plans and they are noted. Chairperson Wilcox - Do you feel that we have an affirmative statement from the fire departmentthat -they are comfortable-with--the-..—.7--.--------7.--------- -- -- 26 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Smith — It seemed like originally they were comfortable except for the 4 points that were in their letter -and those are all shown on the plan. Chairperson Wilcox - Now that those 4 points have been addressed, consistent. with the Ithaca Fire Department's requests, then we have met their requirements. Mr. Santelli — So that is sort of item 1. The second item relates to the utility extension to the site, specifically the electric, telephone and gas. The last time we came before the board we had two alternatives shown on the drawings. One being fully underground along the driveway and then an alternate, second possibility was running overhead pretty much the whole length up to the site here and then before going underground to the building. We have had additional discussions with electrical contractors. We haven't been able to get NYSEG to actually do any engineering on it. Until we get an approval, they typically are not going to, will not actually look at doing a design for the site. Based on information that we have received from contractors, the thought-is that-we would- probably - come -in to- a- pole, -come overhead_to_probably a pole approximately at this location, which is approximately 1,000 feet from where are transformer location is. The thought is that that ... that we could run underground from there to the transformer. Chairperson Wilcox - You are aware of the fact that we want to keep as much of it underground as we can. Mr. Santelli — Right. I think the idea was that there is was a cost implication if we go much more then 1,000 feet underground. Mr. Chambliss — Part of it also is an uncertainty about just where we will find rock and how much rock there will be. The incremental cost per lineal foot goes up if it is rock. So it is conceivable that there could be a premium of $101F0.00 to even $15,000 if it was all underground, but one of the things we mentioned in the write -up is that when we get in there with equipment to open things up, if it looks like we can do direct burial of electric without conduit along the side of the road then we would pursue that. In terms of cost control, at this point the best option seems -to be to come overhead across the road, go the least distance possible and have the maximum amount of underground from the transformer back down the hill. Chairperson Wilcox — If we get to a point this evening where we approve the plans as presented and potentially as modified, you understand that you then have to build to those plans and if you decide for whatever reason that you really would prefer that the utilities be run above ground, then you would have to come back to this board, just so you understand that. Mr. Chambliss — Right... 27 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — You cannot suddenly just decide because of costs you are now going to go over ground instead of underground. I just want to make sure that you know that. Okay. Mr. Chambliss — We did some test holes and we know that rock is deeper in this area. It is shallower where the road is. We are comfortable going underground along this side of the site. Chairperson Wilcox I think the board expressed a clear preference for underground utilities when you were here. Mr. Chambliss — Yes, and we have that preference, too. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I just ask a question to clarify? Does the cost have to do with having to put the wires in the conduit rather than putting them in gravel? Mr. Chambliss — Right. You can't do direct burial and you have to put them in conduit and there is .a maximum length you can go before you have to have a structure. So there are a number of factors that add up. Ms. Brock I just wanted to clarify, because based on your comments, Fred, it sounded like you thought they were all underground right now as shown on the plans. Chairperson Wilcox - No, they are not. They are overhead for a short distance and then underground for the greatest distance. Ms. Brock — Okay. I just wanted to make sure you understood that. Scott Tobey, 309 Wyckoff Road Scott Tobey, 309 Wyckoff Road, I was the one making the discussions with the electrical contractors and about the maximum distance you can go through conduit...weIre assuming we are going to need conduit because of the shallow rock there. So assuming there is conduit, the maximum distance you can go is about 1,000 feet before you run into some real problems. So our proposal is at the location of the transformer, go back 1,000 feet with underground and then do the remainder to the road with overhead. So it is in our best interest to put as much of it underground as possible, too. If we find we can do the entire thing underground we will, but we want to reserve the ability to drop cover poles if need be. Chairperson Wilcox —.And is that plan that is shown...in front of us? Mr. Tobey — That is the plan that we have submitted, yes. Kpoe Chairperson Wilcox — Very-good. -- Mr. Santelli - The.only major change, like I hydrant. Other than that, the alignment substantially. We are showing, we are still and sewer for the dedication to the Town. the utilities. The main thing that we have c detailed state so that Dan can better review Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved talked about earlier was the addition of the of the water and sanitary hasn't changed showing a 25 400t easement over the water I guess that ... unless there are questions on ]one is taken these drawings to a little more what we are proposing on this. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Before you go on, Dan, comments on utilities and /or the drainage? Mr. Walker. — The drainage plan is very good. The detention pond sits, its very low proportion of disturbed area being made impervious on this site really. They are trying -to keep as- much - green -as possible -and --that- stormwater- -management -pond is in the right place and its served very well up there. It's properly sized. We're in good shape. Mr. Chambliss — The next item of the changes has to do with the ... well,`I'm not sure where it is mentioned, but on this sheet it shows just a quick sketch for how the sign would work and I noted in the write -up from Mike that the height needs to be adjusted downwards and that is no problem. A change from the last time is the utility building, which is located between the two parking lots, and originally we had been thinking it was a framed building located on grade with a site retaining wall around it. In talking about it and working on it, we decided it would be better just to make it out of ICF, like the main part of the monastery building, with the insulated concrete forms and have the foundation wall ... have the building up on a foundation wall and get rid of the site retaining wall. So that is what these elevations show. You can see the various height and dimensional configurations and. everything for this. -Board Member Hoffmann — So what the implication is, by looking at this, the implication is that the rest of the area between the two parking lots would slope the same way that the ground slopes here next to the building. Mr. Chambliss — That's correct. And in the last iteration, we had had sort of a flat pad in here and there had been a site retaining wall there, just thinking that we would put a pole barn or something. there for the utility building, but the cost of doing a site retaining versus just building a real foundation wall and having more natural grade there seemed like a good trade off. Board Member Hoffmann — Is there a similar slope on the road, on the driveway on either side of the parking lots, north and south? 29 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Chambliss — Between the upper and lower parking lots? Board Member Hoffmann — Right. Mr. Chambliss — Yes. There is about an 8 or 9 400t slope down here. So the entrance drive comes up at about 6 %, runs basically level and then goes back down at around 6 %...runs basically level and then out. Board Member Hoffmann — While you are there, I was wondering why just the upper parking area and those two little drives would be asphalted and the lower one would be gravel. What is the reason? Mr. Chambliss — Cost. It. is just cost. We figured for maintenance and high usage ... I mean this is an overflow parking that will rarely be used. We are not paving the bulk of the drive. It made sense to have paving where most of the cars are going to be ---parked--but-this- parking -lot-we-.anticipate.will- be -i nfrequently-used -and just in terms of cost, we tried to pick out the most logical places to break it. So no changes to speak of in the main complex, well actually, one minor change. At either end of the main public building there had been ... there had been small terraces at all four quadrants. These two terraces had been eliminated. These two terraces have been made larger. There is a net change of maybe a few hundred square feet of hard surface area, but basically this becomes a larger, more concentrated outdoor use area and this becomes green space. No particular changes in terms of elevation, massing, building height, anything like that. There are some window configurations moved around from the model a little bit, but it is essentially the same. These are plans for the bathhouse and the cabins. Chairperson Wilcox — Explain again the purpose of the cabins. Mr. Chambliss — They are retreat cabins for...their camping cabins basically, for use in warm weather only for people who are on retreat. As we said at the last meeting, the intention is to sort of field them into position and approximately where they are shown on the plan in a way that will cause the least disruption possible to the site. So these drawings indicate that, for example, the sleeping cabins they are on stilts sticking out of the ground. The grade shown on all of these is the basic grade, 6% slope of the whole site, plus or minus. So we are showing a 6% slope. In both instances we enter on the up hillside. So we stay on grade, come in on grade and the grade falls away from the building. The only difference between the cabins and the bathhouses is the bathhouse has a foundation under it, but it just sticks out of the ground on the downhill side. 30 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved The next item is site lighting and that is shown on one of Frank's drawings. Basically, all the fixtures we picked are down light only. We are aiming at trying to not go below about the 1 -foot candle on the path of gravel, basically very low light levels. So we have some wall- mounted fixtures that are somewhat adjustable, but again, it is all down light on the utility building and then bollards along the path. These are with louvers in them so it shoves all the light down. A couple of wall lights located opposite those terraces that I mentioned and then in the courtyard you have pendant cam lights located underneath the roof deck that goes all the way around the courtyard. Chairperson Wilcox – Michael, any comments on the lights? Mr. Smith – No. Chairperson Wilcox – You have sort of. become our lighting expert with the work that you have done on the ordinance. Mr. Smith – Again, they meet the requirements of the proposed law. Like they were mentioning, the bollards even have the louvers so they'll shine downward and that type of thing, so they're all set. Mr. Santelli – The landscape plan ... there is probably a colored copy in the smaller sets, which may be a little easier to read than this is as black and white, but it does show...the darker green shows pretty much the undisturbed areas of the site where really nothing will happen. This lighter area indicates the areas that will be disturbed from either roadwork, utility work, the stormwater pond facility, parking, and then the main site. Then the other gray shading indicates the hardscape that is proposed for the site. Also we have included a general strategy for the overall landscaping and I think the idea is to disturb as little as possible and the areas that are disturbed to allow them to retreat back to as natural a landscape as possible. Mr-.- Chambliss — The entrance- sign-we already talked -about. Mr. Santelli – We did talk about that. It is shown ... the location of that does show up on a number of the drawings. It is somewhat south of the actual driveway, more for visual purposes, if I can find it. It does show up on here. It shows up probably best on the...there is a detail of the entrance way and the sign is effectively here and we described the actual configuration of that earlier. Okay the terraces, again Alan shows that on the architectural drawings and these two plaza areas off the north and south end of the main building that were added. Lets see...there was some question last time on what was really proposed for this activity . area: -- As- you -can see,-this is -the actual tree line that is out there now. You can tell that this is sort of an existing meadow area to start with. We tried to better describe what 31 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved improvements are going to be proposed for that and really there is no grading work, no landscaping. It is just a matter of creating a pathway from the main drive to this meadow area and probably just periodic mowing of that area. Chairperson Wilcox - Do you see it as a soccer field or as a...? Mr. Santelli - Well, it could probably be used for volleyball, soccer, multi -use. More of a lawn area. Chairperson Wilcox - There is a gentleman, who I can't see, who spoke previously. Could you come back? Do you anticipate outdoor activities there such as teaching sessions or something like that? Something that could create significant noise? Mr. Tobey - No. The primary site is a wooded lot and it is a natural meadow. So if someone wants to take walk for beautiful sunsets there ... just to get out in the grass to -do- the - things you -might do -in-- your - front lawn.- -- . -____ Chairperson.. Wilcox - I just want to make sure we don't have amplified sound, for example.. Mr. Tobey - Oh, no. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Mr. Santelli - Number 10, we did add a sheet that details the highway entrance and that is probably more for DOT's benefit than anybody else's. I can't even find it. I don't know if there were questions on the entrance drive itself. Chairperson Wilcox - What is different from January 3rd Mr. Santelli - No real difference. It is just an additional sheet to better describe the ... more for construction purposes and DOT purposes. Item 11, we. have essentially added all the details to cover all the paving, utilities- and all the infrastructure that weren't necessarily all included with the preliminary submission. I think that is pretty much it. Mr. Chambliss - We should back up to finishes now. On the first page of the packet that you received ... we have physical samples of an ... (not audible)...and a roof product that are similar to what we propose using. Obviously it waits on bids and so forth to find out what we actually use. Chairperson Wilcox - Speaking of roofs, color? 32 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Chambliss - We toned it down. There is a physical sample here. Chairperson Wilcox - And the color is, for everybody here. Mr. Chambliss -Tan. Chairperson Wilcox - Tan. Not red. Board Member Talty - Yellow. Wasn't it yellow? Chairperson Wilcox - Yellow. That's right. We have in the color photographs that you provided, are they representative of the window treatments in terms of colors? Mr. Chambliss - Yes. I have some...I .have to apologize for my computer technology at home. Doing the dimensional drawings, I shifted away from the pretty stuff, but I - - - -- touched- up- the - model - that -I -had -and here is some renderings of it. These are not accurate in terms of, window location and things like that. They are accurate in terms of intent for. wall color, roof color, and things like that. Chairperson Wilcox ,- We will give you samples back. Can we keep what you just handed Kevin? Mr. Chambliss - Yes. Mr. Tobey - Those color photographs are both of a monastery that was built here in the United States as well as the ... in Tibet, the former home of the Dali Llama. These are representative of the .type of exterior. Chairperson Wilcox - When you were here back in January and made your presentation and got your preliminary approval I asked the question, which I am going to ask again because of the general audience that is -here. What would happen if the Dali Llama once again I came to Ithaca? How would this facility handle the potential crowds ?. Mr. Chambliss - This facility is not set up for that and does not anticipate doing that. This is a private... monastery has a public function in terms of teaching and a private function as a residence for the Dali Llama, but he would not give any major public events there. If such a thing was anticipated, it would get a different venue either at Cornell or IC or some place that could accommodate the crowds. As far as the Dali Llama is concerned, it is a private institution. Chairperson Wilcox - Personal question. Would we anticipate him visiting Ithaca when -- this - is- constructed to acknowledge it? - - 33 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Chambliss — It is conceivable. I don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm ignorant here so I don't whether he would...I'm a Catholic boy, so I don't know if he would come and bless it or what he would do, but... . Board Member Mitrano — Is his residence in the center? Mr. Chambliss — No. The 2 -story building to the rear is the monk's quarters and he is on the upper floor of that. Board Member Hoffmann — I wasn't quite sure what the purpose was of the photos of what looked like more traditional buildings like 'these. I understand this is a color sample for us so we know approximately what you are planning to do, but what was the purpose of showing us these? Mr. Chambliss — Well, to give a sense of the level of detail and color in general. For example if you look at the renderings, the interior of the courtyard is more intense with color and detail than the exterior. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Board Member Mitrano — Does the Dali Llama approve these himself? Chairperson Wilcox - You're asking the architect. Mr. Tobey — He is a very busy man. He is not concerning himself with these types of things. This is really up to us. It is not a primary residence for his holiness. It is more of a place for him when he comes to the United States and he needs a place to rest. He may come once a year, he may come once every 10 years. We really don't know. We have delivered similar packages to him as well as to you so he is aware of what is going on here in Ithaca, but he doesn't worry about these.things. Chairperson - Wilcox - He doesn't micromanage. Board Member Hoffmann — I like the more intense co.lors, but I understand that this will blend in better in the surroundings. Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions at this point? All set over there for now? Mr. Smith — I would mention that there are a couple of new plans that you had on your desk when you came in, a couple of additional details that Frank had emailed me to print out for you. 34 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — If you are all set, I will ask you to take a seat and we will give the public a chance to speak. Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a public hearing. Once again if you wish to address the Planning Board this evening, we ask that you give us your name and address and we would be very interested to hear what you have to say. Tessa Flores, 154 Compton Road My name is Tessa Flores and I live at 154 Compton Road in Ithaca.. Since I am always here to oppose something, I thought for once I would be so happy to say that I am just really happy and grateful to Namgyal Monastery as my new neighbor, hopefully. I do trust that they will be excellent stewards of this beautiful land that I love. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Anybody else? Evan Monkemeyer, 123 King Road East My name is Evan Monkemeyer and I live at 123 East King Road and I would like to - welcome our- new - neighbors -to- South - .Hill. - - -I- was -born on -South Hill in 1948 and I love that land. I think it is the most beautiful land in the Town of Ithaca and I think we are all going to welcome you as the new neighbors. I am a little concerned that we are going to lose some tax base because the property may go off the tax rolls, but I think our next program that we'll show you will give you a little tax base back. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Evan. While you are here, let me just thank you for being patient and we will get to you as soon as we finish with this. I appreciate it. Thank you. Pardon me. Kevin, can you see anybody? With no one else, I will close the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. and bring the matter back to the board. Board Member Howe — I will move the motion. Chairperson Wilcox — I wanted to move it. __:_Board Member. Talty —I- would.. like to make a comment. I appreciate the efforts of toning down the color of the roof because that was a primary concern of mine. Board Member Hoffmann — I will second the motion. Board Member Howe — Go ahead. Chairperson Wilcox - Moved by the Chair. Seconded by Rod Howe. Any changes from the Town Attorney to the resolution as drafted? Ms. Brock — I think Jonathan has a couple. Chairperson Wilcox To the Assistant Town Attorney. 35 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter —Well.. Chairperson Wilcox - That is a term of respect. Mr. Kanter — Yes. I take that as a compliment. Board Member Mitrano — I thought it was one of endearment. Mr. Kanter — You were talking about the utility lines and if possible they could be under grounded for the entire route. I thought maybe you would want to put something so that if that is the case, you could say something like, 'utility lines may be placed underground for the entire length of the project if applicant determines feasible without the need for further approval by the Planning Board, subject to submission of revised utility plan for review. and approval of Director of Engineering." Chairperson Wilcox - I like that. That's good. Thank you. That gives you the option of going underground without having to come back here. Yes? Mr. Kanter - The other thing that Dan picked up in looking at drawing A11, which is the elevation drawing of the maintenance building. This looks like it would be considered an accessory building and the height of accessory buildings in the MDR zone is not to exceed 15 feet and it looks like the downhill side of this building is over 25 feet. So in anticipation that that particular may need a height variance, I think we could just add, "obtaining any necessary height variance for accessory buildings prior to issuance of a building permit for any such building." Chairperson Wilcox — The height limitation for the main building is 36? Mr. Kanter — 36/38. Chairperson Wilcox — 36/38 depending upon how it is measured. The height of this is showing as 23? -- Mr. Kanter— 256 Chairperson Wilcox — Less than the main unit, but greater than what is allowed for accessories. Do we have an issue with that? Go. Mr. Chambliss — I'm not sure it would make a difference in terms of this discussion, we have talked about it .with the staff before, but it is a building that is anticipated to be used for functions, for official functions. Functionally it will almost be like part of the 36 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved complex. There will be public events held in this building. So whether it is an auxiliary building or part of the complex, it might be a question. Board Member Hoffmann — Are you talking about the utility building? Mr. Chambliss — The utility building. It's basically a 2 bay garage on the bottom. On the upper .level it is designed so it can be a woodworking shop during the construction period and after construction period it can be used for meetings of a certain kind. It is adjacent to the parking lot. It is handicap accessible so there are lots of functions that might happen there and not in the main complex. Chairperson Wilcox — The final determination rests with the Zoning Officer, who would make a determination and then the applicant then could... Mr. Walker — It brings up an interesting thing. This basically has a bunch of accessory buildings- with - cabins - but -it- looks - -like -the - main - -- part -of the -- campus is -four separate buildings, five separate buildings with the shrine. in the middle. What does the zoning say to that? Mr. Kanter — As an institutional use, I couldn't point to a section of the zoning, but it is not like a residential property where you have a house and everything else is an accessory building. In an institutional use, many buildings could be principle buildings because they area all serving the intent, but building like garages, sheds, maintenance buildings... this one may have to be interpreted when it comes in for the building permit. I think to be on the safe side this board would want to include the kind of wording I indicated, which doesn't mean we are saying it has to get the variance, but if it does, we are not approving something the zoning says is not permitted. Chairperson Wilcox — Because we can't approve anything the zoning does not allow. We can't change the zoning. That is the ZBAs purpose. So that covers us, which says if it is determined that the height requires a variance, then we are comfortable. Mr. Walker - I don't see a problem getting a variance for this particular site. So... Chairperson Wilcox — Should it be necessary. Anything else? Jon Kanter? Okay. Changes are acceptable, Rod, to you and me? Board Member Howe — Yes. They are. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Any further discussion? Board votes on motion. iffl Planning. Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -034; Final Site Plan Approval, NamQVal Monastery, Danbv Road Across From Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 43 -2 -10 MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS; 1. This action involves consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Namgyal Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of multiple buildings (main building, monks residence, student dormitories, student rooms /apartments, shrine) on the property totaling approximately 13,000 square feet, to house the local Namgyal Monastery branch in Ithaca. The plans also include parking for 66 vehicles, five seasonal cabins and a bathhouse, a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant, and 2. The proposed actions, which include site plan approval and special permit by the Planning Board are Unlisted actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, for which the Planning Board at its January 3, 2006 meeting issued a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a meeting on January 3, 2006, granted Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit with conditions for the proposal, and 4. The Planning Board at a Public Hearing held on March 21, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans included in a bound set titled "Namgyal Monastery, Danby Road - NYS Route 96B, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Final Site Plan Review Set - March 6, 2006" prepared by T.G. Miller, P. C. and Allan McLane Chambliss Jr., and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the construction of the proposed Namgyal Monastery development located on Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.. 43 -2 -10, including multiple buildings, parking, lighting, trails, and stormwater facilities, as shown in the bound set of plans titled "Namgyal Monastery, Danby Road - NYS Route 96B, -- - -- Town -of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, Final Site-Plan Review Set - March 9. Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved 6, 2006 " prepared by T. G. Miller, P. C, and Allan McLane Chambliss Jr., subject to the following conditions: a. that the overall size of the freestanding sign (including lettering and roof covering) located by the entrance drive is no more than 24 square feet, and submission of a revised detail of the freestanding sign to reduce the overall height to no more than 6 feet (currently shown as 7 feet) to meet the requirements of an exempt sign (Section 221 -5 (B) (1) (c)), prior to the issuance of a building permit, and b, submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and - -- - - -c-- submission -of evidence that -the Ithaca- Fire - Department has - reviewed and approved the proposed plans relating to access and water supply, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and d, submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a building permit, and e. submission of record of application for and approval of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent, Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and a permit for working in Holly Creek from NYSDEC, driveway approval from NYSDOT, and water and /or sewage system approval from Tompkins County Health Department, and f, submission of a 25 foot wide permanent utility easement for the proposed water and sewer mains to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca, for review and approval by the Director of Engineering and the Town Attorney, * to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, and g, utility lines may be placed underground for the entire length of the project if applicant determines feasible without the need for further approval by the Planning Board, subject to submission of revised utility plan for review and approval of Director of Engineering, and - h. - obtaining any necessary height variance. for accessory buildings prior to issuance of a building permit for any such building. 39 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved A- vote on the motion resulted as follows: - AYES Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 8:37 p.m. — AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed College Crossing Development located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 9613) and East King Road intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 =1= 3.2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal is for a +/- 23,000 gross square foot building to accommodate nine tenants for new retail, commercial and office space. The project will also include 123 parking spaces, landscaping,- lighting, - stor -mwater.- _facilities_and_a_ new walkway_connection to the College Circle Apartments. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentlemen, I was going to say that you could come up and to the side; you've already done that. I will also point out right now that this is not a public hearing, but we will give you a chance to speak given that it is not getting close to 10:00 by the time we get to that point. So we will do that. Having said that, gentlemen, the floor, is yours; I ask for a name and address, a professional address is fine. Evan Monkemeyer, 123 King Road East I'm going to just tell you a little bit about the property. It's the premier corner for commercial development on South Hill; it's the last piece of land between Ithaca College and Downtown that is zoned for business. It is at the focal point of the primary and the secondary intersections of Route 96B and King Road East, and there is a signal light at the intersection. It's served by all public utilities, water, sewer, natural gas, all the other services, telephone, cable are available as well. The land has been in my family's ownership since 1943. Ithaca College came up and built their campus on South Hill, and I always thought this property should have the finest piece of architecture as a landmark for the Town and for South Hill. And in doing so, it took a number of years to preserve my rights, I held onto them with building permits, and eventually I found an architectural firm based in Syracuse, NY, Dal Pos, they're one of the premier architectural firms in the country. They are experienced in commercial buildings, and that's all they design primarily. And without saying much more, I introduce one of the principals of the firm, John Bartalati. .e Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Bartalati - My name is John Bartalati, and I'm with Dal Pos architects in Syracuse NY. Chairperson Wilcox = Can I have a street address please? John Bartalati, Dal Pos Architects, 101 N. Clinton St. Syracuse, NY That's 101 North Clinton Street, Syracuse NY. As Evan says, our firm primarily specializes in commercial retail. We do extensive amounts of retail development from very small to very large. We work from Maine to Florida, as far west as Minnesota and Chicago; we are licensed in 26 different states. When Evan came to us, a year ago or so, just looking at this property, he expressed just what he said. He said, I want to develop this land, I've had it, and it's kind of a jewel to me, and I want to be able to put something there, a retail development that will respond to the site, that will capture a character in the architecture and the whole concept that will invite people and want productivity and provide a sense of community in this corner. And the first thing I'd like to do, first of all I step back, because many times that's my job to try to educate the client, that's what we want to try and do, but it's very refreshing to have a client come forward with those ideas to begin with. So that's one strike ahead before we started. And. the next thing I did, is we started looking at an analyzing the site and I came up and did some site visits and looked at it, and we ended up with a program. What can we put there that will complement this area, that will create that type of space in a retail situation? And the key to any retail development really is the nix of what the tenant spaces are. Many, many developments and facilities have a great attempt, but it's not so much the architecture or how they lay it out, it's the mix of tenants you bring in that's really going to bring the draw and complement each other, so that's really what we are focusing on now, on what we provide in there. There's a rule. of thumb, a [inaudible] that you don't want all the same size tenants. You don't want all big tenants, you don't want all small tenants. Generally, you want a nice mix and range, and it's relative to the size of the development. So that dictates some of the architecture, and you want to create as many little impediments in the structure within the structure so that you have the ability to facilitate that. When you start changing levels in facilities, it kind of creates a lot of barriers in there that kind of fight that process, so we'd like to try to develop this so that we have the flexibility to respond to the times, the market, who we're drawing in, and try to capture the premier tenants like that. So then we stepped back and said OK, what is the site here, what are the amenities on the site? And the advantage is, obviously we're on a corner so we have a good visibility, we have a main street here and another one to the South. On the west side, this is Route 96. We have an access. This plan that we have here is essentially a concept plan. And we appr-eciate.and we are happy to be able to have the opportunity to come to you and get your thoughts on the development before we really proceed 41 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved with the next step. So what we did with this, is we came up with a concept of the building, I'll kind of go through how we did that. A structure and some circulation, and said OK we need more input now to see how this will respond to. the site, the topography, the existing conditions of the soil, subsurface conditions, because we need to kind of assess some of those, and we are in the process of doing that right now. So the drawing we have here shows the new intent of those functions, laid over the existing site so you can see how it impacts the site, and we have all the existing trees and shrubs and landscaping that's available right now, and we've overlaid our concept plan over it, without taking out the trees, without showing new, so there's a whole landscape plan that will be developed that will address that, but that's the next step. We're showing sidewalks we're showing paving for circulation, but we will have a lot more plantings within, around the perimeter of the building, we will develop other island, but that has to come after we figure out how we're draining the site and what we're doing with some of the subsurface conditions. We just found out recently where ----the-rock-is,--we-had-some-soil-borings done; so -we —know -that at this - end- of- the.building we have about 4 feet of rock, as you go this way about 6 feet, 8 and 10 as you get farther. So if you start with a site in the northwest corner and you go across to this point here, we're only proposing the development of this function alone, which is about just a little under 5 acres. There's about a 30 400t drop from corner to corner here. So we have some conditions we have to deal with. So the next thing we said is how do we want to develop this property so it responds to these conditions? We have a street here and a street here, [inaudible] it's slated for future development at some point, and it's always been slated that this would be a service or an access road through here. So looking ahead we said we have a road here, a road here and a road here, basically we've got three front of the buildings and not a back door. And that's how we kind of evolved this plan, we said how do we respond to that, we didn't want to just turn our backs on someone and give them a look at the service corridor or look at the loading docks to our space, or just a blank wall. So the whole design evolved with that concept, we said let's create a facility where we can have a front door, a front door and a front door so we can address all of this, bring parking all around it, break up the big expanses of pavement so we can make green breaks within it, and we can also terrace these, because this will be up at one elevation, this will be kind of down a little lower, and this will be a little lower, to be able to deal with those conditions. And we went through several derivations of this I think and this came out to be the best solution, and the character of the building, which I think you have seen in your drawings there with elevations, is again consumption, but we're looking at more of the craftsman, kind of timber -frame style so that you create that character within here, so that from any direction, from the corner, from King road, from 96 or from a development of the school at this area, you're going to see the front of the building. We reserved the left elevation here and created more of our service flow through here, because we control this land and we can create a nice natural buffer GS Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved in here to buffer that between the apartment buildings that are up here and the back door here. But essentially there isn't a real back to the building. . Landscaping: There's a real sensitive issue we were looking at when we said -these are nice trees through here, that have been planted and are growing full growth, but we need to get some type of relief in here, and we had to develop a whole landscape plan that would preserve as many of these trees as possible. Our intent would. be to create some breaks to these maybe lifting the limbs up so we can see underneath there. We'd have to create some architectural feature in the corner here for some signage or some landscaping that would get some vistas from the south and from the north. Circulation is you've got an entrance here in here that would come in here; everything is two -way traffic right through here, [inaudible] back through here now, or in this way, circulating in and out. We have one -way .access that comes up around the back that services here. This is intended for our drive - through tenant, some sort of bank is what we're intending. We're looking at several different functions of tenants. Evan would be able to respond to some of those a little better than I can right -now, but - [inaudible], Evan? -- - - - - We have a bank, bagel /deli- shop /coffee shop, drugstore, dry cleaners, real estate office, insurance office, take -out restaurants, professional offices, radio station, barbershop, beauty salon, and some sit down restaurants, so we've got a mix of stuff, and that's what we're going to try and create here, a variety of different retail functions, and possibly some professional offices and business as well. The center of this building, if you look at the elevations, it has a second floor in the center. It's a smaller section, about 5,000 feet or so of area up there, which we think would be a great spot for some type of offices or business. Any questions? Ah, yes, one thing I forgot, thank you. In addition to how we situate this, one response was we have college circle up here, that again we've indicated a walkway from our property to there which is a straight line right now, but we will redevelop the landscaping and buffers with that, but we just want to show the circulation to get back there, because we want to try this, we want to tie the road, the front road and this future area in the future to be able to access this. And again that's why we have the access here coming in approaching the front of the building instead of the back of the building here. So the access drive here, we have an existing curb cut that we'll be re- using here. And if we leave this one here, it will be a new cut through here, but other than that I think we've retained this... to the north we have the property footing here off properties here, there .is two curb cuts here right now, one of those we will be using for a [inaudible] development, and the. other will remain here and we'll be creating some new circulation in here to make sure to cut this off, but that's the next step, as I said, we got to the point where we said we really need to do the next level of engineering and I think this is a great break to get the board's input as far as what the concept -is,.. and_ design- what --we're . approaching -or - heading. And - -thank you. Any questions? 43 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Comments? I have a couple, but I'll start it off. The mention was made of potentially providing a buffer on Mr. MonkemeyerIs property to the north. Mr. Bartalati - Right in here, yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — I would be very inclined to see any buffering occurs on this parcel. Mr. Bartalati - On the proposed parcel? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Mr. Bartalati - Yes, that's why we had a green space here, and we allotted enough for a 30 400t spot. Chairperson Wilcox — I thought I heard you say we could use the parcel to the north to provide a visual screen. Mr. Bartalati - No, the visual screen, I correct myself, [inaudible] we're proposing right here. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. The other thing is parking spaces. This board in general, if I may speak for all of us, doesn't like parking spaces, and we would ask you to minimize to the extent practical, the number of parking spaces, understanding that you have a right under the zoning to a certain amount, while also the zoning gives us the ability to actually work with you to try to reduce the number of spaces up to 20 per cent, and usually we ask there be a location shown on the drawings where additional parking could be put in. If you don't need the extra parking spaces, we don't want to see them, and hopefully you don't want to build them either... Mr. Bartalati - That's correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Because they're expensive and they bring with it lots of other issues. Mr. Bartalati - I think we all would like to strive towards that, but I think that Mr. Monkemeyer would like to have the ability to provide whatever, because there are some tenant requirements that come sometimes that would afford the ability to use certain some other type of spaces. Chairperson. Wilcox- = If - -I remember: right. from - -the notes- we've been provided, given the size of the building as proposed, zoning would give you 120 parking spaces, you're MA Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved showing 123. If you need 120, show us you need 120. If you need 100 or 110, come in with a plan at 100. Mr. Bartalati - I do believe that right there is set at 123 to navigate some float, because the next step we'll be introducing islands and handicapped spaces and it's going to chew up some space. Chairperson Wilcox = Those were my only comments I wrote down, Eva? Board Member Hoffmann - I wanted to ask a little more about the walkway and if in fact, the land north of this, what is kind of green here, is owned by Mr. Monkemeyer or by Ithaca College or College Circle? Mr. Monkemeyer - It's not shown, but it does continue about another 4 or 500 feet to the north. Board Member Hoffmann - Across your land? Mr. Monkemeyer - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox Have you talked to representatives of Ithaca College about the northern entrance? Mr. Monkemeyer - Yes, I met with. Carl Sgrecci Monday and he said the College had no problem with it, and that I should talk to the Colberts about ownership. Chairperson Wilcox - And a representative of the Colberts, "the Colberts" represented by IDC... Mr. Monkemeyer - And with the two gentlemen, and they said they had no problem with it either. Yes I did. Chairperson - Wilcox - All right. Board Member Hoffmann - But that's a detail that is more than a detail to me, and I would like to see a continuation of.that, what you proposed for that. Mr. Monkemeyer - We can do that. Board Member Hoffmann I'm not sure I follow what you are saying about the evergreens that are planted along King Road and Danby Road, did you say cutting out some _of :the- branches _to -open, up?-,,-,. - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - -_ -- .._ . - -- Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Bartalati - Well, I believe these you put up as a screen at some point to cut this all off from here, but as it's gotten developed we need some visibility from the street to see them. We do not want to go in and blatantly cut down trees. We're. totally against that. We are a proponent of green design and the doing least amount of disturbance as we have, and yet we need some visibility from the street in here and some of that through shaving some of the pines, it maybe from relocating some of these from here to here and creating pockets of them instead, so they get some visual space to the facility. But that is the next steps our landscape architect is prepared to move forward with some sketches that would be proposed at the next point. And we're sensitive to the issue that we do not want to remove any trees if possible or very little. Board Member Hoffmann — My last comment has to do with the building design, and I like the fact that it's broken up and it makes it a more interesting building, but at the same time I know enough about this kind of roof to make me think that this is a roof waiting for leaks to happen and a maintenance headache. Mr. Bartalati - It is going to be a challenge, we understand that. Board Member Mitrano — Why is that? That they don't know enough about roofs...? Board Member Hoffmann — There are all these little breaks and things like that and those joints are where you're going to get the leaks. Mr. Bartalati - What we've shown here is basically there's a square here and a square and square here, four square put together with kind of a hip roof over each one, and then we have the ability to have an entry, an entry, an entry, an entry, an entry, an entry. Wherever the entry is because the northeast here we'd also like to stop falling snow and sliding snow, and that's where we have [inaudible] at each one of these points that allows a tenant to have a door here or not, or here or here, or here, it gives maximum flexibility, as things change, as tenants change, they'll come in and go out, they want a door 20 feet to the left or 30 feet to the right, and that affords that ability. We understand that any valley you have is a spot for snow, but. we would take precautions to make sure that roof will be watertight. It is a more expensive design, that's something that Mr. Monkemeyer is aware of. Board Member Hoffmann - Well, I think there are probably opportunities to simplify the roof a little bit too, without compromising the interesting look of the building. Board Member Mitrano — It's thoughtful, your concern about the extra risk they assume with that design, but I must say I do like the design. Board Member Hoffmann — I do too. .. Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Board Member Thayer — Agreed. Chairperson Wilcox - OK, definitely. Any other comments? Board Member Talty — My only comment is I don't understand the internal flow, so if you want to visit tenant 1 and then want to visit tenant 3 or 4, is there internal access, or do you have to go all the way around site? I see there is some sort of internal hallways. Mr. Bartalati - Yes, again there is a concept, what we call lease plan, those are subject to change, but that, solid corridor that you see through there, that is what we try to establish to say, here's a service corridor, so when you want to service corridor so when you want to service a tenant, you come in the back door, there's a corridor, and a back exit out for each one of the tenants. And there's a list of nine tenants on there, I think we reserved the right to make that it could by 8 tenants, it could be 6 tenants, it could be 10 tenants. It depends on the size of the tenants that would come in. We indicated what we think is a reasonable mix and size that we're going to target, but that changes as things go on. So that service corridor, or what we call is an exit /service corridor, so they would take and receive goods through that corridor; and it would be their back exit out. Board Member Talty — I guess I'm more con nice if there's more flow without them having Mr. Bartalati - That would make it a different think we're trying to steer away from that. that you have to maintain with that. Chairperson Wilcox — Jon? cerned about the customers. It would be to go back and walk all they way around. function, more of like a mall facility, and I There are other implications in the code Mr. Kanter Where would you have service area, loading, that type of thing? Mr. Bartalati - That's the next piece to be developed. But, we're looking most likely in here, probably not here in this design. We have an island of parking spaces here that we need to buffer and screen, but most of the service, we're not talking loading docks, they would be serviced by small trucks and rolled off the cart right in the back. Mr. Kanter — That would be trash disposal too. Mr. Bartalati - Trash disposal probably some are screened back along in here either here or here around that buffer would create some landscaping wall, whatever we need --to do to -bury-that back -in- there. 47 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question for Mr. Monkemeyer. What do you anticipate will be developed? What would happen on that green space to the East of this corner? Mr. Monkemeyer - At the present time, we don't have a fixed plan, but what we have right now is a center core of business and retail and office space, and as you back from the center, there will be lesser density and maybe mixed use beyond and residential beyond that. Board Member Hoffmann - So, most likely on that parcel, by this semi - circular road or curved road would be mixed use then, rather than just residential? Mr. Monkemeyer - Well, that's what I would like to see, I mean that would have to come back for a second proposal beyond this phase. Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead, Jon. Mr. Kanter — Just the,, issue of the zoning with the maximum building size, something for the board to maybe provide some feedback on, you were saying that the design that you're seeing before you know is something that you're interested in pursuing, but to do that probably would require a variance from the Zoning Board, so this is probably a good time to provide some feedback on that if you would like to support the way the applicant is going, you probably should be prepared through the process to support going to the ZBA for a variance for building size. ii Board Member Mitrano — How much of a difference, Jonathan, do you ..:? Mr. Kanter — Well, the neighborhood commercial zone when it was redone in the new zoning ordinance, a °couple years ago, it made it so that the maximum size of any individual building in the neighborhood commercial is 10,000 square feet, and this building has about 23,000 plus or minus square feet. That wasn't to restrict the total development on the site, but just simply to try to keep the scale of buildings small and to help with arrangements of buildings around parking lots for instance that might enable you to have parking in the central part of the site with three buildings along the perimeter of parking as one example. Board Member Mitrano — So they are allowed to have multiple buildings with that same minimum level? ---Mr-. Kanter- -Yes:- M Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox - 10,000 per building, maximum. Board Member Howe Isn't that what Ed Marx suggested in his comments that...? Chairperson Wilcox - We have, we have, did you see the letter from the county that did their...? Mr. Bartalati - Yes, yes I did, and we had actually looked at that originally, but as we went down that road, it did a sum of things that kind of hindered us, first being that whenever you pull a building into multiple purposes, there's a lot of inefficiencies and duplication or services. It also, didn't afford us the ability to really surround and have no back door so to speak in the concept. From a green standpoint, it created more site disturbance and more inefficiency in the design itself between more exterior envelope of building. And limitation of the tendencies that it brought in didn't really help us be able to create the type of environment that we tried to do in here. [inaudible] that, we& said OK we have a -site that's stopping -and- everything - became very disjointed as far as we have to deal with the rock here and the slope, and then the parking fields. And if you have a big field in the center with parking at a slope or steps in the parking, is kind of cumbersome, and we felt that this was a much better response to I think what the zoning is trying to do in the area, but again we would need a requirement for a variance. Chairperson Wilcox — Zoning, in my opinion, zoning is trying to get various mixed use commercial retail sorts of spaces. Whether we get that bread baked with that bakery or the dry cleaning establishment or the smaller retail, it's clearly what we wanted to get. The issue here is do we want to trade 10,000 square .foot zoning, again, that's not our decision, that would be the zoning board's decision. Do we want to trade that for a building, which is compartmentalized, appears to have four sort of separate units, is architecturally very appealing. Board Member Howe — I'm comfortable with this approach. Chairperson' Wilcox So far, I mean this is only sketch plan, but I'm feeling pretty good. Board Member Hoffmann And I think part of what I like about this design is that in .fact it doesn't look like one gigantic building, it does look as if there were several smaller buildings, and I think that's what we were trying to achieve by having it built as several smaller buildings. But I also understand all the practical reasons, except for the roof, for doing it this way. Now, I understand all those points that you made, and there are probably economies in doing it this way. I do wonder though, and I wasn't maybe paying -attention;--because you have entrances all around, I wonder where that service area will be too. A Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Bartalati - We're anticipating service in this area most likely. There could be one here or her. The way we're showing the driveway right now, it would probably be more in this area with some trash and facilities screened back over here. . Board Member Hoffmann — It will have to be done very carefully, because... Mr. Bartalati - Yes, extremely, that's right. Board Member Hoffmann — you will have the front of the building all around. Board Member Mitrano — Jonathan, how will that compare with the Country Inn diagonally across, in terms of square footage. Will one building look much larger than.. the other or are we going to have relative balance? -Mr.- Kanter -- -I'll- try to- phrase this-- carefully because I don't want to give any negative perceptions about the hotel proposal, however, also the hotel proposal came in and I believe was completed basically under the old zoning. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. Mr. Kanter — So it is kind of an interesting contrast. The hotel will be a much larger scale building, even after it was scaled down. This will be a more modest sized building. Chairperson Wilcox — The hotel, if I remember was 250 feet long, right? Roughly 250... Can you just roughly the dimensions of the building? Just roughly. Mr. Bartalati - Let's see. Well, we have about probably 60 feet here, and that's one of the components of this, we have little pieces that stick out so you don't see that long expanse. Chairperson Wilcox Yeah, but just the overall. Mr. Bartalati - So, you have probably 100 feet here, and maybe here you're 150 feet here or so. Chairperson Wilcox - Roughly, so that gives us some idea versus the hotel, which was 250 feet long and 60 feet wide, 100 feet. Yeah, OK, roughly that's fine. Smaller and certainly, certainly, and apparently shorter. Apparently the height will be less. -Mr.- Kanter = Just one other technical thing I forgot to mention in my memo, is that I guess the applicant will be requesting a subdivision of this development site from the 50 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved larger parcel, so that will just be a technical step that will parallel the approvals as we go through the process. Board Member Mitrano — And where does the traffic study stand? Chairperson Wilcox They'll do one. Mr. Bartalati - We don't have one yet, but we understand that it's required. Mr. Kanter — The next step I guess after you're looking further into configurations would be the environmental assessments. that will need to traffic, stormwater management, all that stuff. Chairperson Wilcox = The stuff that... — Mr.- -Bartalati =The-normal.,-.--.- - - -- - - - -- -- - -- -- — - - Chairperson Wilcox - The normal stuff that we require. Sorry, yes? details of be done, Mr. Walker — I think the building in the parking lots sit nicely on that lot, but I don't see any place for stormwater management, unless you're looking at some really innovative and expensive things. Mr. Bartalati - Good question, that exactly what we said, and that's why we laid out a site and a circulation in the building and it is in the civil engineer's hands, he's waiting with baited breath to see what our comments are, and we're going to back. There are some strategies on that, whether we can do some ponds or whether we do subsurface, we're kind of evaluating how that works, and he's looking at that right now as we speak actually. -Mr-. Walker - Because -it- doesn't -look -like you have much surface area with the trees there and the buffer between them, unless you're going to pump it all up the hill and build a pond above it, -and I don't recommend that either. Mr. Bartalati - That's a challenge. So, this may compress a little bit back this way, and we have something right in here, . so we've made a lot of these roads a little more, a little gracious than they need to be, because we had a sense that that was coming and that's where our next challenge will be. Board Member Mitrano — Jonathan, going back to traffic for a moment, how do studies do it when there is development ongoing that will have a significant impact on traffic _over time, while - you're -. still- trying- -to -- evaluate- -the- traffc -of -_the- area -for this- particular development? 51 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter - Well, actually in some ways that helps this particular case because there have been traffic studies already done for the hotel and for. the Holly Creek development, so there is a lot of information already assembled, so it'll be building on what's already been done. Board Member Mitrano - Any traffic studies should incorporate the impact of the hotel, which is an approved project. Mr. Kanter - In this kind of case for future development, it's rather difficult to incorporate into the traffic study at this point, future development on that green area or other parts of Mr. Monkemeyer's property, because we just don't know what that will be. Board Member Mitrano - Somewhere in the literature here, there's a mention of the walkway -- having - trash receptacles in order to allow, the students I assume who are heading back to College Circle to throw away their pizza. I beg of you, anything but a pizza parlor. We have far too many of them up on South Hill. Anything but a pizza. parlor, and I'll vote for it. Board Member Hoffmann - I don't think I would like to say anything, I know you're kidding, the kind of uses for this, a site like this, that I would like to see are the uses that would serve the people who live around there, and so that everybody doesn't have to drive through the town and through the city to get to do the things they do most often. That's very important. Mr. Bartalati - And I think that is the target of what we're trying to do because we want this to service the immediate surroundings, because that will make this project more successful. It's not a large scale project that people are going to... it's not like a destination you're going to drive a great distance to go to, it's more community based. Board Member Mitrano - Well, I think... Board Member Hoffmann - Let me just finish the thought there. It will also have less impact on surrounding areas if people who Iive around there can get a lot of things done right where they live, instead of having to drive through other neighborhoods. Board Member Mitrano - Building on your point, Eva is to ask whether the focus is to be serving the college community primarily, or are you thinking of serving the residential areas around? Board Member_ Hoffmann =- Well,- they= are -part of =the- residential -area. -- - - -- - I 52 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano — Indeed they are, but one could think of measured distinctions, such that if it's just primarily the college community then you're still going to get the traffic of people in those residential areas going back downtown and not staying up on the hill. Board Member Hoffmann — No, I mean to serve everybody, including the college community. Chairperson Wilcox - Anything else at this point? Board Member Mitrano — Susan wants to say something. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, I'm sorry. Ms. Brock — Just to follow up on what Eva is saying, while the applicant may make efforts to get a certain type of tenant in, the board needs to remember and I'm sure you already know this, that any use permitted in the neighborhood commercial zone can go in and over time tenants change, so as you look at this project and review it and consider approval you need to just keep in mind that regardless of who may be on a list of potential tenants right now, that can change over time, and we need to look at the list of permissible uses in this zone and review the application with that in mind. Board Member Hoffmann — Sure, but I think we can still express what we think will make for a better community which is what I hope is in the applicant's plans as well... . Mr. Bartalati - [inaudible] that's why we're here to get your comments to see what the board is looking for. Chairperson Wilcox — We all set for now? I'm going to give the public a chance to speak, which I often do, so gentlemen if you could.gather up. They've been waiting very patiently. Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is not a public hearing, but as is the practice of this board, we like to get input as early as we can in the process. When -and if the applicant does return with -a set of plans and comes to this board for either a site plan, preliminary site plan and /or subdivision, we will have a formal, legal public hearing and you will certainly have a chance to speak at that time. Nonetheless, if you have comments at this point, we'd love to here them, we ask that you keep them brief and to the point. Herman, you're up first, name and address please. Mr. Sieverding - Herman Sieverding with Integrated Acquisition and Development, 15 Thornwood Drive in Ithaca. Fortunately we did receive a copy of the agenda on Wednesday or Thursday, so I did have a little bit of forewarning that the proposal included. a_connection_to College Circle _park, which--then enabled us to come down and copy the plans and get them up to the College to give them time to review the concept 53 R Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved with us. And [inaudible] and we're going to meet on this, and part of it there are some deeds and issues sometime to take a look at, and I think particularly the alignment of the sidewalk with the entire sidewalk system at College Circle, and we .certainly don't want that sidewalk to continue straight- across at this point, it would just go into the driveway and not tie into the sidewalk system at the College Circle. I would like to understand a little better lighting and how we're going to cross this swale that runs parallel to the driveway going into College Circle, but the concept I think is a good one, and there's obviously no sidewalk along Route 96 and you'd certainly anticipate a lot of foot traffic between College Circle to College Crossing, so we look forward to working with these details out with them so that when a plan does come back to you for preliminary review, those issues have been thought about. Chairperson Wilcox I see lots of trips by students to an ATM machine should there be a bank there. That's what I see. Very good, thank you Herman, who else would like to speak? Ms. Riddle - Hi everyone, I haven't been here in a very long time, I'm Andrea Riddle, I'm the principal of the Montessori School on East King Road. And I'm hereto remind you that there's a school that we're not talking very much about and when we were here last, our school was half the size it is now, we have 200 students, we are in three building, two which are on one side of East King Road, and one which is on the other, our students cross the road. We are very excited by the aesthetics of Mr. Monkemeyer's new plan, we feel very positively about what we are seeing so far, but we have some safety concerns that we're hoping that town will take into consideration as you review this proposal. Traffic is a big concern to us, especially as there is a proposal to have traffic move from 96 through King Road and back. Currently, we feel that with the traffic being what it is, that it would be really wonderful if there was a traffic light on King' Road where our children cross, but if there is going to be a commercial venture there as well, I think some kind of traffic light is a concern, and we were hoping that you would help to make that happen. It took us probably seven or eight years to get the State to put lines in the road and to get reduced speed on King Road, so that's a serious concern of ours. Also, a separation that really keeps these two kinds of enterprises separate from one another, and we have yet to really talk to Mr. Monkemeyer about that, but we have students who come all of the time from the College Circle apartments up to our school and come up with a couple of beers and want to play basketball on our basketball courts and we have a continued concern about linking the College to this commercial enterprise and the proximity of that to the school. Drainage as you know on our site and below us and above us is a big concern, and so we're very interested to see how that gets handled. The preservation of the trees is also a big concern of ours. We are noticing that trees are coming down already, and we're hoping that that will be a concern of the Town as well. So I think - -- =those -are- the- = main = things= =that -we— are-= hoping = Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved remembering that there are 200 children on that site and that the bus traffic and parent traffic is substantial already, and we trust that we will [inaudible]. this process. Board Member Mitrano — Andrea, I was thinking about the school and that was one of the reasons I kept pressing on the traffic question. What are the rules for the children in terms of recess time and things? Would it be available to them even within your code and schedule that they would be walking down during the day to get anything, or this would be prohibited in terms of your own internal rules? Ms. Riddle M We're actually hoping that there will be some very concrete barrier, either a fence or some way to keep the students from having access to the commercial area and the college students from us. So, we're waiting to see what that might look like. Board Member Mitrano — Do you have any suggestions as to what you would like to see given that you've given considerable attention to the aesthetics of your own developments?-------.. - - -- -- - - - - . Ms. Riddle - I guess what we are really hoping is some sort of natural barrier, trees perhaps, a berm maybe, at the top end of the site, maybe fencing around the commercial venture litself, so there is really a clear delineation of usage and people moving in between the two sides. Board Member Mitrano — So if I can sum up the concerns of the Montessori School, there are essentially three: the landscaping and the loss of those trees in particular; it would be focused attention on the traffic perhaps with a specific concern about a traffic light at that one intersection areas and the third would some type of appropriate fencing or division built into the landscaping or development to distinguish these properties. Ms. Riddle - As well as the drainage. Board Member Mitrano — the drainage, thank you, four things OK. Thanks. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I just ask you to clarify something for me? I thought I heard you say you were concerned about college students coming up to your school and using your property, but how does that relate to this proposal? Ms. Riddle - Well, I think if we are. going to have walkways, which I certainly understand would be very helpful in terms of college students accessing the commercial property that is being proposed, will be bringing and making possible more traffic between the College to this site just below us. I think usage is a real concern to us, the -kinds of tenants I can think of, -and Susan made -a- good -- point, we certainly can't assure anybody about who„ the tenants are going to be, but I think the kinds of commercial 55 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved enterprises that wind up being the tenants in this site will either invite families getting milk or it will be college students who are hanging out having coffee or beer, and I don't really know what the options are going to be, and I think when there are multiple opportunities for college students to hang out in a space just below an elementary school, that raises some concerns for us, so I guess that's what I was talking about. Board Member Mitrano — So you walk in over the walkway, Eva, and you get your beer at the new site, and then you walk through that area and go play basketball up on the Montessori... Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but I think if you have problems with college students using your property, I think there are ways that you have to deal with that. Ms. Riddle - And we. certainly have, but we're not dealing with college students being attracted to coming to this site as we might be if the kinds of enterprises that are there are more appealing to college students. So... Board Member Hoffmann — But you can also look at it another way, if there are other things that are appealing to college students, maybe they won't come to your site. [laughter] Board Member Hoffmann — I don't see that there is a problem about having a commercial use next, to a school. I mean, look at all the cities in the world where this happens. Ms. Riddle - I'm not concerned about a commercial site being next to a school, it's the kind of tenants that potentially might be there, and if that site is being designed to attract college students. And I think Tracey raised that, whether it's going to be a community kind of place, that would be exciting to us, and very much I think a _ _- compatible usage, -and _ so_I - think -those are our concerns we've raised. Board Member Hoffmann .— I can understand your concern with. Traffic that one I share with you. But I'm not quite sure that I understand the other concerns, and I don't think I see the need for something like a berm that would be a visual barrier, why would that be necessary? Ms. Riddle - I guess what I'm raising is that there really be some sort of physical delineation between Mr. Monkemeyer's..1 up until now it sort of is an even flow from Mr. Monkemeyer's property into the school property and I think that as Mr. Monkemeyer starts to develop the land, if there are clear ways that landscape can be used to - -- delineate- the -properties- that would -helpful:- ---=---- - - - - -- — - - -- - -- - 56 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano — Because it's not a city block, certainly there are places where the happens, but this isn't: So- I think I can understand that point, it doesn't have to be a berm, it doesn't have to be the Berlin Wall, but something to distinguish the... Ms. Riddle - I guess I was citing a berm in the notion of a fence. I'm not looking for that, I just wanted there to be some sort of transitional visual layer that the school is set apart from what [inaudible] development. Chairperson Wilcox - Can we move on? Mr. Kanter — I know this is a public comment thing... Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, yes. Mr. Kanter — But just to follow up on that, there is a buffer requirement in a commercial zone -when- it is adjacent to a residential zone, and if you see the dashed line just to east of the parking area there, that's the zoning line, so east of that is residentially zoned, so there would be a need for some kind of buffer area on the site, especially on the east side, so that's something to think about. Chairperson Wilcox - While we're here, East King Road, is that a county road? Mr. Kanter — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox— Which puts us potentially in the same position with the Rite Aid up on Pine Tree Road, which is, should this proceed forward and should we want to do something that we think is appropriate with regard to the school and people crossing over, we're back to working with the county to... Mr. Walker - I think the county... they have put crosswalk striping in. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, but this, based upon the traffic study, could lead. to the potential need for increased mitigation measures as the students cross from one side of the road and back, potentially. But again, we're just back to it's a county road and we would have to work with the county, or we would condition any approval on the applicant working with the county to build whatever might be necessary as determined by the county. All right, Andrea, thank you much. Thank you. Ms. Riddle - Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Chris? I know who you are, but they don't so name and address -- please.— _ - 57 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Ms. Hodges - I'm Chris Hodges, 16 Saunders Road. I live about a mile from here and I know the Monkemeyers, they're very responsible people with the rentals that they have, and I'm sure they'll be very responsible people with this project that they have. I think also, I'm sure that they're very savvy business people, and realize that there's a good amount of residential area not far. from them, and I'm sure that they're going to probably want a mix of things that attract those students and the residents. And as far as that goes, I think personally it would be nice to have some little destination so it would just be somewhere to go to get some things that might be more convenient than hustling on, always going down and then back up the hill, and with that in mind thinking that not only will it be students but it could be residents from up the way perhaps wanting to walk to this area, rather than... it's only a mile, it's not that far, but right now East King is a very busy road... Board Member Mitrano — It's dangerous. Ms.-- Hodges -- and -with this - here, - -I -can see it even - getting- busier, and eventually the thoughts of it would be really nice to be able to walk there without worrying about getting run over, and even sidewalks or something like that to [inaudible] because there are young kids up there, teenagers, kids. who would like to maybe go down, although maybe people don't want them down there, but they're going to get there anyhow to safely make their way down. Because I bike that road and kids with their bikes, it can be, it's daunting to travel that road. Some of the things too, the greenery that's ' around there right now are beautiful trees, they are really very, very nice trees and they buffer very nicely. My concern is, aside from this is that they appear to all be the same variety, and so might be susceptible if some pest comes along some day and decides to wipe them out. They're also all the same age, so I don't know what their life span is, and thinking that somewhere down the road they might hit their normal life span and they're gone. So are there ways to think about doing something that will integrate other things that will be up and growing, then perhaps those are on the downside of the sidewalk. There's also again with the traffic there, I know right now, right in this corner, there is the light right there, and -with it, I'm thinking eventually a right hand turn area would be helpful there, because right now there's kind of an unofficial one there, it's kind of gravelly, it's got potholes, and I think as more traffic is probably going to develop there to keep the traffic going, it would be helpful to have something like that. And as far as having a light up here, if something like that were done, it would be nice to have it in the off- school hours to perhaps be flashing yellow, so that people don't have to stop on the weekends and the non - school hours, would be a consideration. And then also up here there is no light between here and the first light you hit going down hill is the light at Ithaca College, and what would happen if someone coming out of here wants to go left? Do you prevent them from going left by having a right turn 58 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved only? I don't know, you kind of have the consideration of other lights; I don't know what the situation would be with all of that traffic and what will happen. Also thinking about the Hotel diagonally across, if I were staying at that hotel, I'd want to go over there. So how are you going to accommodate people getting across that busy road and wanting to. do that, as opposed to feeling they have to take their cars, because that's the only way they'll keep themselves .from getting killed going across the street. So as much as we encourage pedestrian traffic, and encourage people to come there without a car I think would help them an awful lot. And personally I'm not a fan of the building surrounded by lots of parking, if there are ways, configuration ways or something to deal with some of that, but all in all I think it could be an asset if built right, and I'm interested in seeing how things progress. Board Member Mitrano — Thoughtful comments. Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I maybe ask you some questions and have you clarify something you said, too? I agree it would be nice to have sidewalks to make it safer for everybody to move around, especially at an intersection like that and on the roads that are very busy. But I... there's something you said that I can't quite understand. there would be less of a need for traffic light control in off school areas, and I would think the opposite, during school hours, the kids are in school, they are not out on the roads, but on weekends and when they are not in school is when they might walk from their house to a friends house or be out on their bikes and doing things like that. And adults too would be more likely to be moving around on weekends when they are not at work. So, I don't see the need for changing traffic signals and having less diligence maybe just flashing lights at those times. Ms. Hodges I- was just thinking of they were to put a light there, just thinking that that's to help control things when the students are there. Another option may be to have a light that stops the traffic so they can get safely across, I don't know what it is, but I'm just thinking from - that - standpoint, the crossroad need to go across at that intersection during off - school hours I presume would be a lot less, so we don't have to worry about kids crossing the road from one side of the school to the other. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't agree, I think it's off school hours that you need to worry about that. Ms. Hodges - No, I mean right now there's not, there's some pedestrian traffic there right now and again kids are going to cross the road where they want to cross the road, quite frankly. I don't think a light is going to do anything other than irritate drivers of having to stop at another light and then go down a little bit and stop at a light again. 59 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano — I think Chris's comments are particular to that area. In a full traditional residential area, your comments are very insightful, but there is nothing else really going on there except the school in that immediate area. So if the students are going from one building to the other from across the road... Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, you are talking about the school crossing? Ms. Hodges — Yes. That is what I was talking about. Board Member Hoffmann — That is not the school crossing where you were pointing. Ms. Hodges — Yeah... Board Member Hoffmann - That's what confused me. Chairperson Wilcox — Much better. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Now I understand what you were saying. You were pointing to the entrance into the shopping center. Mr. Kanter - Could I just say something now that we have heard the traffic light mentioned a couple of times? Certainly that would be something the traffic study would have to look at, but I can tell you now that it is not likely that the County or the State would even allow a traffic light in that location because it is too close to the traffic control intersection. Also, you don't typically see traffic lights at small shopping center entrances and exits. They do tend to create their own kinds of problems when you do have them and this is a much smaller one than you would normally see it at. Having said that, I think some of the ideas about turning lanes and possible turning movement restrictions are definitely things the traffic study should look at. Board Member Mitrano — What are your thoughts about sidewalks down King Road from the residential -areas up on... -- -- - - - - -- Mr. Kanter — I have good feelings on that. How we do it, I'm not sure. Chairperson Wilcox — Chris, thank you. Anybody else? All right. Lets take care of one piece of business while everyone is still here with regard to the College Crossings. Chairperson Wilcox reads the proposed resolution. Board Member ThaYer — So moved. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry. Seconded by the Chair. .( Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter - -Fred; couple of suggestions for revisions. I mentioned the subdivision so in the Whereas number 2 after site plan approval strike the and, continue with a special permit and then add, "and possibly subdivision approval" because that would be one of our actions. In the be it further resolved since we have not received a full environmental assessment form yet, lets see, in the second line, could we add upon submission of the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I by the applicant. That is just so SEQR has timeframes that are triggered. We don't exactly want to jump the gun on notifying lead agencies until we receive the Environmental Assessment Form, but this way we have the resolution of intent passed. So once we receive the EAF then we can... Chairperson Wilcox — Then we can inform them that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board wishes to be the lead agents for environmental review. I read that out loud ladies and gentlemen. Sometimes people think we are doing things behind their back, but we're -- not. -- Everything -is out here in front of you. Board votes on motion. PS RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -035: Lead Agency Designation, QLlege Crossings, Tax Parcel No, 43- 1 -3.2, Danby Road and East King Road MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox, WHEREAS: i. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the proposed College Crossings Development located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and East King Road intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal is for a +/- .. 23,000_gross square- foot- building to accommodate nine tenants for new retail, commercial and office space. The project will also include 123 +/- parking spaces, landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant, and 2. The proposed College Crossings Development, which requires site plan approval, a special permit, and possible subdivision approval by the Planning Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review because it involves the construction of a non - residential facility - - which exceeds -the threshold-of parking-for-100-vehicles (Section 148 -5. C.3 Town of Ithaca Code), and 61 Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved 36 The applicant has submitted materials for the above- described action, including a project description and a set of concept drawings, labeled C1 through C7, . prepared by Dal Pas Architects, dated 12115105, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the. proposed College Crossings proposal, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, upon submission of the Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I by the applicant, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox - Evan, do you have the feedback you need from us? Mr. Monkemeyer - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else from the public wish to speak at this point? Very good. I appreciate you all coming. Okay we have a few more things to do. Report on a lot line modification for the former Young 4Aot Subdivision located on Coddington Road, Dan Walker, Director of Engineering Chairperson Wilcox - Dan, do you want to speak briefly to the memo that was in front of us when we arrived this evening? Mr. Walker - Yes. The Young 5 -lot subdivision, which we just saw a re- subdivision of...its changed hands. Its now owned by Jeffery Paul who has begun development of the site and when they laid out the roadway as it was originally showed on the subdivision, they realized that the topography where they had the driveway between lot JOAF Planning Board Minutes March 21, 2006 Approved c and parcel e, there was a rise right at that point and there were some very nice mature trees-right -where the- driveway was shown. So we looked at that and he asked if we could move the driveway to the east about 30 feet, 35 feet and shift the corner pin between parcel c and parcel e. Actually the corner of parcel e, shift that 37.5 feet basically so they wouldn't have to have extra easements and everything on there. The basic effect, as in my memo there, is that there is about a 9/10 of an acre change. Parcel a is still 1.16 acres, which is way above the minimum required and parcel c increased by the 9/10 to 1.86 acres. So according to Section 23447 of the Town of Ithaca Code, the Town Engineer is empowered to modify slight changes as long as he... Chairperson Wilcox - Hey, you made the applicant's life easier. You made our life easier. You made everybody's job easier. Mr. Walker - That's my report. It basically shifts the lot line about 37.5 feet on one end and rotated it. Ms. Brock - I just have a question. Chairperson Wilcox - Susan? Ms. Brock - Thank you. You mentioned 9/10 of an acre, but your memo says 9/100 of an acre. Mr. Walker —9/100 of an acre. APPROVAL OF MINUTES PB RESOLUTION NOs 2006 -036; Aparoval of Minutes: March 7, 2006 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Howe. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does 2006 minutes as the official minutes of the meeting as presented with corrections The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES .• Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The vote -on -the motion- was - carried. -= - -= hereby approve and adopts the March 7, Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said 63 OTHER BUSINESS Planning Board Minutes. March 21, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter gives the board an overview of the April 7, 2006 agenda. Chairperson Wilcox gives the Board the dates for the New York State Planning Federation 2006 Conference. AD3OURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the March 21, 2006 Planning Board meeting at 9:43 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �l Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk LO MA TOWN OF IT14ACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, March 21, 2006 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Desch & Coddington Road Community Center Land Exchange, Updike Road & 920 Coddington Road. 7 :05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed land exchange located at 920 Coddington Road and Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax.Parcel No.'s 47 -1 -11.3 and 47 -1- 11.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves conveyance of approximately 3.4 +/- acres of land owned by the Coddington Road Community Center to William Desch, adjacent property owner, and conveyance of approximately 2.5 +/- acres of land owned by William Desch, to the Coddington Road Community Center. William E. Desch and Coddington Road Community Center, Owners /Applicants. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Three Rivers Mini -Golf & Creamery located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -10.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of an eighteen -hole miniature golf course, a thirty-space automobile and two -space bus parking lot, entrance drive, a small building for ice cream sales and storage, a gazebo, lighting; sign, and stormwater facilities. The proposal also requires a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the proposed sign variances. Bonnie.and James Warren, Owners/ Applicants; Robert M. Drew, Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, P.C., Agent. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Namgyal Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of multiple buildings (main building, monk's residence, student dormitories, student rooms /apartments, shrine) on the property totaling approximately 13,000 square feet, to house the local Namgyal Monastery branch in Ithaca. The plans also include parking for 66 vehicles, five seasonal cabins and a bathhouse, a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed College Crossing Development located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and East King Road intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.2, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal is for a +/- 23,000 gross square foot building to accommodate nine tenants for new retail, commercial and office space. The project will also include 123 parking spaces, landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant, 7. Report on a lot line modification for the former Young 4 -lot Subdivision located on Coddington Road. Dan Walker, Director of Engineering. 8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 9. Approval of Minutes: March 7, 2006. 10, Other Business: 11, 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 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF IT1 ACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, March 21, 2006 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 21, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed land exchange located at 920 Coddington Road and Updike Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 47 -1 -11.3 and 47 -1 -11.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves conveyance of approximately 3.4 +/- acres of land owned by the Coddington Road Community Center to William Desch; adjacent . property owner, and conveyance of approximately 2.5 +/- acres of land owned by William Desch, to the Coddington Road Community Center. William E. Desch and Coddington Road Community Center, Owners /Applicants. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Three Rivers Mini -Golf & Creamery located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -10.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of an eighteen -hole miniature golf course, a thirty- space automobile and two -space bus parking lot, entrance drive, a small building for ice cream sales and storage, a gazebo, lighting, sign, and stormwater facilities. The proposal also requires a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the proposed sign variances. Bonnie and James Warren, Owners/ Applicants; Robert M. Drew, Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, P.C., Agent, 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Namgyal Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of multiple buildings (main building, monk's residence, student dormitories, student rooms /apartments, shrine) on the property totaling approximately 13,000 square feet, to house the local Namgyal Monastery branch in Ithaca. The plans also include parking for 66 vehicles, five seasonal cabins and a bathhouse, a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /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, March 13, 2006 Publish: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SI&W IN SHEET DATE: March 21, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT AD DRESS/A FFILIA TION D� /17 i 3oS— lLSo,v A A, vt l (" P5 zoC7 C Lt c q C(CC C a -&o, 02 2& 6 �'�, VW k)4e4d �3C NA\1 C Jti I cG-�c 34 I ?Y�l F50 il 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 Tioga Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, March 21, 2006 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: March 13, 2006 March 15, 2006 Via- Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of March 2006, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. Ot CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20