Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-04-03FILE uo DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 7:00 P.M. PRESENT Chairperson Fred T. Wilcox Board Members: George Conneman, Eva Hoffmann, Rod Howe and Kevin Talty Absent: Board Member Larry Thayer STAFF Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk OTHERS PRESENT Scott Tobey, Ithaca Richard Leonardo, Ithaca Evan Monkemeyer, Ithaca Scott Freeman, Liverpool Rudy Zona, East Syracuse Corey Green, Rochester James Kerrigan, Ithaca Hollis Erb, Ithaca Andrea Riddle, Ithaca Chris Hodges, Ithaca Dave Auble, Ithaca John Bartelotti, Syracuse Joel Harlan, Newfield CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 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 26, 2007 and March 28, 2007, 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 26, 2007, Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the NYS Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Chairperson Wilcox announces the first item on the agenda at 7:06 p.m. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 2 PERSONS TO BE HEARD There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:07 p.m. SEAR Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies Entrance Gate, located at 100 Tibet Drive Scott Tobey, 903 Wycoff Road At the entrance to our property we, well, we have constructed our road, but at the entrance to our property we would like to construct a ceremonial gate. It's basically the only visible structure from Route 96B. It would be constructed mostly of concrete and to replicate a traditional temple gate that would be found in India or Tibet. Chairperson Wilcox — Is it going to look like the color ones? Mr. Tobey— Well, it will be painted in color. One is, I don't remember which... there's a simpler gate, I believe at the top of your page, which is more in keeping with what we would be doing. The lower one is a much more elaborate gate. Chairperson Wilcox — Because all we have is a black and white illustration. Mr. Tobey — Yeah, that was a sketch produced by one of the Namgyal monks to indicate what we would like ours ... Each monastery has a unique gate symbolizing different things for their monastery but ... So that would be the overall appearance of it but you could refer to the color photographs for the color scheme. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? I have a couple of quick ones... Concrete footers and ... to keep it stable ... no lights? Electric lighting? The cassette was inadvertently taped over with a later portion of the Planning Board meeting. Therefore, there is no recorded record of the meeting .for this topic and a portion of the College Crossing topic. The resolutions are shown. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 3 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Resolution No. 2007 — 032 SEAR Determination Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval / Special Permit Modification Namgyal Monastery - Entrance Gate 100 Tibet Drive (off Danby Road) Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10 Town of Ithaca Planning Board April 3, 2007 MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a modification to the Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies project located at 100 Tibet Drive (off Danby Road across from Sesame Street), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The modification includes constructing a +/- 20 foot high open ornate archway -like structure (entrance gate) over the main drive approximately 38 feet east of Danby Road. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant; Scott Tobey, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting . as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on April 3, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings titled "Main entrance gate as drawn by resident Namgyal monk" and "Highway Entrance" (Sheet C202), included in a packet date stamped February 23, 2007, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 4 A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Conneman, Howe, Hoffmann, Wilcox, and Talty NAYS: None ABSENT: Thayer The Motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a modification to the Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies project located at 100 Tibet Drive (off Danby Road across from Sesame Street), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The modification includes constructing a +/- 20 foot high open ornate archway -like structure (entrance gate) over the main drive approximately 38 feet east of Danby Road. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicants Scott Tobey, Agent. RESOLUTION DENIED: PB Resolution No. 2007 - 033. Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval / Special Permit Modification Namgyal Monastery — Entrance Gate 100 Tibet Drive (off Danby Road) Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10 Town of Ithaca April 3, 2007 Planning Board MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a modification to the Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies project located at 100 Tibet Drive (off Danby Road across from Sesame Street), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The modification includes constructing a +/- 20 foot high open ornate archway -like structure (entrance gate) over the main drive approximately 38 feet east of Danby Road. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant; Scott Tobey, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit has, on April 3, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short PB 4/3/07 Pg. 5 Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 3, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Main entrance gate as drawn by resident Namgyal monk" and "Highway Entrance" (Sheet C202), included in a packet date stamped February 23, 2007, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the proposed entrance gate at the Namgyal Monastery finding that the standards of Article XXIV Section 270 -200, Subsections A — L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and. That the Town of. Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed entrance gate at the Namgyal Monastery located at 100 Tibet Drive (off Danby Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, as described on drawings titled "Main entrance gate as drawn by resident Namgyal monk" and "Highway Entrance" (Sheet C202), included in a packet date stamped February 23, 2007 and the gate shall not be artificially lit. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: George Conneman, Rod Howe, Fred T. Wilcox NAYS: Kevin Talty and Eva Hoffmann ABSENT: Larry Thayer The motion was not carried by a majority of the fully constituted Board and, therefore, was not approved. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 6 Pick up College Crossing discussion ... SEQR College Crossing Development, Danby Rd. & King Rd. East Intersection, Mr. Freeman — I just wanted to point out the little bit of work we've done on the planting plan. I think we concentrated primarily on the perimeter areas. Jonathan and I had several conversations with regard to the buffer between the school and the proposed project. We've drawn a section here, and you can see the view line of someone standing outside the school over a 5 -foot berm, let's see, midway up the building, so the parking lot would be not totally shielded but it would be a strong buff ... a visual buffer of the parking area but you would see the upper portion of the building. So that's something we've worked on. The other thing we recall at the last meeting, we recall, is putting more varieties of plant materials there. We've begun to do that a little bit on the perimeter. We're going to wait until we get the final design before we finish that off. Evan pointed out that there's a big deer herd up there so we want to include a lot of deer resistant plants. There is nothing that the deer won't eat, but we can limit that. The other thing we studio apartments, foot height screen apartments have a here, but there is a any questions on b did since the last planning Board meeting was adjacent to Evans we added more evergreens and we put a, we're going to. put a 6- fence right on the property line so the tenants of the studio little bit of green space in their backyard. The Lofts aren't shown sizable screen fence there on the Hayloft property line. Are there uffering? Board Member Hoffmann — Could you say what the fence was called again? Mr. Freeman — I call it a 6 -foot height screen fence. It won't be chainlink, it'll be some type of wood where, what I have been telling Evan is that we are in the planning stages now, when we get into the design stages, once we get through the planning stages, we'll come back, maybe final plan, we'll come with some samples of what that fence would look like... Board Member Hoffmann — I still didn't hear what you called it. It's a screen... s.c.r.e..4 Mr. Freeman.— It's a fence...a six foot high fence. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Mr. Freeman — The detailing is to be determined. PB 413107 Pg. 7 Board Member Conneman — I 'm concerned about what you can see from the Montessori School. How much is that going to be screened from the project? Mr. Freeman — I guess, the design concept is not to enclose the site. The design concept is to enhance the building, enhance the community, break up the scale of the building with masses of trees. We didn't want to, I mean, it's retail, so we want to have some visibility. If you look at the section, we're not putting in a big box... Chairperson Wilcox — Wait a minute. ..somebody's in the way....John help me out... Mr. Bartellotti — Actually we have some sketches we can leave here which probably give a better idea of some of the architecture but again, these are preliminary. We need to take them to the next step and but it gives some rough massing and some of the feeling of the detailing so it is not, as Eva mentioned, a strip center or a traditional shopping center. It is something that's more enriched with the craftsman style and some of the Adirondack style and flavors to this. We have taken some pains to do that and the owner was willing to spend some money to actually provide that for all of you. Mr. Freeman — Thank you John, I didn't want to misrepresent that. I guess if there's no more questions on ... Are there any more questions on landscaping? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I am a little concerned about the fact that the berm that you show on PL -1 and L -4, the planting plan, if you look at PL -1 which is the one you have up there I think, the property line is quite a bit further west than some of the slope and plantings are, so the plantings and the berm are in fact not on the property for which we are talking about the site plan. Mr. Freeman — A good point. This is a ... Evan owns this whole parcel from 96B all the way up to the school and we thought screening it ... where this road comes in off of King Road East, if I can back up a little bit.. Those lines, where they are close together, that's cut.. the existing grade is kind of at an angle like that. To get this road in, we're gonna cut down like 8 feet. So if I put all these plants at the bottom of this hill, the plants would be screened from the school. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me ask you a more direct question. Are those plants on Evan's property, numer 1... Mr. Freeman — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Are they on the same parcel as this proposal is for? Mr. Freeman — No. Chairperson Wilcox — They're not on a different tax parcel. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 8 Mr. Kanter — Yes, yes they are. That line that's on there is not a property line, it's a zoning line. Chairperson Wilcox — Let's make. sure we are very clear. So they are on the same parcel, same tax parcel, they are just in a different zone because that boundary is the boundary for the commercial zone. Board Member Hoffmann — And yet at the cross section at the top of the page of PL- 1, it says.proposed property line. Chairperson Wilcox — That may have come from the decision on the part of the applicant to not subdivide off... Mr. Freeman — I see your point. You're right. The proposed property line should state neighborhood commercial zone limit line. We'll... Chairperson Wilcox — It's the zoning line, not the property line. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the concern that I have behind bringing this up is, if in fact the mitigating measures, that is, putting in plants and building a berm and so on in order to lessen a possible unattractive view from Montessori School is not on the right parcel, then things might happen to that, to those plants and berms in the future if Mr. Monkemeyer decides he wants to do something else in that parcel. Chairperson Wilcox — But it is on the. correct parcel. Hear me, it is on the correct parcel. Board Member Hoffmann — Alright, so if this... Chairperson Wilcox — It's all one parcel. Ms. Brock — And he said that where it says proposed property line should actually read... Chairperson Wilcox — proposed... Ms. Brock — No, not... Mr. Freeman --...neighborhood commercial zone limit line. Ms. Brock — No. Neighborhood zone limit line ... that's what you have down further... Mr. Freeman — On the plan. That's what it should be on the section. Ms. Brock — The same wording which is running vertically up and down on the plan, should appear horizontally where it says proposed property line. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 9 Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So I don't have to worry about whether these things are in the right place then. Ms. Brock — In terms of being on the same parcel, no, Board Member Hoffmann — Okay and also on the ... are we also doing a site plan review of the whole parcel? Chairperson Wilcox — By definition, I think the answer to that is yes. Ms. Brock — Yes. Mr. Kanter — It's on F -4, so yes. Board Member Hoffmann — Just so long as we... Chairperson Wilcox — We just so happen to have a zoning boundary line running through the parcel. That's all. Board Member Conneman — Scott, I drove up to the Montessori School and I could see a lot of things. What I want to know is what mitigation is taken so that you can not, so you're not overwhelmed by the cars, the building, whatever you want to say, from the Montessori School? Mr. Freeman — It's...a good example is kind of out in the lobby ... you see those... attractive views of Ithaca coming down from. the hill. There's a little study I noticed coming in, but anyway, the goal of the project, as I stated earlier, is not to build a wall of evergreens around there. Evan though the ones that are there now are quite nice, you did too goof a job 20 years ago Evan, they're nice, but we want to have an open view into our project here. And it's not only the grasses. We have deciduous trees here, here, we have some of the existing evergreens here, that's on the uphill side above the neighborhood commercial line. Then within our site, we have a run of deciduous trees between the access drive and the parking lot. We have a clump of evergreen trees here as well, and when John Bartellotti and Del Pas is done designing their building, there'll be a third row of architecture. So there's basically going to be 3 bands of landscaping between the school and the proposed project and it's going to be to enhance the architecture. It's going to be an attractive view. You're going to be looking at, if you're standing at the front door of the Montessori School and you look down over the top of that buffer, you're going to see probably the second floor, the roofline, of that structure. Board Member Conneman — The kids and the staff will think that's thrilling, I bet. I mean, I understand what you're saying but the idea is to shield Montessori from seeing this. You can go, Evan can build houses or something else in there, which I PB 4/3/07 Pg. 10 think he may do someday, but it seems to me the Montessori School needs some shielding at some point. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I'm not sure that I understand quite what you're saying George. I think that actually the buildings that they are proposing will look quite attractive, from all directions, and if they do indeed put in plantings the way that I think they have proposed, I find it really hard to look at this scale of the plan, I have a magnifier and I still can't see what plant species you are proposing because the ink in the letters flow together... Mr. Freeman — If you want, I can send the Board some full size planting, the 11 x 17 format, about 25 copies is what we are required to do, but I could provide you with a full plan... Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe that is a possibility but anyway, I think what hear you saying is that you're trying to make it so attractive that one doesn't have to have a wall of evergreens to block it out. Mr. Freeman — We're trying to blend into the community not shield it from the community. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, and it ... I like the idea that one can see across it, assuming that it is attractive, and get the view beyond, too, from the Montessori School, that that won't disappear. And I don't think this is going to be like some of the commercial centers we see... Board Member Conneman — I know it's not going to be like,, and I think it's very good. I still ask my question about what are you going to see from the Montessori School? Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, hold on for a second ... Jon, Mr. Kanter — I was just going to ask the Board, if instead of focusing on details like this, at this point, maybe it would be better to look at the bigger picture. I mean, there are a lot of things that you're going to need to consider; the traffic, the access, the circulation, which we haven't talked about yet. I'd hate to have time run out and you're still talking about landscaping and screening. Anyway. Just a thought.. Chairperson Wilcox — Point well made. I will remind the Board and the public that our purpose right now is the environmental review. Board Member Talty — One comment to back up George here is ... according to the line of sight ... I understand what you're saying and I understand what George is saying, but it seems to me, if you're going to put plantings along the border of this current project ... the elevation... you're going to have to put in some pretty high trees. Technically, according to what George wants. It seems to me, if you were to give PB 4/3/07 Pg..l l George what he wants, you'd really have to put the plantings closer to the Montessori School. Mr. Freeman — Potentially, yes, but then... Board Member Talty — I understand where you're going, but I'm just saying, to give George what he wants, you can't possibly get there unless you're gonna be pulling in 25- footers to block what he wants you to block. I understand you don't want to block, I understand you want it to meld in, but it seems to me if you were to take Mr. Conneman's words under advisement, you really almost have to put the plantings up next to the Montessori School, you know what I mean. Mr. Freeman — That's an approach, that's an opinion. I think if you put the plants... Board Member Talty — You could do ... I just want to say that, I mean, you're concentrating here when really you should be concentrating up here if you want to do what George wants you to do. That's all I wanted to say. Chairperson Wilcox — We need to get to the environmental review... Board Member Conneman — Is this not part of the environmental review? Chairperson Wilcox — We're talking about... Board Member Conneman — neighborhoods. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Absolutely and we're going to go forever on this and we'll have plenty of chance to either go back to it or deal with it as part of site plan. Okay, now that I've done that... Mr. Freeman — I had one other issue. It's a connector walk. I just wanted to discuss the progress we've made since the last meeting. Evan and I have taken the... mad e some minor design changes between here and the college and one thing Evan's done is he's gone ahead and ... We're having the point where we connect he walkway to the college surveyed to show topography, utilities, sidewalks, curbs, so we know where that exact tie -in point is. So once we get that information, we will include our design tying into the college and the next step, we understand, a pedestrian easement or access way is required. It will go back to the surveyor, the surveyor will legally define an easement connecting the college to the retail center. And then as we detail that crosswalk, Evan pointed out some design criteria that he agreed to meet, in terms of pavement thickness. We're going to show lighting. Trash receptacles are a concern, we're going to provide those as well, list the safety... the blue light, those types of things. So that's something that's under way, probably sometime between now and final plan we'll have more information on that. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 12 And that's all I had on the connector walk. I think you want to touch upon stormwater and drainage real quick. Rudy Zona, RZ Engineering, East Syracuse I'm going to talk a little bit about stormwater, I'll try and ... after you guys had so much fun with the landscaping, I'll go into the boring engineering stuff. I'll try and. make this brief and quick... Chairperson Wilcox — No don't be brief and quick, be thorough. Mr. Zona — Absolutely. I'll do both. Stormwater, we have certain requirements by the State that if you disturb more than an acre of land you have to manage stormwater on the site. You cannot let more stormwater off the site under the proposed condition than already comes off under the precondition. So we've proposed a stormwater management system that is compliant with New York State DEC stormwater regulations. Those regulations give a certain list of best - management practices you can use which are designed to treat stormwater for 2 issues. One is quality the other is quantity. Stormwater quality has to do with road salt and other contaminants that come off of impervious surfaces created by development. The stormwater quantity is the increase in peak runoff that's created by creating impervious surfaces as opposed to having grasses and trees, which use some of the water. What we've proposed as part of this development... an outdoor portion for the water quantity, or the water quality, excuse me, and the water quantity is treated underground in that storage system that was already brought up by Mr. Bartellotti. This system is not a typical system. A typical system you'd see around the area would be an outdoor storage basin. The developer has chose to spend a little bit extra and go underground so he can maximize that space and use the elevation to his advantage. The stormwater, what will happen with this system is the stormwater will come in through a series of catch basins and pipes. Catch basins will have sumps in them, which is basically a space at the bottom to let silt and debris settle out before flowing in through the pipes and into the stormwater system. At the edge of each entry point into the... underground storage system there is a special kind of catch basin.which has a 90 degree elbow on it that will eliminate, or at least minimize the amount of trash or debris that can enter the underground storage system, since we want to try and keep that as clean as possible for maintenance. Out of that system, we'll flow into the water quality treatment area, which is the four - bay, which overflows into the water quality pond. This is also going to double as a nice water feature. There is a sitting area out here and the developer has chosen to put a, possibly a light, but a fountain in the thing to make it look real nice so that when you sit out there you are looking at something appealing. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 13 When this fills up, it will back up into the underground storage and essentially it works exactly the same as an outdoor pond would work. The only difference is, it is underground. The workings and mechanic, the hydraulics are all the same as it would be in an outdoor system. In an outdoor system you'd have the lower part of the pond that treats the water quality, which is this area, and then the higher part of the pond, the active storage we call it, which fluctuates during storm events. And that's what this pond under the ground would do. It would fluctuate and completely drain out into this part that then flows out to the main channel along DOT's right -of- way. So we've take some care and done some research. There's some different methods of doing underground storage. Some of them are what we've proposed, which is a storm tank type system. It's basically looks like a pedestal on the top, pedestal on the bottom, held up by posts. It's H -25 loaded, which means you can drive a tractor - trailer over this thing and it supports the weight. There's other types of systems like chamber systems and different things but, that's our, we've been asked by Evan to look into a whole bunch of those. At this point, we don't have any.. .we've chosen to present this option being that it's the smallest footprint that can come out of these things. This is roughly 30 x 80. Some of those chamber systems are the size...to give you the same amount of storage, which, since they have more capacity to be taken up by the stone, and they're smaller units, you'd have to be similar to a football field size for that type of footprint. We still need to look into cost. That may be cheaper: You can configure these things into L's or S's or all different types of shapes. So there's ways to do that but we feel, at this point, during the planning stages, that this is the way we have chosen to present. With that, if there are any questions... Chairperson Wilcox — Tell me about maintenance. Mr. Freeman — Maintenance. Maintenance in this type of system would be the same as in any type of chamber system. You'd use a pressure washer... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, use a pressure washer? Mr. Freeman — They have one's that they use for these types of underground systems. Basically it's on a cord and it's got a hose that's hooked to it and you put it in through one of these maintenance access catch basins that we've provided with the 90 degree down spots on them. You unscrew the 90 degree, you put this thing in there and let that roam around, pressure wash the bottom. Typically, we don't anticipate getting a whole lot of silt or debris in the bottom of this thing caught up, due to the fact that we have sumps in our catch basins. We've got 90 degree elbows on each of the entry points, so we don't anticipate that getting a whole lot of sediment in there. PB 4/3/07 Pg, 14 Chairperson Wilcox — The fact that you don't anticipate, doesn't mean that you don't have to plan for it. Mr. Freeman — Put it this way. You're correct. You're not going to get any system that's underground that's not going to get some type of debris or some type of silt in it carried by stormwater. With that said, there's ways to clean these things out and one of them is one of these vacuum, vacuum pressure washers. It's on a cord, it's done by remote control, and it wheels around in there like a little mouse and pressure washes the system out. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there a way to inspect the inside of the... Mr. Freeman — Absolutely. Each one of these is going to have a 36 -inch, you know, it's going to have a pretty good size hole on it so you can climb down into the*' maintenance catch basing. There'll be stairs in the catch basins that are OSHA required and all that kind of stuff and you unscrew the 90- degree elbow, you peak your head in there, you can shine a flashlight in there. This system will be all open, unless you're going down in there during a rainstorm when it's full ofwater. Board Member Conneman — Has this system been used a lot by other people? Mr. Freeman - It's relatively new, but there's also other types of systems that they have and most of these have been tried. It's based off of, you know how when you get a type of system and somebody takes it and takes it to a different level and improves it and this is an improvement off of a couple of different other types of systems that they've used in the past. Board Member Talty — In the Northeast? Mr. Freeman — Yes. Board Member Conneman — In Central New York? Mr. Freeman — I can't tell you yes for sure, in Central New York. But I know that in the Northeast and in Canada they have plenty of these types of systems that can... Board Member Conneman — So you don't have one in Syracuse? Mr. Freeman — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan. Comments. Other than what was in your written report?. Mr. Walker — Yeah, the maintenance is an issue. I think the proposal, the plan is to have most of the water go into the distilling of the four -bay first and a lot of the sediment will be settled out and then ... so the surface water will take most of the. sediment out and then it can flow back into the storage and the higher flow. Sot he PB 4/3/07 Pg. 15 amount of sediment would be (inaudible). There are ways to pressure clean and vacuum them out. I think I ... we will be looking very closely at the final designs of the accesses so we could get in. The Town has to clean out manholes and catch basins now and our storm drains and use a jet- washer and a vacuum system that we have. So there's technology to do that. Chairperson Wilcox —So the key here is for the applicant, the owner, to be able to access it and provide maintenance. If they do not, then, presumably, the Town at some... Presumably the Town would have the right to go in and inspect this. So you need access... Mr. Walker — Right, you need access to (inaudible). That will all be written up int eh agreement when they get the final ... at that time. Chairperson Wilcox — No red flags at this point then? No red flags, with regard to the system as proposed? Mr. Walker — No. I mean, I think the biggest red flag is the potential cost of it, in my mind, because the structures are a lot more expensive and they do provide a way to store stormwater where you don't have the surface space or the topography to do it. Chairperson Wilcox — Without looking at Evan directly, the cost of this is mentioned frequently, but I think that's just a means to maximize the square footage of retail space, commercial space on the land that they have available so ... You either have less commercial in order to have a detention pond, or you put the detention pond... Mr. Mokmeyer — Or you have a tank trap that's in the front of these things like every pharmacy around the Northeast you see. Where the debris collects and the garbage and trash from the neighborhood. Chairperson Wilcox — Understood. Questions with regard to stormwater management? Board Member Hoffmann — I guess my question would be, does everybody feel comfortable, including you Dan, that it's possible to work out some agreement between Mr. Monkemeyer and the Town about how this is going to... Mr. Walker — We have a standard stormwater management agreement, with the legal language in it, that makes the landowner the responsible person to maintain the structure. In case of an emergency, the Town would have the right to go in and do cleaning or do maintenance work on it and that cost would be charged back to the landowner and that's within the written agreement which we standardized. The thing that would be specific for this project would be listing the specific structures and what elements were part of it. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 16 Ms. Brock — And Eva, that agreement that Dan's referring to is one that he and worked on together with other Town Staff and it went to the Town Board and they actually approved that as the agreement to be used as the model. For developments. It's a standard, stormwater operation and maintenance management agreement. Board Member Hoffmann — And it would work with something a little unusual? Ms. Brock — Yes, it's adaptable to any type of stormwater facility that gets approved by the Planning Board. Chairperson Wilcox — What's....( tape changed) ...the risk is that, one is obviously, the cost of installation, but if it should fail or collapse or in some way cease to work, the cost to repair or replace would be significant. Mr. Freeman -- It would be the same as installing it, with, probably elevated a little based on years that its been in service and the cost of paving over the top of it and things like that, absolutely, but the cost would be Mr. Monkemeyer's. Chairperson Wilcox — I must admit that I like hiding the stormwater management and not having that pond sitting there.. I hope this system... Mr. Freeman — You will have a pond sitting there, it's a small one and... Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, yes, pardon me, I mean the smaller pond rather than the bigger one. My apologies. Anything else with stormwater? Traffic counts.:. Corey Green, SRF & Associates, Rochester I just want to give you an update from when we met last time. One of the questions raised was "Were colleges in session when we did the traffic counts!' I obtained the schedules for Cornell as well as Ithaca College and both of those schedules indicated that the colleges were in fact in session when we did our traffic counts. I know a question was raised by the Town Engineer and I think maybe another member on the Board regarding limiting the access onto Route 96B and as we said before, because this is a State highway, they control access on the highway to the parcel. Since we met last time, we did receive a letter from NYS Department of Transportation. In that letter they state that they are in agreement with the Traffic Impact Study that was provided. Meaning that they agree with the trip generation that we used. The trip distribution that we used, the capacity analysis, the levels of service and as well as the access points that we proposed cause in the traffic study, we looked at this as a full access on 96B and by saying that they are in agreement with the Traffic Study, they're in agreement with leaving that as full access. We also had follow -up conversations with Bill Eggholf at New York State DOT because this issue was raised with the Town regarding limiting this access to right out only and he said he didn't see any problem with leaving it as full access. There is sufficient sight PB 4/3/07 Pg. 17 distance from this driveway and we've moved this intersection, this driveway, as far away from the intersection as possible. I certainly understand the Town Engineer's as the Board's concerns and I think a perfect example is the hotel that's being constructed. Their access onto West King Road, because of sight distance limitations at the intersection, adjacent to that intersection, they have a limitation of no left turns out. So in a situation like that, you know, where sight distance is limited, I can certainly see limiting the access, but it is our opinion and I think New York State DOT concur with us that that access, being full access, should not be a problem. I think the only other issue that we had spoke about before was the pedestrian crosswalks and sidewalks and I'm not going to address that, I am going to leave that for Mr. Kerrigan to address that. If there is any other questions regarding traffic? Board Member Talty — We appreciate your thoroughness. Chairperson Wilcox — We should point out, I am sitting here signing forms for the students that are here, learning how government works, that we had a presentation about ... when were you here last? ... about 4 weeks ago ... where we had a much longer presentation on the traffic counts and the traffic study, that was done at that time. So for members of the audience, you may think that was kind of brief, but we have looked at this before in a previous meeting, what we call sketch plan review. Mr. Kanter — Just one follow -up question about the King Road access, has there been any word from the County yet on the configuration of that access? Scott Freeman, Landscape Architect, Keplinger Freeman Assoc., East Syracuse Yeah I did speak to...l have the correspondence in my notebook, but they were open to two exiting lanes and one entering lane, that wasn't a problem. Board Member Howe — This is just for my information, when DOT says a left -hand turn would be fine, do we go by that or if we have questions, that can still be addressed? Do they have the final say on that issue? Mr. Kanter — I think DOT has the final say on the way the curb cut is approved. You know, I think if the Board had some significant concerns with that left -hand movement, there could be further communication with the State but so far it doesn't sound like the State has indicated any significant concern with that. Board Member Howe — I think it is a concern but, you know, I'm not in a position... their the ones doing the studies, so I just wanted to say that I think Dan was right to raise it as a concern. Board Member Conneman — we can discuss it again, however, if the SEQR is approved. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 18 Board Member Hoffmann — I agree that that's a concern. Board Member Conneman — It's a concern to me too. Mr. Kanter — It's a question, I would say that's probably a final site plan issue in terms of working out final details. The traffic study itself is what you need to consider at this point, in terms of overall impact. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to say thank you to Jonathan Kanter for preparing a very, very thorough review of this very confusing project and addressing all the issues and adding all of the conditions that he has proposed adding. I think that it really helps us a lot. It helps me, for sure. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the traffic circulation at this point? We'll come back. ..the sidewalks, we're getting there, absolutely, sidewalks, ...we haven't talked about side walks and potentially non - vehicle circulation yet. Board Member Hoffmann —There is also this point that Jonathan brought up on the bottom of page 3 in his handout to us, it talks about this loading area that we need to consider too. In fact, they haven't really talked... Chairperson Wilcox — In fact that's made a condition of preliminary approval, yeah ... that there needs to be a ... Mr. Kanter — That is important because it would involve some modification of the parking layout as well because it will take some space, not a lot, but some. Mr. Freeman — I guess what's not clearly labeled on the plan and maybe this one is a little better ... If you look at L3, it is our intent that., start with a waste removal truck would come in off of King Road East, turn in, go straight to the north where we have a waste /recycling enclosure, he would back up, pull out and go back out King Road. A service truck, be it a 30 foot straight truck or in rare events, an 18 wheeler, 900 to that waste enclosure area adjacent to the building is a striped out area that's approximately 20 some odd foot wide, a large truck would come up down 96B, up King Road East, come in the entrance road and then they would back, they would be backing up towards the building to the west and there's a, we would sign this area as a no parking area, it would have the 450 stripes and no parking signs there, so that would allow service of trucks to unload and service those building and the architect is, you can see, there's a, we put deliveries would come in through this doorway and there is a long hallway within the building to serve the many tenants within the building. That was our design intent. As John mentioned earlier, one of the challenges is, we've provided three front doors and event he fourth side is, we think, is still an attractive section, if you look at the plans. So we put the waste enclosure in the service area in that we think is the best location. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 19 Chairperson Wilcox — Because the key will be servicing the restaurant I assume. Or the proposed restaurant. Or should there be a restaurant because I believe most food service... Mr. Freeman — Yes and Dal Pas has several options with how that would work. The movement of food, the storage of items, how you come in and out of the building, ,But as was mentioned earlier, you are getting one dumpster and one large service area as opposed to if this building was broken up, great, you'd have 4 dumpster enclosures, but you know what's behind all those dumpster enclosures and you can't see this, from here or here ... So it was challenging, but we think it's a good solution. Chairperson Wilcox — So, should, at some point, we get through it, for the benefit of the many people who are here this evening, this is, we are still doing the environmental review. Should we get through the environmental review we will then get onto preliminary site plan review and should we grant this plan approval, it will be preliminary and the draft resolution in front of us has 30 -odd conditions attached to it. Certainly one of those would be that this off - street loading /unloading area been shown on the documents so that they can be reviewed for suitability to ensure that trucks of the size that will be entering can in fact make those turns safely. Mr. Freeman — Correct. We will do that. Board Member Talty — Forty feet is the normal tractor trailer and cab for servicing a restaurant. Mr. Freeman — Yeah, your coming in, you got a double lane, you can do it. Chairperson Wilcox — Those are the food service trucks that I see going to local hotels and restaurants? Board Member Talty —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thank you. Should we move on to ... we have kind of touched visual impact, we started there, you want to go back to visual impact before we get to sidewalks? We talked a little bit about screening from the neighboring, excuse me, screening from the neighboring non - commercial areas. Personally I ... if the building looks like what's been presented and clearly the representation is the building will look like this, it looks a lot better than other commercial building in and around. We can look at East Hill Plaza for example. We could look at either the Plaza itself, we could look at the pharmacy across the street, this looks much more residential. The multiple roof lines ... Do you really want to screen it? Yes we need to provide a visual buffer with the neighboring zones which are residential and not commercial. But that's a visual buffer, it softens the view, it doesn't block the view. The issue is the height, I am a little bit concerned about the 40 -foot height that they are asking for, instead of 36 which is essentially the maximum that we can discuss PB 4/3/07 Pg. 20 when we get to sire plan. I think at Chase Farm we had this issue originally, it was one of the reasons they changed the zoning, with the pitch of roofs and the houses being higher than what the zoning allowed, at the time, and they eventually changed the height requirement, so, concern there. But visually I think we are moving along in the right direction to provide the plantings. The question is, is there a buffer zone, between the commercial and the non - commercial that surrounds it and that is one of the issues that Jonathan has addressed in his memo, that there seems to be insufficient buffer, given the zoning, if -I'm not mistaken Jon. Mr. Kanter — In the zoning, again the question of the environmental or the visual impact is a different issue, but yes, in terms of zoning, the buffers do not meet the letter of the law. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, and we can either say that's okay, with a recommendation or we can... Ms. Brock — Well, actually, they have an application in to the ZBA on that, so that's an issue for them to consider. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, the ZBA would consider, we should either make a recommendation or not make a recommendation, I think, to the ZBA, that would be appropriate. Very often we make recommendations to them. They are an independent body and they will act independently but we can recommend. Ms. Brock — But this Board's consideration should focus on site plan approval criteria and special permit approval criteria which do include things such as ... adequacy, types and arrangements of trees, shrubs and other landscaping including those onsite and those constituting the visual and /or noise deterring buffer between the applicants and adjoining lands, and compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood, including protection of adjacent properties and the general public against noise glare unsightliness or other objectionable features. Those are two of the many criteria that are set out in the Town Code as site plan approval criteria that you are to consider. Board Member Conneman — So we can vote for the S.EQR but still come back to that. Ms. Brock — Under SEQR, the standard is for a significant adverse environmental collectively makes that determination then impact statement is necessary. You can, for a significant adverse environmental im criteria, and propose changes to the plan. that imp that as a pact if you believe that there is a potential act, you would then, if the Board would indicate that an environmental Board, find that there is no potential but then you can still consider these Chairperson Wilcox — And mitigate as appropriate to lessen ... PB 4/3/07 Pg. 21 Ms. Brock — Right, changes to the plan and when I say these criteria I mean the site plan approval criteria and the special approval permit criteria... George, do you understand what I said? So if this Board neg dec's the SEQR, you still look at these criteria and can make, impose conditions to address these issues that are implicated. Board Member Conneman — That's what I wanted to know. So we can still deal with the visual impact. Ms. Brock — Yes. There is no significant, no potential for a significant impact, but you may still feel there is an impact, not significant, but an impact that you feel should be addressed as you apply these criteria. And you've done that many, many times. That when you have neg dec'ed something, I mean, every project of this magnitude. Where you've neg dec'ed it, you have imposed criteria, many, many times that address these criteria. Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to say something about the visual impacts, relating to what you said Kevin, and that is, if one were to plant something like a row of evergreens right against the boundary to the Montessori School, one would block off any view of anything toward the west and the north, maybe a little bit too, and I don't think that's what one wants to do. Many people object to seeing cars in parking lots more than seeing buildings, as long as the buildings are fairly attractive. Ugly buildings one can do something about by planting things along the ground next to the fagade to sort of soften up the impact of very straight, big surfaces. But this building is not going to have that. So, if you remember when we were talking about the parking lots at PRI, you didn't even have to ask for plantings to block the cars ... the berms, just the berms blocked the.view of the cars from the road. So in fact, in a case like this one, if one plants things closer to the buildings and close to the parking lots but toward the Montessori School side, one can, even with shrubs, block out the view of the parking lot and I must say I prefer rather than having rows of even plants, I prefer a varied landscape of plants, trees and shrubs mixed. Evergreens mixed with hardwoods, and I think that's what, I think they have understood that that's what we would like to see and I think that's what they would like to do too. Board Member Talty — Well, I concur. I think I was just trying to articulate more of what George was trying to say. I understood their point and George's point but my whole thing is there is a I significant drop off, similar to PRI, and I concur with what you're saying about having parking that was well designed so you can't see it. Not only with the berms, but also the different levels of parking at PRI. Board Member Conneman — I didn't say I wanted a row of trees, Kevin. I said I want it to soften the visual impact. Chairperson Wilcox — what other subjects do we want to go to right now. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 22 Board Member Howe — Sidewalks. Chairperson Wilcox — Sidewalks. Absolutely. Who's going to handle sidewalks? Jim Kerrigan, Esq., West Seneca Street, Ithaca Question for the Board if I may ... Does the Board wish to address the sidewalk and pedestrian access question as part of SEQR or as part of the site plan discussion? I'm happy to do it at whatever meets with the Board's preference... Okay, I will try and address both very briefly. The applicant has proposed constructing and has laid out a 630 -foot sidewalk from the north boundary of the project College Circle which then connects to Ithaca College. The developer is prepared to add another 120 feet for a total of 750 feet of sidewalk, which would be across the eastern boundary of the project which would take that walkway all the way to King Road. The proposal of the Staff to require, apparently in addition to that, sidewalks along Route 96, is something that we disagree with quite a bit, both for construction and for planning purposes. For planning purposes, we're very concerned that if a sidewalk is built along Route 96 that we will be, if you will pardon the word, dumping pedestrians into a 50mph state highway at the southerly boundary, at the northerly boundary of the property, whether it be at the Silos or at the College Circle project. We would suggest strongly that the sidewalk, 8 -foot wide, not required by an ordinance, will address all north - south traffic to the north of the project far more effectively and a far safer environment for pedestrians rather than bringing them, we would suggest, too close to a fairly high -speed highway in terms of what's happening there. So we would ... weIre surprised to see a proposed resolution requiring sidewalks along Route 96. Also, staying with Route 96 a little bit, the question as to the location of those sidewalks becomes an issue. The property line is 35 -37 feet from the pavement line. Normally one would think that a sidewalk would be built somewhat closer than 35 feet to the line of the pavement. There is a shoulder there. There is a stormwater ditch and then there is a stretch of land running up to utilities, which are shown on a number of plans including the water line and the Town sewer line. So construction of a sidewalk 35, 37 feet away from the pavement seem questionable. We would suggest and would like to suggest a different alternative which is why the reason the developer for a year now has been suggested taking that traffic away from the highway and move it some distance back where we think that the proposed sidewalk will pick up a 100 %, there is no such thing as 100% when it comes to pedestrians, we understand that, but 100% of the traffic, pedestrian traffic, whether that traffic is going to the Silos, College Circle or Ithaca College campus or where have you. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 23 In addition, we would suggest that while we recognize that the ordinance indicates that commercial developments will require sidewalks, unless this Board decides there is good cause to show otherwise, we would suggest that that alternative 750 feet of sidewalk, rather than 100 feet of sidewalk along 96B, is a far, far, better solution. The last issue in terms of the 96B sidewalk is the question of when we bring pedestrians to this intersection ... what are we going to do with them? We have the same problem as we have here. To bring them across. the street, across 96 and then across King Road to the hotel, which was the question, one of the questions on the King Road access which was asked when we were here last, will require State DOT pavement painting, State DOT light reconfiguration and State DOT pedestrian access buttons and I think it's going to require abutting owners of the other 3 corners of the intersection to build sidewalks. So I would suggest or I would question, if I were a planner, I don't pretend to be, the wisdom of bringing pedestrians to an intersection with no place for them to go. There is no safe way for them to cross King Road, it is almost impossible from the pitch to build something here that meets handicap accessibility requirements. The Sam Peter parking lot is something that I would almost be fearful of trying to climb up myself, today, let alone in snow or ice or let alone someone less able bodied than I think I am and throwing pedestrians or attracting pedestrians from the other side of Route 96, in the absence of an entire intersection plan, we would question it. We would hope that better planning or perhaps the pursuit of the ordinance which is apparently in draft form now, which we don't feel we should be bound by, in other words, we don't feel that the Board should impose that upon us, is there would be for the Town and the Board to do an integrated plan for the entire intersection, so that rather than dumping pedestrians at a fairly active intersection, that there would be a cohesive plan, contributed to by all four corners adjacent landowners, and we would hope that any resolution considered by you will not have any paragraph in it, as a condition, requiring 96B sidewalks, which we would suggest, the planning wisdom of which, we would question. We have some of the same problems with the King Road suggestion and requirement. The, without repeating them ... There's a photograph which I can circulate, if I may here, which is taken looking up King Road from the intersection. As you are standing at that intersection and looking u King Road, this distance, the distance shown in the photograph, from the pavement to the tree line and the tree line is pretty close to the property line, is 67 feet. The only way that the developer can build a sidewalk on his land would be to build a sidewalk 67 feet from the edge of the pavement. We're not sure that pedestrians are going to use it. The developer has no right to build either on that portion of the State highway land that goes, presumably, 50 or 100 feet up, it wouldn't be 50, 30 or 50 feet perhaps, up King Road, as they own the entire intersection. It would require the use of land owned by the County since King Road is. a County highway and the obvious place, if a sidewalk is to be built, I would suggest, is along the portion shown in the photograph PB 4/3/07 Pg. 24 there, fairly wide open piece of land at this point and we would suggest that it would be far better planning if that sidewalk construction requirement were part of an integrated plan for the entire intersection and would suggest that anything which draws pedestrians to an intersection where there is no way to cross a State highway, anything that draws pedestrians to a 50mph highway or to King Road, vehicles turning in the gravel, turning right on red on the gravel as they now do, may not be the best planning and would hope that planning, the best planning and the best environmental approach to the sidewalk solution would come back to that so it would be part of perhaps a sidewalk improvement district where all four intersections, 5 intersections if you include King Way and the convenience store which is. really part of this intersection, can develop an intricate, integrated way for pedestrians to cross the highway if they're so advised. The question that was asked when we were here last, or I asked a question when sidewalks came up as to where they were to be ... The question was addressed to us as to which sidewalk and the answer we received was King Road rather than 96. We don't think that the ... I think it's 60 rooms at the hotel, are likely to generate more than half a dozen crossing to the restaurant in the evening when traffic is a little bit lighter. We think, personally a little sadly, that it's most likely that most people will drive a car the 200 yards from a hotel to a restaurant across the street. We think that most hotel patrons will not be there at lunchtime, if the restaurant is serving lunch. We think that most hotel patrons will sample the many hundreds of restaurants in Town, although we hope that some will walk, visit the proposed restaurant in this site but we are very troubled by the concept of encouraging them to walk without a full compliment of safe routes. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, he speaks with a full voice and didn't need a microphone while he was doing that, we were picking him up just fine. Questions? Board Member Hoffmann — I guess first a comment and that is it sounds to me as if, when you were talking to us about not needing or maybe it even being a bad idea to have sidewalks along Route 96 and King Road outside Mr. Monkemeyer's land, it sounded as if you were assuming that all the traffic coming from the north from Ithaca College and the apartments would end right there, nobody would want to go across the street in any direction, to the west or to the south and I don't think that that's necessarily true when things are built out as they are planned to be. I think that people would maybe want to stop at Mr. MonkemeyerIs development as well as going across the street to the other three corners and that's why I think it's important to begin to consider putting in sidewalks to allow people to.do that safely. And of course it has to be something that has to be done not just by this developer, not just by Mr. Monkemeyer but the other ones too. We have already talked about the sidewalks that have to be put in near the hotel that Mr. Auble is developing and his future development, will also, I am sure, involve a request for sidewalks along King Road and Danby Road. And as far as creating crossings, that's something that has to be done together with other governmental bodies, the State and the Town and. maybe other ones too, I don't know. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 25 Mr. Kerrigan — We agree. I think that's the reason the developer has agreed to bring that sidewalk to the college all the way to King Road. We don't know what else the developer can do without involving other owners and other projects, but I think that all it can be hoped that this developer can do is to make that future hope, that we share, a possibility, by bringing pedestrians to King Road, the boundary of the property. If in the future there is a comprehensive sidewalk plan as the area builds out, to use your word, we believe that that 65 feet which the county and the state own which the Town would have access to that we don't, or our lands if the sidewalk were to be wisely built 65 feet from the pavement edge would be an appropriate solution. We're just uncomfortable with the concept of building that sidewalk now. The developer's willing to build a sidewalk on King Road. We're expressing some discomfort with the possibility whether it be me 60 years ago on my tricycle from the Montessori School down to the state highway ... or school kids with access to the school, which isn't part of the whole plan and where there is no exit. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. But one has to start somewhere. Mr. Kerrigan — Yeah and we agree. And we hope that this developer has done just that by this sidewalk and by the making of that kind of land available but don't know what this developer can do on the remaining 3/ of the intersection. Land is available for future construction as part of the comprehensive intersection sidewalk plan, which we would support and encourage, involving everybody. Hopefully with perhaps an improvement district so that everybody covers the cost. So, in a large part, I think we agree. Board Member Hoffmann — I would also think that it's not going to be "dumping" pedestrians onto a road... Mr. Kerrigan — Poor choice of words on my part for which I apologize. Board Member Hoffmann — I think pedestrians will be walking there whether there is a sidewalk or not and more so in the future than now. Things are going that way, so ... I don't really want to say any more about it right now but, I just wanted to be sure as somebody who looks at planning ahead for the future, that we are not just looking at this one corner and people coming and going from this one corner. Mr. Kerrigan — Agreed, wholly and that's why. .'we think there's room for the future. Participation in the plan addressing the whole intersection. Mr. Kanter — Just to mention for the record, we did get a letter from the State DOT dated March 20, 2007, saying that, among other things, given pedestrian activity in the area and the recommendations of the Town's Transportation Plan, sidewalks along both East King Road.and.NYS Route 96B /Danby Road would be appropriate. And we also received a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning, PB 4/3/07 Pg. 26 and the Commissioner of which is also the Joint Commissioner of Planning and Public Works for the County, in a letter dated March 22, 2007, part of that indicates that "to better facilitate pedestrian access for other current and future residential neighborhoods, we still suggest .that you require additional pedestrian sidewalks connecting the interior of the site along the access driveway and along the perimeter of the property adjacent to Route 96B and East King Road." And we do understand that State DOT has been asked about the possibility of a pedestrian crosswalk at the King Road /Danby Road intersection and they've indicated that they would be willing to work with the Town and the developer on doing that and that they think that would be a good idea to do that. Given the letters from the State and the County, I think the question of using either State or County right -of -way lands is an issue that certainly has to be worked out, but it sounds like both are receptive to the possibility. Chairperson Wilcox — Did the State, I have the State letter in front of me, but did they indicate in any way what type of crossing they would be comfortable with across Route 96B? We're talking just striped or are we talking.... Mr. Kanter — I don't know yet. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Kanter — That would obviously be up for further discussion and as Mr. Kerrigan indicated, you know, a lot of detailed design would have to go into that. Chairperson Wilcox — the County has indicated, in some cases,.a desire for, well we saw it on Pine Tree Road, with the different color brick use, which... Mr. Kanter — Well, what was actually installed there was not... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, you're right, I don't want to go there, Mr. Kanter — Was not supposed to be put there and has not worked well so that is not a good model to use. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, no, that's not. Okay. This is something we have to, certainly, decide amongst ourselves when we get to site plan. The issue of sidewalks. The way that I have been thinking about it is where are the. pedestrians likely to come from and how can we safely ensure that they can get to the site and then back to whence they came. Frankly, I am going to tell you something else that's run through my mind. Having lived off of Coddington Road for nearly 20 years, one of the things that I am very aware of is students walking along Coddington Road who are not in full command of their faculties. At 1:00 in the morning or 2:00 in the morning, especially when it's warm out. And the issue that I am thinking about is do sidewalks serve another purpose in this area where you PB 4/3/07 Pg. 27 have students, not necessarily ones who live at College Circle, because the applicant has very nicely proposed a sidewalk to get them over to the site, whether to.go to the ATM or whatever, but if you have other students or young adults in this area walking along 96B, do we want to provide a sidewalk for them? For safety? Or do we not want to provide a sidewalk because maybe we don't want to encourage them to walk along 96B if they've been out enjoying themselves... Some of the issues that have been. going through my mind. Young people drink, unfortunately, they drink to excess sometimes and I've seen it and though I applaud the colleges for trying to deal with the issue, nonetheless it is a problem and having young adults walk along Coddington Road in the.middle of the night is bad enough with.the speed limit at tat part is posted as 30, here we're posted at 50, right at this intersection, at the current time. Board Member Hoffmann — I think that it might be better to have them walk than drive. Chairperson Wilcox — I know, I know, and I'm not too sure whether or not I am going too far afield at this point but I am concerned for pedestrian safety in this area. I appreciate the sidewalk that is being proposed from College Circle. There's a significant density of students living there. There are even more students who might be visiting friends who go to use a restaurant or an ATM machine or some other convenience and keeping them off the road, one of the questions in my mind is, has the applicant mitigated the need for sidewalks along East King Road and 96B by building that sidewalk? Is that where a significant number of the walkers and potentially bicycle riders who will visit the site will come from? Something to think about when we get to it but some of the things that I am thinking about. Board Member Hoffmann — Whether they come from there or not, that walkway would be available to the public so people who come from other areas could choose, I would think, to walk that way through Ithaca College campus and through that apartment complex and up, rather than walking along 96 or King Road... Board Member Conneman — Students tend to walk in straight lines and Evan's got a straight line there. Chairperson Wilcox — Nonetheless, I don't want to discount the two letters that Jonathan referred to from the County Planning Department, specifically Ed. Marx who interestingly enough is the Commissioner of Public Works, as Jon pointed out and from the State Department of Transportation, both recommending sidewalks along the public highway. Board Member Conneman — But I do think we have to look at a comprehensive plan for that intersection. Chairperson Wilcox — The problem is we as a Planning Board look at the parcel before us... PB 4/3/07 Pg. 28 Board Member Conneman — I know, I know that but we can add pressure in other ways. We have attorneys and planners and everything else. Chairperson Wilcox — And they have attorneys and planners and everything else. But understand, we are obligated to look at this particular parcel. Evan Monkemeyer, King Road East, Ithaca If I could just, I just wanted to add on your point that now this will make the last fifth corner complete in that neighborhood commercial zone and the Town really does need to look at all intersections, all roads, and connect them so that they do connect with walkways, with pedestrian walkways that work. If there are elevation problems, you gotta deal with it. If you need the traffic signals changed or you need these devices, push buttons, to get across the street ... you know, it should all be coordinated as one and then maybe some kind of special assessment district like you do with water and sewer�or new sidewalks or lighting districts, and everybody pays their share, that was our idea. Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, I Want to take a minute ... We have Ithaca College scheduled this evening and you have been sitting there very patiently as have members of the public ... We are still doing the environmental review, if we get through that, then we are going to get to the site plan review and the public hearing. I wonder if it is reasonable at this point to tell our friends from Ithaca College and also any neighbors who may be here that we thank you for sitting here quietly but at this point, I can't, it's unlikely that we would get to you at a reasonable hour, which is 10:00. So ... it could be a short item, that's the other thing, is ... that bothers me ... you Ire making faces... Mr. Kanter — I just don't know ... I don't have any real... Chairperson Wilcox — Richard, I thank you but I think it might be best to bring you back at the next meeting, even though you are paying David Herrick to sit there ... no ... no, I think that's the reasonable thing to do. I think we are going to be hard pressed to be done by 10 at this point. Alright? And to Mr. & Mrs. Rogers as well, I know you are here as well and we will continue on with this ... Can we schedule Ithaca College for the next meeting? Mr. Kanter —Yes, Chairperson Wilcox — We can put them on the next meeting? Mr. Kanter— Sure, sure. Why not. Chairperson Wilcox — At least I got you out of here now instead of later. For those people who have been sitting. here patiently with regard to Ithaca College, the. agenda item was simply to schedule a public hearing to consider the draft scope PB 4/3/07 Pg. 29 outline. So, I thank you for sitting patiently but this has taken longer than we had anticipated, so we will see you back in 2 weeks. Thank you David. Evan, back to the matter at hand. Other aspects of the environmental review. At this point, I mean, we could talk about lighting but we'll get to that at site plan. Everybody is aware of the fact that... Board Member Talty — So I have a question with regard to this whole sidewalk.. On the current applicant versus a comprehensive plan. Are we diminishing or removing that from the current application or are we keeping it in the current application..] guess I'm a little confused, I need some guidance on that. Chairperson Wilcox —.The applicant has proposed no sidewalks along 96B and East King Road, that's their plan. Mr. Kanter — Or has said they would be willing to do one on East King Road... Chairperson Wilcox — And they have said, both verbally and in writing, we have Evan's undated comments, where they would be willing to construct. one. We will certainly discuss that as part of site plan review should we get through the environmental review. Board Member Talty — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — I think we have left it unanswered for now, but we as a Board are going to have to answer it. Board Member Talty — We'll answer it in the next step. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, well that's what I think, as part of site plan review. Board Member Conneman — But certainly Fred, we have an example in the community. Lansing has somehow pulled off, in my view, all of that development along North Triphammer Road. It's amazing to me because I thought when they started that that was going to be a disaster and they'd be killing people daily ... But seriously, they have really pulled that off somehow. I don't know what the cooperation is with the State or the Village or the malls or anything else but they did it. Chairperson Wilcox — Point being... Board Member Hoffmann — And there are people walking on those sidewalks. Board Member Conneman -- There are people walking on them and I think we have to think about that in this process. How do we get something comprehensive that works. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 30 Board Member Talty — That's right. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. Board Member Hoffmann — By the way, the people who come and go to the Namgyal Monastery might very well do it on foot. I don't know if they have cars generally, but they would probably really benefit from having sidewalks to get to the monastery. Chairperson Wilcox — It doesn't get them to the monastery though. Board Member Hoffmann — No, they would have to walk on the shoulder for quite a bit of the road but where there are sidewalks at the intersection, they'd help. Chairperson Wilcox — Speaking of sidewalks... has anybody ever driven from 96B from the City limits going towards Ithaca College, going south, and seen the students walking along Route 96B, in the evening...yeah ... you ever wonder how dangerous that is ... Sometimes they are on the shoulder on the west side of the road but sometimes they are walking on that hill there on the grass along the east side and you know they're not more than 3 or 4 feet from the road and they can slip, just... Board Member Conneman — Students believe they're immortal. Chairperson Wilcox — Young people believe they're immortal, we all do, we all did. Okay. Any other... Mr. Kanter —But we're not young anymore. (laughter) Chairperson Wilcox — Speak for your self, sir (laughter) Alright, any other environmental issues, concerns that we would like to bring up at this point that either we haven't talked about this evening or at a previous meeting? Board Member Talty — I would like to say something. Given that we are going to have a bank, it is my understanding, through my wife, may I add, that there are certain security measures that need to be enacted at drive -thru's and ATM machines that have to have tremendous amount of lighting. I do believe there is some type of ordinance law, etc. about that. So I am concerned about the lighting for the ATM or the drive through of the bank and the neighbors on that side of the, on the north side of the plan. Do you want to address that. Mr. Freeman — I have been involved with some other projects that have had banks and you are right. The ATM's in banks have to be very well lit and there is a certain foot - candle requirement. The lighting itself that we are working with, our preliminary plan said when you get your final arrangement of tenants, we will fine tune the PB 4/3/07 Pg. 31 lighting. We're still working will Dal Pas Architects to work, to accentuate the architecture, you know, we don't want to put poles right up on the building ... We will have lighting that will accentuate the architecture as well as provides the safety and security measures. With that being said, the drive -thru will have down lighting, the ATM will have, I think it's a, I'm not a lighting consultant, but your typical big box parking, that's probably a magnitude, they measure light in 1 — 2 foot candles, I think with ATM's it's a lot higher than that. We have, I don't know if Ithaca has any standards, but there are some national standards that our lighting consultant will adhere to. Board Member Talty — It just seems to me that all the banks in the area, they all have different lighting. Like for example, on Triphammer Road, Tompkins Trust on one side of the street and M &T on the other side of the street, the illumination is completely different. Mr. Freeman — there are different ways to achieve the same results. It's just like landscaping and there are different interpretations to what a buffer is. With. lighting, if you meet the math with foot candle, you can change building heights, you can accentuate things, you can choose different types of colors, filters, directional lighting, accent lighting. The bottom line is it has to have a certain candle level which our consultant is basically a lighting vendor and he is fully aware of and... Board Member Talty — I would just hope that the light would go back at the building and not away from the building. Mr. Freeman — That's the goal. That building, I think it is a great design opportunity to showcase that vestibule. Chairperson Wilcox —Good point, actually towards, right. But... The light in the East Hill Plaza lot shines Mr. Kanter — Remember it didn't used to though. Chairperson Wilcox — It didn't used to, that's correct, and that was. a real problem. I am also trying to remember, when the M &T, when the light at the M &T Bank on Triphammer Road, which is in the Village of Lansing, was first put in, that one was problematic, I think, at first. You compared it to the Trust Company across the street. Board Member Talty — If next time you drive down Triphammer Road, notice that the lighting from the one structure is completely different than the M &T structure. The M &T is double or triple lit compared to the Trust Company. Chairperson Wilcox — Presumably both meet some federal regulation that is... PB 4/3/07 Pg..32 Board Member Talty — M &T is probably helping the Trust Company, as a matter of fact, that's how much light is going out. I would just hope that you will take that under advisement. Mr. Freeman — Okay, (inaudible) ... lighting is good_, just like landscaping, too much can be ... we want to do it tastefully. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a comment about the lighting at East Hill Plaza, it certainly has improved with the new light that shines toward the building, for most people. But, I feel that for the two restaurants that are located in the building next to the bank, it's,. what is it, east of the bank, the light that shines toward the building also shines towards the spaces where people sit outdoors in warm weather to eat at those restaurants and that's not such a good thing, so I hope your lighting consultant will make sure that it doesn't create glare for anybody, including for your own tenants. Chairperson Wilcox — And that the consultant is aware of our Town regulations with regard to lighting. Right, there you go. Mr. Kanter — Although the federal standards for ATM's supercede the... Chairperson Wilcox — I understand, and I understand that, absolutely. Okay, is there any environmental issues we haven't touched yet? Have we missed anything, Jon? Mr. Kanter — I don't think... Board Member Hoffmann — There was something about wall signs, but I don't know if that's environmental so, yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, I wanted to mention, someone mentioned the fence for screening... who mentioned the fence for screening... yeah. And you mentioned it as though it was something that you were going to do ... is it on the plans? Mr. Freeman — It's on the plans.. Mr. Kanter — I don't think any of us could find it... Mr. Freeman — It's on the layout plan, it's not detailed yet, but I believe it's on the layout plan. Board Member Hoffmann — What's that number? Mr. Freeman — It's called a privacy fence, on layout plan L #. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan found it, I'm happy. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 33 Board Member Talty — It's in the middle. Chairperson Wilcox = Yup, okay. Mr. Freeman — We also provided, not to go too far back on walks, we provided an asphalt walkway connecting the crosswalk from the retail center to the studio apartments. That was another provision that Evan wanted us to add to the property to promote... Chairperson Wilcox — From his own commercial to his own residential, right. Okay, that's fine, no that's fine, for the record, it's to his own property. Ms. Brock — Fred, in the same vein, somebody mentioned a fountain in the retention pond. Is that on the plan? And will the fountain be lit? Mr. Freeman — Rudy will do that one. Mr. Zona — For some of these ponds, sometimes they do put what's called a, they call it a ... I forget what the technical name for it is, but it's basically a solar powered fountain which circulates the water and keeps pond scum and things like that down and they're very cheap but they are very effective and you know it is going to be a feature that you are going to be looking at so I think Mr. Monkemeyer is going to dress it up as best he can to make sure that it is very attractive. Ms. Brock — Is that shown.on the plans anywhere? Mr. Zona — No. Ms. Brock — That's something that would need to be put on there. Mr. Zona — But I do believe that on our final set of contract documents there is notes that spec out what will be required in that aspect, yes. So as the plans that are up here, I'm not sure that it has it ... If you have a set of details in that package... Chairperson Wilcox — Your voice doesn't carry like Mr. Kerrigan's, you're going to have to use a microphone. Mr. Zona -- The final plans will have a cross section of the basin and what's included in it, in addition to, actually it might even be on that sheet there, there are some notes... Chairperson Wilcox — Which sheet number? Mr. Zona — I'd need to look for it. Ms. Brock — And are there plans to light the fountain? PB 4/3/07 Pg, 34 Mr. Zona — I don't think so at this point. It's an option that we are playing around with, we haven't decided whether to light the pond yet. Ms. Brock — Similarly... Chairperson Wilcox — For now the answer is no... Mr. Zona — That's correct. Ms. Brock — Similarly, the extension of the walkway all the way south to King Road, is that shown on the plans? No, okay. Board Member Talty — So no Bellaggio light show, miniature ... (laughter) Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion on the environmental aspects? How do we feel? Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that we have mentioned all the things that can be mitigated to some extent but not something that we would say is a significant impact. Is that fair? Chairperson Wilcox — That's the way I feel. I feel... actually I feel they've done a pretty good job so far, actually the devil's in the details, but, from an environmental concern, if there is an issue, I'm not sure of anything that can't be mitigated... that would make me comfortable, at this point. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I don't have any problem either, except when I hear things like "for now" or you know, "we don't know yet ". Then I get a little worried because I think that something will be proposed for the final and... Ms. Brock — Eva, if that happens, there's a process this Board would reassess, .Let's assume that determination, the Board would have to reassess it in to determine whether a negative determination is s plan would. then receive a positive determination. So what they have here tonight. You will be reexamining Chairperson Wilcox — If it's a significant... Ms. Brock — If it's a significant change. in SEQR to deal with it where you give this a negative light of the changes to the plan till appropriate or whether the if they propose a change from the SEQR determination... Board Member Hoffmann — As long as everybody understands that. Ms. Brock — And I just want to clarify too, because we are discussing potential mitigations, if you find there is a potential for a significant adverse impact, then you. would need to give us a positive determination. If you say, well, it's potentially PB 4/3/07 Pg. 35 significant but we can mitigate it, so we'll neg dec it, the way to actually deal with it is through a conditioned neg dec so I think you just need to be clear, it sounded to me, the tenor of your discussion was there's no potential for a significant impact of the, there are impacts, they don't rise to the level of significance, but we nonetheless may try to mitigate those. That's appropriate to do, I just didn't want there to be any confusion about your process. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is what we usually do. Ms. Brock — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Mr. Kanter — Before we leave the environmental assessment form, I just wanted to make a quick reference to... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, thank you, I made a change to it... Mr. Kanter — Yeah and there are a couple of things in there that I think Susan noticed, but I just wanted to make reference to item #19 in the EAF Part II that talks about character of the existing community and we did include language in there indicating that the proposal appears to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Neighborhood Commercial Zoning and with the surrounding land uses in the area. Ms. Brock — And on page 5 of the EAF and this is in Part I, under letter B, (i), dimensions in feet of largest proposed structure, the height is listed as 36 feet and then in parenthesis, to be confirmed, the developer has indicated that the height is 40 feet, but I think you actually said plus or minus, is that correct? Mr. Bartelotti — Yes. Yes we did. It is 40 feet plus or minus right now based on the schematic designs we have. We think we can stay with in 6 inches of that and maintain 40 feet, commit to that. Ms. Brock — Okay, so that change needs to.be made on the form. Also, on page 8, of the Part I, on the bottom, C, the box for special use permit should also be checked as an action that's required. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else Susan? Ms. Brock — Nope, that's it. Chairperson Wilcox — I've made the changes on the original, dated and initialed. Any other discussion on environmental issues, concerns? Motion moved by Kevin Talty, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 36 ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB Resolution No. 2007- 034 SEQR — College Crossings Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Tax Parcel No. 43 -1 -3.2 Corner of Danby Rd. & King Road East Town of Ithaca Planning Board, April 3, 2007 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Eva Hoffmann, WHEREAS. 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed College Crossings Development located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -1- 3.2, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal is for a +/- 19,644 gross interior square foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail, commercial, and office space. The project will also include between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant occupancy), landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant, Scott L. Freeman, Keplinger Freeman Associates and James M. Kerrigan, Attorney, Agents, and 2. It has been determined that the above - described actions are Type I, pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148 — Environmental Quality Review, because the proposed action involves the construction of more than 100 parking spaces, and 3. In a letter dated February 27, 2007, the Planning Board proposed to establish itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - referenced project, and notified potential Involved and Interested agencies of its intent to serve as Lead Agency, and 4. The Planning Board, at its meeting held on April 3, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Part II of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed other application materials, including College Crossings Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by RZ Engineering, PLLC, dated 1/2/06; Traffic Impact Study for the proposed College Crossings, prepared by SRF Associates, dated December 2006; and a set of site plan and architectural drawings, entitled, "College Crossings — Preliminary Site Plan Review ", prepared by Dal Pos Architects, LLC, PB 4/3/07 Pg, 37 Keplinger Freeman Associates, and RZ Engineering, PLLC, all enclosed with Cover Sheet AO.1, dated 3/19/07, which includes L -0 through L -9 (revised 3/5/07), PL -1 and MP -1 (revised 3/5/07), and A2.1, A2.2, A2.3 and A3.3 (no date, date stamped received 3/20/07), and 5. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - described proposal, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation .Law and 6 NYCRR Part, 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Conneman, Hoffmann, Howe, Talty and Wilcox NAYS: None ABSENT: Thayer The Motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 9:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed College Crossings Development located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.2, Neighborhood Commercial and Low ' Density Residential Zones. The proposal is for a +/- 19,644 gross interior square foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail, commercial, and office space. The project will also include between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant occupancy), landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments, Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant, Scott L. Freeman, Keplinger Freeman. Associates and James M. Kerrigan, Attorney, Agents. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 38 Chairperson Wilcox — Questions of the applicant and his agent with regard to site plan ... or we can give the public a chance to speak? At this point they've been sitting very patiently and very quietly so I. am thinking that might be the best alternative. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you, publicly for being quiet and patient, we appreciate it. This is a public hearing, if you wish to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item , you know the drill, we ask that you give us your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. Hollis Erb, Ithaca I don't know if it's appropriate at this stage, but one of the things that we haven't discussed at all is what I would refer to as the driveway signs, the freestanding signs associated with the two driveways and any other position here and I am concerned about those, simply because I don't know anything about them and I've had the recent experience of what I think to be a very ugly driveway sign to have gone up with the new Rite Aid across from East Hill Plaza. You worked so hard on the building itself, but the driveway, that free - standing sign with ugly colors and plastic shiny stuff is awful. I would like. to hope that at some point you take that in to consideration for this project also. That said, I think this is a lovely exterior relative to the East Hill Plaza type of ugly little flat concrete strip and I think that that's really. attractive to look at and think that the developers efforts to put the parking that is on the east side below the sightline of the Montessori School was a very nice thing to have done. That was my understanding, was that the east side parking is below the sightline, when we looked at that one cross - sectional piece and that's all I wanted to say at this point. Thank you. Joel Harlan, Newfield I think it's a lovely idea. I'm glad I came to this meeting. Tomorrow night's Common Council. But, I like the idea of this. This is what we ought to have for businesses all around here. As for lighting and all that, I don't think it'll be much of a problem'.] forgot to tell you last time, Fred, I was here, You know the development of that Burger King up at East Hill Plaza... Chairperson Wilcox —Joel.. I Mr. Harlan — I'm talking about light. They told me, the management, they told me, because they had to stick their sign in the back facing the plaza, to go for getting that development for the soccer fields and stuff, and the lights. They wanted the lights in there so there would be no upsetting the neighbors because there's not much light around Burger King but there is light that's gonna bug them at 9:00 at night because in the fall it get's darker earlier. And they said, Joel, work on getting them fields in there with a light. So I worked on it and I'll get it approved. But businesses like this ... that's good. It needs walkways up and down by College Circle apartments and PB 4/3/07 Pg. 39 stuff. And I don't know about the other one up at Triphammer Road. You can see Hanshaw Road. I know they been working on that. What Community Corners aught to do is put lights down there, directional lights... Chairperson Wilcox — Joel... Mr. Harlan - ....cause .it's a jam with 5, 6 roads coming at you. And when it peak, when Cornell lets out, it's.. you almost have to ram into somebody because it's just traffic going different directions. They need to work on that as well as the sidewalks you plan on doing because I read that in the paper. So I'm real advanced on what's going on. I'm trying to do one thing ... Like Fay and I, we got so many issues. That we need to address it. Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, any other comments on this proposal? Mr. Harlan — No, no, you know, I like it, you know. Do what you gotta do to make improvements if it means money. If you just deny it, you're gonna lose that money. It brings in cash. You know, the more we get businesses like this, that takes the taxpayers' dollar down, you know, and brings money in. That's what you need. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm a very patient person, but you're testing me know. Mr. Harlan — That brings in moola, cash... Chairperson Wilcox — Are you done? Are you done? Mr. Harlan — Cash. Yeah. It's a nice building. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Mr. Harlan — I'm waiting for the next week Chairperson Wilcox — Come on back. Mr. Harlan — That's like, that athletic field. Chairperson Wilcox — Come on back. I want to go for this. Mr. Harlan — That's what I want to work on. Too bad we can't get something like that downtown for our own civilians, for our own citizens. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Joel. Andrea, do you want to speak? PB 4/3/07 Pg. 40 Andrea Riddle, Montessori School on King Road I'm delighted by the design and the thought that Mr. Monkemeyer has brought to this project. But I just want to say, again, in front of the Board, that there's only been one mention of the school and we are the largest neighbor, a school of 200 and I just want to be sure that the children's safety is in everybody's mind as we move through this process. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have concerns for the children right now? Ms. Riddle — My concern is just that there's enough differentiation between the two properties. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Okay. Thank you. Chris Hodges, Saunders Road Issue of sidewalks. I do agree that there needs to be a comprehensive analysis of it done. To single out, just because they're the last parcel there, to have to impose putting sidewalks in, I think, is a little onerous. And plus, also, what if he put a sidewalk in sometime and then he decided to do the planning and say, "Well, you know, we really should have done this with it instead of that..." and then expect him to have to foot the bill to undo what he did because that's what you wanted him to do in the first place. And if you talk about pedestrians, there's. a lot of potential pedestrian traffic east of the development up East King Road and the residential establishments there. And I think a destination, when you talk about sidewalks, you need to think comprehensively about that as well. Because now, having a destination and things to do, it gives people a reason to walk and go down King Road and do their shopping and give them a chance to go out and do something rather than driving their car down and do it. So I think when you look comprehensively you really need to look at where you want to draw and encourage people to walk and so approach that as more of a comprehensive plan. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Chris. Anybody else? Mrl. Auble? You can say no. Dave Auble, West Kind Road I live probably 200 feet from this development and everything I have seen in terms of the planning by the developer seems to be well done. And I think it's going to be a welcome addition to the community and should alleviate a little bit of the traffic up and down the hill, which I think everyone is starting to agree that not only Aurora Street, but Stone Quarry Road is really heavily traveled and this should alleviate some of that traffic. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I ask you a question. Let me, say you don't have to answer it. When the hotel was approved on part of the land that you own, you left a roughly 2 acre parcel to the south available. Was it your intent to put a restaurant in? Does this change your plans? PB 4/3/07 Pg. 41 Mr. Auble — I really haven't progressed with my plan on that site because of waiting for the hotel to be complete and they are doing the entrance which also is the entrance to that other site and so I really have not made progress on ... concrete plans for that. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? There being no one else wishing to address the Board. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:40 pm and brought the matter back to the Board. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. Discussion? Sidewalks. Want to start there. Board Member Howe — That's a tough one because I think it's really hard to know what to ask when I really think it does have to be. looked at in an intergrative, comprehensive fashion with everything. So I don't know what to ask of this developer right now. Chairperson Wilcox — There is some merit to ... we pick on lawyers all the time, as Mr. Kerrigan saw, but you ... don't take it personally... but there is some merit to the comprehensive plan even though it was suggested by a lawyer and not a planner. The issue that I am struggling with though, is ... Let's look at Hanshaw Road right now, where the County has had meeting with both the public, with both representatives of the Town of Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga Heights, the Town has a desire to have a sidewalk installed at the same time that Hanshaw Road is, I don't want to say resurfaced, reconstructed from the Village of Cayuga Heights boundary to essentially the Town of Dryden line, I believe. But there's so much resistance from the part of the people that live there. From, I mean, some of it may be reasonable, some of it is certainly unreasonable, in my opinion, about having a sidewalk in front of their yard. In some areas they're common, in the City, you know, in those areas, which are reasonably dense and get some pedestrian traffic. Many people are just against sidewalks. Having said that, a comprehensive plan would involve the State and the County, we have a State highway and a County highway crossing there, with King Road and 96B and should some comprehensive plan develop, you know, how do we get all the landowners to agree, Without going through a long process that might involve eminent domain or something like that, which no one wants. Mr. Kanter —Susan can answer that. Chairperson Wilcox — But, yeah, go head. Ms. Brock —The Town has a sidewalk ordinance... PB 4/3/07 Pg. 42 Chairperson Wilcox — Yes it does. Ms. Brock -- ...that states the Town may adopt orders directing the owners of various parcels abutting Town streets or County or State highways to build and maintain sidewalks. Chairperson Wilcox — The Town Board can do that. Ms. Brock — Yes. The situation you raised, with Hanshaw Road, is a little bit different because there, the Town would actually own and maintain the walkway, and so the County is negotiating with the property owners to do that, where the walkway would be outside the County's right -of -way. Chairperson Wilcox — But the Town had an opportunity, because the County was planning to reconstruct the road, it gave the Town an opportunity to propose getting sidewalks in there. When will such opportunity happen... Ms. Brock — But the Town has chosen, with Hanshaw Road, to follow one, I hesitate to say "path", but, there is this other option in the sidewalk ordinance to actually issue orders saying, you know, you must, you build a sidewalk yourself, to the property owners and according to. our ordinance, they must do so. So I think your concerns.. 'There's just different ways ... the Town didn't want to do that in this case, because they were actually going to be building it themselves and owning it themselves. So that's why they didn't avail themselves of this other mechanism. Board Member Howe — So does that mean we make a recommendation to the Town Board that this be looked at comprehensively and then they would have the power, down the road, to ask the owners to do this? Ms. Brock — Yes. That certainly is something that you could do. Board Member Hoffmann — I would just like to bring up another example that happened some time ago and I don't remember which of you were on the Planning Board at the time, but, when Cornell University came in and wanted to redo the MapleWood apartments on Mitchell Street, between Mitchell and Maple Avenue, and update them, the Town proposed that a sidewalk be built from that project and up to East Hill Plaza. It ended up, there was a lot of resistance, at first, from the University, but then, with the cooperation of the Town, Cornell University and the owner of Ide's Bowling Lanes, across whose land this path went, to line up with the entrance to P &C and the East Hill- Plaza, got together and the sidewalk was constructed. And in that case, it actually connected up to sidewalks in the City of Ithaca, which was right near the MapleWoods apartment project.. But on the other end, there was nothing else, and you know, we could have said, well, there's no sidewalk to hook this up to so why should it be built. Well, I think it was decided that you have to start somewhere and it was done and it's very well used, and because it's now been extended to East Hill Plaza, after that, other sidewalk pieces have PB 4/3/07 Pg. 43 been built connecting up to this. And that's how it works. And I don't see anything wrong in trying to come up, together with Mr. Monkemeyer and his team, with a reasonable way of putting in a sidewalk that goes along either King Road or Danby Road, because most likely, there will be a sidewalk along one of those, even after a comprehensive planning effort. So what's wrong in having it now, already. It'll help the people who are walking there now and it'll get even better when it gets connected up with proper crossings and more sidewalks. Mr. Auble is already building a piece of a sidewalk as a part of his development. I just think the more of that sort of thing that we can get done, together with the development, the better. It's going to have to happen eventually anyway. Mr. Kanter — When I put in the resolution, sidewalk on 96B and King Road, I had no particular strong feeling about 96B. I was basically reflecting what I had heard, the tail end of the Planning Board conversation at the last meeting being, and then seeing the recommendations from the County and State. Having said that, I do think the proposed walkway that Mr. Monkemeyer is proposing to connect to College Circle and Ithaca College will go a long way towards taking the north -south pedestrian traffic and actually taking it off Danby Road, which I think is a good thing... Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I think so too. Mr. Kanter — However, I think the King Road sidewalk is an opportunity that the Board shouldn't pass up at this point, because it probably could serve as the best connection, and probably the only necessary connection for across Danby Road, which I think we will be able to work out with the State and we will need to work on that. And I agree, we shouldn't just have a sidewalk go to an intersection without some improvements and that's something we definitely will need to do. But also, the future extension of that sidewalk, eastward towards the Chase Farm, Deer Run, Saunders Road residential area is on the Town's priority list in terms of future sidewalks. Long -term, but, yes, definitely one of the long -term priorities. So, I would say, if we can get a plan from the developer, at this point, that shows a King Road sidewalk, bringing good, safe access from across 96B onto the site, I don't know that one on 96B would be necessary at this point. Board Member Howe — I could agree with that. Board Member Conneman — And I think that, when I am no longer on this Planning Board, I don't want people to say, what were guys thinking of. Not trying this, after Mr. Monkemeyer gave you a straight line down to King Road. I mean, it seems to me that we ought to try comprehensive planning because you guys have planned this. Seriously, and I can't imagine, Eva talked about this East Hill thing, I can't imagine that Mr. Monkemeyer are as difficult to deal with as Cornell is. So. U PB 4/3/07 Pg..44 Chairperson Wilcox — Should we mention signage and this Boards general take on signage? Conform to the zoning. Don't push the limits, because we are going to push right back. And my assumption is that the quality of the signage will match the quality of the exterior of the building. Yeah. We've had some developers recently who have pushed real hard on the signage and we've just pushed right back and said "No, zoning allows this and that's what you get and no more." And we've been pretty consistant on that in the East Hill commercial area within the Town. We may not like the way it looks sometimes, but, with the Rite Aid, they pushed and pushed and pushed and continually wanted more signage than allowed and we just said "No. What did you not hear when we said no. You will conform to the zoning ordinance." And that's what we got. And it's funny, Burger King was mentioned, Joel mentioned Burger King. Same thing with Burger King. Compare our Burger King to a lot of the other ones. You'll see that the signage is quite reduces, especially on the building. Board Member Conneman — And no red light. Normally they are around the top eve, that's just painted. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. There you go. So signage. Do we kind of have some agreement on the sidewalks? I like the way Jon stated it, that we have the, as shown on the plan, the crossing to. College Circle, which handles most of the ... which is gonna handle, I think, much of the north -south traffic, the question is the east -west traffic. Board Member Talty — My statement is, it was well articulated, given the amount of footage, from the applicant's property to the current asphalt of the current road, I don't have an issue as much as where to put it, because I don't fell as though they should put it way back away form the road because they're still going to cut across to cross the street somewhere. They're gonna cross King Road somewhere. So if you put it way back, I just feel as though... Mr. Bartellotti -- ...They're not going to use it. Board Member Talty — That's right. Chairperson Wilcox — I think the issue, and I think Jonathan Kanter sort of hinted at it, is that the County letter, from Ed Marx, recommending sidewalks, Ed Marx also serves as the Commissioner of Public Works, and therefore, there might be an opportunity,..l'm going to assume the County owns the land to the north of East King Road, adjoining Evan's property. Mr. Monkemeyer — That I'm not sure of. The State took that intersection in 1966... Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, as part of the truck turnoff and the reconfiguration... Mr. Monkemeyer —(inaudible) PB 4/3/07 Pg, 45 Chairperson Wilcox— Okay. But even the state has said that. ,.(tape change) It would certainly be advantageous to have the sidewalk along Coddington Road, along King Road East, where one would normally expect a sidewalk with enough room between the edge of the sidewalk and the pavement for pedestrian safety, for the snowplows to push snow, etc etc etc.... and not move it, I don't care whether it's 30 or 50 feet away from the road, if it's over there no one's going to use it. But that would be contingent upon getting the agreements with the State and /or County to construct such a sidewalk, or walkway, or whatever we want to call it. Mr. Walker — and historically, the State or the County does not have. a problem with the sidewalk in their right -of -way. They don't want to take care of it. Chairperson Wilcox — Right. And they don't want the liability. Mr. Walker — Right. So as long as the Town takes responsibility for it, in case in point is Route 13 by Buttermilk Falls State Park, when the State reconstructed that part of the road, the sidewalk was built between Buttermilk Falls Road and the City line and the Town basically took over that sidewalk, but we have an agreement with State Parks to maintain it, because it serves the State park, so, I don't think there will be a problem getting a sidewalk in the rights -of -way, as long as the Town supports it and sponsors it, basically. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Kerrigan, do you have a suggestion? Mr. Kerrigan — (inaudible) ... with that suggestion, if we can get Town and County and State cooperation agreement for the use of the lands, and if we don't run into the problem of what we do with the pedestrians when sidewalk ends and 96 starts. But the concept of that, we offered in our applicant statement, to deal with King Road as you suggested. Mr. Kanter — And actually, I think working on the sidewalk simultaneously with the crosswalk is the best way to do it because that will trigger the State to say yes, there's a reason to put this crosswalk here. Board Member Talty — That's a good one. Chairperson Wilcox — We comfortable with this one? Board Member Conneman — Absolutely. I don't know who gets all of these people together, maybe Jonathan. But that's how you do it. We ought to be able to talk to each other. Mr. Kanter — We can do that as a start, definitely. Chairperson Wilcox — Other site plan related details or discussion? Buffer zone? PB 4/3/07 Pg. 46 Board Member Talty — I have a question. My question is back to the sanitation for a second. Is each one of the customer or clients that you're gonna have, gonna have their own dumpster? Chairperson Wilcox — Unless it's Jim Kerrigan, you gotta come to the microphone. Jim speaks with a nice full voice. Or, or sit down with the wireless, either one. Board Member Talty — Community dumpster? Mr. Bartellotti — That's correct, for all of the tenants. Board Member Talty — That'll be interesting, when you sign the leases. Mr. Bartellotti — It's normally how we do it in retail. Board Member Tatty — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — You have some knowledge and experience here don't you? Board Member Talty — I do. It's just that everybody wants to pay for what they use and there's gonna be some people that throw away more garbage than others. So, that'll be very interesting in how you write the lease. Mr. Bartellotti — That's correct. That is one of the lease challenges but it part of the logic and we do that in many, many retail centers, especially of this size. Board Member Talty — Okay. Mr. Bartellotti — There may be several of them. One or two, depending on the barns and the actual tenant mixture that comes in, but we have the capacity to increase /decrease depending on what the needs are. Board Member Talty — Understand. Board Member Hoffmann — When we were on the dumpster area, I remember you were talking about using the dumpster area for a truck to pull into and then back out of for loading. Is that really going to be possible? Or is the dumpster area going to be moved? Mr. Bartellotti — Well, the dumpster area is in this corner right here, and the timing, and this is critical, we usually control the timing of when the pick ups are in retail, so we know when that is, we also control, when we have docks like this, the time of deliveries. We don't want them delivering when activities are really, heavy through here, so we control it, either at night or in the morning, very early, so we can do that. And we coordinate that so the dumpster pick up does not coincide with the retail. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 47 Board Member Hoffmann — But is there going to be room for a truck to pull in there, if people use it to dump their garbage? Mr. Bartellotti — Yes. There are several ways. The trucks can come in this way, they can come in this way and back up to this space right here, okay, which may block the access to the dumpster, depending on the size of the truck that's there, Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. I think I understand now. I thought that I heard that the truck would pull into the dumpster. .I Mr. Bartellotti — No, no, no,no,no. It would pull around, back up, it would be in front of it like this, and then pull out. So it's not simultaneous. Board Member Talty — I would just have to say, with regards to the dumpster and the smells that emanate from the dumpster, you have your path going right behind it. So, considering the wind, at that time of day, and they're walking down that path, it's gonna stink. Every dumpster space I have ever seen, smells. So that may be something for you to look at, with regards to your path going back to College Circle, Chairperson Wilcox — Is one of the issues the fact that there's food service? Board Member Talty — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that... Board Member Talty — There's no question. I. mean, there's not one dumpster in the whole Town of Ithaca that's well maintained, not one. But you can start. Mr. Bartellotti — That's right. And there's also enclosed, for the type or refuse for the restaurants, will be enclosed, sealed unit so you don't get that swill that's draining out. Many times they're throwing stuff into dumpster that they're not supposed to be putting that stuff, and we have to control that. We have this access in many retail centers because a lot of our dumpsters and our loading facilities are right adjacent to the mall entries, and we have the same issues there. So we have to be very stringent on how we do that, that's correct. Chairperson Wilcox — All right, a couple things, if I may, and if you think of something else you want to raise then...But I am looking at the resolution as drafted: One of the issues is the reduction in parking. Twenty percent, from 150 to 120. Issues, anybody? No, generally, we like to reduce the amount of asphalt required for the parking. Bear with me here just a second... Mr. Kanter — Yeah, there is a thing about the parking in the front yard... PB 4/3/07 Pg. 48 Chairperson Wilcox — The front yard, and that was just coming next. Does anybody have a problem with the design and parking in the front yard, which is normally something that we don't do? Okay. Yes. Board Member Talty — What's the dimension of your parking spots? Mr. Freeman — 9 x 20, 1 think we changed ... 19. Chairperson Wilcox — It's what, what do we require? 180 square feet? Mr. Kanter —180. Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, so it's either 10 x 18 or 9 x 20. Mr. Freeman — We changed them to 9 x 20 since the last ... That was another change we've made since the last meeting. It wasn't picked up in the last meeting, but we picked that up, but the change was made. Chairperson Wilcox —Was it College Circle that came in and got an 8 foot, did they get an 8 foot width? Mr. Kanter — I think they had to get a variance, but now we do have a provision where the Planning Board can modify that. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that's a little tight, frankly. That's door -ding city if you will. Mr. Kanter — but yeah, they did rescale them. Chairperson Wilcox — Pardon? Height? That's the Zoning Board. Mr. Freeman — these are all 9. Chairperson Wilcox — We also have special permit, allowing a building larger than 75,000 square foot and the part of the resolution as drafted, they come with that, the determinations that they make and we have to agree with or not agree with, as the case may be, as outlined in the further resolved a through 1. Just so, let me .make sure that I'm slear, and Jonathan, you and I went over this on the phone today, but let's make sure. As of right, 75,000 square foot buildings. commercial buildings. The one thing I like two, 10,000 square foot buildings, we've achieved the intent of zoning, which is to establishments. With special permit, 10,000 square foot about this proposal is instead of having essentially achieved, my opinion now, have smaller, neighborhood commercial PB 4/3/07 Pg. 49 One of the issues that I brought up with Jonathan on the phone, that I was thinking about and I will bring it up now is, It would be possible, I guess, at some future point in time, that this could wind up to be a 19,000+ square foot establishment. That's never say never, but that's possible. That it could be a single entity renting the entire inside. It could be 10, 20, 30 years from now. I'm not sure that's something we want, something I want. Because the intent of zoning here, the way it is zoned, is to provided smaller commercial, potentially other uses, but smaller, commercial, venues and not a 20,000 or 19,600 square foot ... So I was thinking about, could we put something in to he resolution that recommended that the Zoning Board, possibly, you know, put a condition on that no single use, no single use within the building occupy more than 10,000 square feet or something like that? That's what I ... Jonathan came up with that and I thought it sounded good. Cause it went to what I was looking at. Now, clearly, I'm going to see something over here. Are you intending on a client occupying more than 10,000 square feet? Mr. Monkemeyer — Don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — Because the zoning, the intent was not to go above 10,000 square foot in any building which is a way to limit a retail establishment to less than 10,000 square feet or no more than 10,000. My concern is that we could wind up with a mini Tops, or ... I forget what they call them now, but I would like it to continue to be small retail, which is the intent, and not wind up, down the road, with one 20,000 square foot business establishment, which is not the intent of zoning. But by giving them the opportunity to build this as one building, we presented the opportunity to have a one tenant occupying 20,000 square feet. Board Member Hoffmann — And if I can add something to that. The reason for wanting to do that was again, to plan better, so that there would be places which people in the general area would be able to use, that would be of service to them, so they wouldn't have to drive downtown or across town for most things they need. But they would find basics in several different businesses in this general area. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody have a counter argument to where I'd like to go with this? Board Member Howe — No. Board Member Conneman — No, I think that's great. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, Susan gets to earn her money now. (laughter) Anything else? Board Member Talty — How bout submission of materials Fred. We always like to touchy feely, what's the true color of the siding? What's the true color of the roof tiles, things of that sort. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 50 Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I think that was in here. Board Member Talty — I just want to make sure that's included. Chairperson Wilcox — Let's make sure everyone understands. I think Evan's aware, having been before this Board before ... In granting preliminary approval, we are essentially saying to the applicant, you are hereby granted the opportunity to build this, assuming you meet all of the conditions. I'm hard pressed to think how this Board could deny the applicant final approval if they met all the conditions. Something would, there would have to be some drastic change, or maybe there was new information that wasn't available before. But we are in essence saying you can build this, you just have to meet all the conditions. I'd clearly like to come back and show us ... I like to know what color the roofs are going to be... and don't come back and say, well, we're still architecting it and ... Yeah, that's when we get to the nifty -gritty and that's when we want to hear those details, and have the site plans and all the drawings finalized. Mr. Kanter — I think condition s has all that in there. Chairperson Wilcox You want to, read that for me so I don't have to find it here. Mr. Kanter — "submission of detailed building elevations, including colored renderings illustrating the specific colors and materials of the buildings and labeled with accurate dimensions of the building." Because that wasn't on the preliminary. Also, I added, we did see this drawing, AP 1.1, that I thought was very helpful, and submission of that as a formal document, would be helpful. Chairperson Wilcox —Which one is that... Mr. Kanter — On the easel there, which we did not previously received, but if that's basically what the building is gonna look like, I think it's helpful to have that in the submission. And then on signs, we had... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, we'll get to that. Board Member Talty — So just the way I read that, that's not what I was saying. What I was saying was swatches. You know how we have had people bring in bricks, we've had people bring in roof tiles, we have a light back there. That's... Mr. Kanter — We usually don't put that in resolutions, but that's something you could certainly ask the developer to do. Board Member Talty — We like swatches, okay, because more often than not, renderings like that are never what is built. PMS colors on a br own ... there's 50. browns on a PMS chart. We like to see exactly what's being built. PB 4/3/07 Pg, 51 Mr. Bartellotti — And that's exactly the next step we have to do. We need this approval, knowing we're moving ahead with this so we can say, great, now we need to do some design development work with this design and that is all of what you just mentioned. That takes a little bit of time before we can do that. Board Member Talty —.Yup, we know that. Board Member Hoffmann — I have one additional question. I see the sheet with pictures of the lights, it looks like pretty much the same as last time. Are you still committed to these, what I call, Darth Vader lights? Mr. Freeman — I will pass that comment back to our rep and we will see what else we can come up with. As John said, he's going to get into the design of the building. You can't design one without the other. We're not going to design lights before we have a building and with all those recesses and detail they have in the building, we need to have the lighting consultant look at those recesses, look at the entrances, look at the bank, look at those tenants, so, that's what we will be looking at. Board Member Hoffmann — And we would like to see... Mr. ..Freeman — We'll bring cut sheets, we'll bring a revised lighting photometric plan with the ... that meets the Town and federal standards for lighting, that will all come. Like John said, it's sequencing. We need to get through all this to see if we're all okay with his layout, then we'll detail it, that's next. Chairperson Wilcox —There is a condition in the resolution as drafted to make sure that all lights are fully shielded. All right. Board Member Talty — No surprises. Right Fred. Chairperson Wilcox — Good point. One of the things we hate is when people come back for final approval, they've submitted all the plans for final approval, we get them in the mail during the middle of the week, we review them, we come in Tuesday and they walk in and say "Oh, by the way, we want to change this. I know, some things are inevitable, but please, please, don't surprise us when and if you come back. Board Member Talty — It goes much easier. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, you gotta see what happens to Eva when we get stuff presented the night you show up. She kind of says it all for all of us. Alright. Landscaping. Are we all set with landscaping. Board Member Hoffmann — We already talked about some things that you were going to provide us with for next.time, right? PB 4/3/07 Pg. 52 Chairperson Wilcox — Unless it's in the resolution I want to make sure ... Is there something we missed? Board Member Conneman = I still think we ought to know something about how they're going to protect the visual impact to the Montessori School. Chairperson Wilcox — What's your concern? Board Member Conneman — I think you can ruin a neighborhood by putting something... Chairperson Wilcox — Right, the question is, what are you uncomfortable with right now? Board Member Conneman —What am I uncomfortable with now? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Board Member Conneman — I would like to see some detailed plan, if not a real diagram, of how this parking lot and how all this landscaping really goes together. Mr. Freeman — Excuse me sir ... Can you come up here and can I show you this section? Because we did do a pretty... Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on ... it's alright...just do it from there ... go ahead. Mr. Freeman — I mean, we did project this... Chairperson Wilcox — We have that drawing by the way. Mr. Freeman — This slope is the grade across the site. This is the school. ..this is to scale ... that's 60, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ...that's over 300 feet away and I guess Eva and some of the other Board members kind of see my viewpoint which isa filtered view, if you talk about planting. ..if we could just step back and talk about planting in general, not this project, we want to design a community, we want it to look connected. We don't want it to look segregated and separated ... I mean, I live in a subdivision and the thing that drives me nuts is when everybody has a wall, and a fence, and you can tell where everything starts and stops. So what we've tried to do, is do informal groupings, where you can see the architecture, which we are.trying very hard... Board Member Conneman — You will give us some more details of that then. Mr. Freeman — Well, the architecture, the next set, there'll be a lot more detail over there. Board Member Conneman — That's all I'm asking. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 53 Mr: Freeman — Yeah, that'll happen. But our concept, we'd like to stick with this informal grouping, the partial screening, not the wall concept. Because there's... neither one in either right or wrong, but we want to go with the informal, filtered view. Chairperson Wilcox — I just want to, hold on, I want to make sure that George understands what your gonna give next time or not give next time, that's what I want to make sure of. Board Member Conneman — I understand what you're gonna do. It's just that I would like to see some of the details of it so we can tell if it really is a filtered view or if it's haphazard or whatever it happens to be. Mr. Kanter — Do you mean like a perspective drawing of the landscaping? Board Member Hoffmann — That's what I was thinking. If you could come up with a drawing that doesn't show just the architecture, but shows the architecture and plantings. Board Member.Talty — Similar to their neighbor down the road, Longview. They came in, they had the same type of ... right Eva, is that what you're saying. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, that might be helpful in trying to imagine what it will look like. Not right at planting, but after a few years. Board Member Conneman — Look, Eva mentioned PRI with their berms and all that kind of stuff. They came in with a model and even I could understand that. I don't know if you need a model or what you need but something more than a bunch of dots on a diagram. Chairperson Wilcox — So you're looking for something more visual. Board Member Conneman — That's exactly it. I want to see some of the visual impact. Mr. Bartellotti — We can do that for you. We can take some site studies, some 3D studies from different vantage points on the site and bring those forward so you can see what's going on. Board Member Conneman —Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann — And I don't think a model is necessary; it's probably too expensive. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 54 Board Member Conneman — I didn't say a model is necessary. I'm just saying there would be some idea of what that visual impact will be from Montessori Schools. Mr. Bartellotti — W can do that. I think we can do that in a digital format that you'd be able to follow and see in 3 dimensions. Board Member Hoffmann — Is it, I brought this up before and the site plan covers just a piece of this property, right? This is what confuses me a little bit. The property is not divided off... Mr. Kanter — Correct. This is a very large property actually, 40 some odd acres. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but the site plan that we are talking about does not include anything but what we have seen on these drawings. Is that a problem? Are we going to regret, a year or two from now, that we didn't ask, what's going to happen on the rest of this property. Chairperson Wilcox — Interesting question. Mr. Kanter — That's up to the Board to talk about. I mean that's, again, this is a little bit late to talk about that.... Chairperson Wilcox — Hey, it's only 10:15... Mr. Kanter — Yeah, and you haven't even said that you're allowing yourselves to go past 10:00. Board Member Howe — Yeah, we didn't. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the only reason I brought it up is .1 saw that line, and, you know, I saw that some of the berms and plantings were on the other side of the line and that made me concerned. Mr. Kanter — Actually, I think the Board did discuss this, a while back, when Mr. Monkemeyer came in, well over a year ago to the Board and I think the Board indicated, well, you know, it might be nice to see the current idea, the vision for the whole property because I know that Evan had shown a previous version of sort of an overall schematic of the whole property, actually several properties in the area, but when he came in with this proposal, the Board said, well, let's look at this proposal individually on its own merits, and that's what we did. Board Member Hoffmann — But do we need to ask them to provide us with a boundary then, so that we know that within these boundaries we have looked at the site plan and anything that is outside that we will have to look at some other time when it's not relevant to this. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 55 Mr. Kanter — Well, I think the boundaries are formed by the maps that have been submitted. Mr. Walker — Well, it probably would be helpful to, as a disturbed area, that the project site includes the berm and the topsoil area above it. It's kind of what's showing on your SWPP, is your disturbed area map. If you could provide a site plan showing the disturbed areas associated with this project, that would give us a handle on where it is. I think that road curvature there kind of breaks the... unfortunately the commercial zone doesn't go all the way out to the curbed road, which might have been more logical, but I won't question the Town Board's zoning decisions, although I do at times, but I think, in the bigger picture, anything above that circular drive, potential circular drive, is going to be more residential up the hill, and the commercial or maybe multiple residential types of things will be more down below that curve, which was the plan from once upon a time, I think. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, there actually is a drawing, L0, that shows existing conditions and demolition plans which shows, basically the outline, the ring road that's been roughed in and the stockpiling area which is very close to the NC zone limit line. mean, you can have that done on site plan too, but as far as I'm concerned, this LO shows basically what your talking about. Mr. Freeman — If I could quickly comment. As mentioned by the engineer, as part of the SWPP, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and, just to get a solid set of construction drawings out there on the streets for bidders, we're going to show the exact limit of excavation and that will include the work for the connector walk. There will be a dashed line that says contract limit line on one side of the line the contractor's not to go over and then with in that line, that's where his contract for disturbed area is. And the thing that the State likes to know, with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is for construction staging because to construct this building on this lot, it's a tight site. The first thing they're gonna do is a lot of cut and there will be a temporary ... there'll be a topsoil strip pile, there'll be a soil stockpile, a lot of things will be moving around and on that SWPP we will show the exact limits. So we will have that plan within the set and there's, through the planning process, there's no way we are going to do anything other than what's on these plans, that's what the contract documents are, to work within this approved project. Mr. Walker — and from a safety standpoint too, the constructed area is going to be a bigger disturbed area than the finished parking area because of the berms and so on. And I think one of the very important things we want to consider is the safety for the Montessori school children because there' s nothing better that kids like to do than go play in a construction site. So, I think we are definitely gonna want to, probably along that curved road, define whatever the construction zone is, and put up at least a four foot safety, polyurethane... Mr. Freeman — An orange construction fence is typically what's done at that distance. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 56 Mr. Walker — We'll want to see that in the contract documents before we issue any building permits. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, you make a good point when you say that normally when we see plans for part of a parcel we like to know what's being planned for the rest of it. And I thought about it in the last couple of minutes and I thought, what's unique about this is the multiple zoning on the parcel. That we have commercial and then residential. And essentially what Evan is doing, in my opinion, is certainly maximizing the development of the commercial zoned portion of the parcel, which is what we're dealing with. I think that if the commercial zone were larger and he was proposing a building for part of it, then I would want to know what are you gonna plan to build on the rest of the commercially zoned portion of land that you own on this particular parcel. To me, the zoning is what's important here rather than the actual lot lines. It's the zoning line that really determines the scope of this project, rather than the lot line. Evan will, who knows, at some point, whether he'll come back with other mixed residential /commercial plans. We've seen many of them over the years. I am comfortable at this point but your question is certainly valid. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, my initial concern was if some of what was being planned for this site was actually on another parcel. Whether that could be changed, in the future. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, you know, we've had other developers who have come in and said well, I'll put the buffer on the neighboring parcel and we've said, "uhah, the buffer's got to be on your own parcel, and in this case it is on the same parcel, possibly in a different zone. Mr. Walker — You just have to keep in mind that if in the future there is a subdivision request, you want to make sure that.... Chairperson Wilcox — It's not at the zone line. Mr. Walker — You might want to, you gotta have the buffer between the two uses, and it might very well be in the zoning for the other use but associated with the parcel. Chairperson Wilcox — I'd like to, if it is subdivided, the buffer belongs on the parcel that it is buffering. Absolutely. We're running late guys, I know we are. Somebody like to move the motion, as drafted. So moved by Kevin Talty. Do I have a second? Seconded by George Conneman, Susan. Ms. Brock — Page 2, first resolved clause, paragraph e., revise it to read as follows: revision of the Layout Plan L3 to include a sidewalk along the East King, sorry, along the King Road. East frontage of the project site and along the site access driveways. and- submission of construction details of said sidewalk, sidewalks, and, f) add the PB 4/3/07 Pg. 57 words King Road East on after the proposed walkway from. And I'll read that whole paragraph so it makes sense: Submission of plans showing the details of the proposed walkway from King Road East on the project site to the College Circle apartments, including... and then the rest is the same. We just get that in, because right now we don't show that walkway going all the way to King Road East. J)...do you wish to see.... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, go back there ... read that to me again.... Ms. Brock — Submission of plans showing the details of the walkway from King Road East on the project site, to the College Circle apartments, and then the rest remains... Chairperson Wilcox — You're assuming that that's a single walkway. Ms. Brock — We could put walkway with parenthesis, and put an s in parenthaesis.. I Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that the proposed walkway ... why am I having problems with this.... Ms. Brock — From King Road East, on the project site.... Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, okay, I'm fine ... I'm being dense... Ms. Brock — Do you want to see lighting details for any proposed bank or ATM? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Ms. Brock — Okay, then in j) add at the end of j., and to include lighting details for the bank/ATM, all subject to Planning Board approval, and......that just carries you over to o)....so on the crosswalk, I want to clarify ... can you tell me what your intent is, in terms of what you want to require of this applicant for the crosswalk. Chairperson Wilcox — To work with the State and get the best solution out of the State. It's not very legalese, but... Ms. Brock — So do you need revision to the language as it's currently proposed? Mr. Kanter — Well, the language written was originally assuming that this would be the responsibility of the applicant. But it sounds to me like we've been talking more about a coordinated effort on the crosswalk with the Town, the DOT, the County. So, if the latter is what you are thinking, then we should change the wording of o. a little bit. Chairperson Wilcox — someone. want to offer some legal or planning advice as the best way to go? PB 4/3/07 Pg. 58 Mr. Kanter — Well, I mean, the question of which way to go .is a policy decision. In terms of the crosswalk, my opinion is it's something, being offsite and really, under DOT's control, it's something that the applicant would have less control over, much less control, than a sidewalk on their frontage. So that, if that's the way you want to go, I would suggest something like; revision of relevant site plans to include reference to a pedestrian sidewalk instead of installation of, at the intersection, subject to the location and design requirements and specs of the NYS DOT and coordination among DOT, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County or something like that. Ms. Brock — But that language doesn't commit the... Mr. Kanter — It doesn't commit the developer... Ms. Brock — It doesn't commit the developer to actually doing that piece of it. Mr. Kanter — That's a policy decision that the Board has to... Chairperson Wilcox —What did we do ... or what did we want ... or what was our intent with the Rite Aid on Pine Tree Road? The intent was for the applicant to work with the County and come up with a solution that we thought was satisfactory. Unfortunately, we didn't get there, for one reason or another. Mr. Kanter — It will get there before Rite Aid gets their final CO though. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Alright. But it was the applicant working with the owner of the right -of -way and advice and counsel of others, for sure. Mr. Kanter — It was the applicants responsibility because it was largely a replacement of an existing crosswalk that... Chairperson Wilcox — So are we consistent here to make the applicant work with DOT? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, what about, I mean, the applicant might have some rights or responsibilities or so on with respect to where ,a sidewalk would be with regard to a crosswalk. If it's maybe on their land or their right -of -way, are there some sort of legal problems there where the applicant would need to be involved in the discussions? Board Member Talty — In other words, you want the sidewalk to line up with the crosswalk. Mr. Kanter —That would probably be a good idea. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 59 Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. You can see we're getting tired here. What is this Board's pleasure >? Board Member Talty — Finish it, we're here.... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, no, no, but whose responsibility is it? Is it the applicants to work with. the parties? Board Member Hoffmann — No, I wouldn't put it that way, that seems very strong. If the main responsibility is with the State ... I can see what Jonathan said about this being different from the Rite Aid case, but I still think that the landowner on that corner should be involved. Mr. Kanter — They have to be involved to match up where the pedestrians are crossing, but it ultimately will be the State's call on what the crosswalk will be like. There certainly may be some costs involved with improvements. There may be signal changes and other things.... Chairperson. Wilcox — What are we looking at. We're lookingat site plans to show the location of approved pedestrian crosswalks... crosswalk. ..I mean, that's what we want right? ... that's our intent. Mr. Kanter — The intent is to get there but the question is should it be the applicant's responsibility to get there. Chairperson Wilcox —Does the Planning Board care how the applicant gets there as long as they get there and they show it on the plan and its approved by DOT? Mr. Kanter — Well, no, but then you, but, but, you're implying then that it should be the applicant's responsibility to not only get the crosswalk designed but to pay for it and to make it happen. So that's a policy question... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure I'm implying that, I am simply implying that it's their responsibility to ensure that an approved crosswalk is shown on the plans they submit for final approval. I'm not saying... Board Member Talty —Proposed crosswalk. Proposed. Yeah, because Fred, in my opinion, what they should do is, there must be standards, universal standards with crosswalks, pretty much specifically for these roads. So all you gotta do is find out where the cross walk proposed would be and you line up your sidewalk, according to the County, you work with the County and then you get it all going and you get your plan for the sidewalk, and it leads right up to the proposed crosswalk. Chairperson Wilcox — And the State comes up and says, uhah, we want you to move it 6 inches or 2 feet. PB 4/3/07 Pg, 60 Board Member Talty — There's gotta be some kind of standard, I gotta think for crosswalks, on this type of a ... Chairperson Wilcox — I wouldn't trust the State unless I had a piece of paper signed by some top official at DOT. You know, there's a risk the develop takes in putting in the sidewalk and then DOT changing their mind or reversing themselves. Mr. Kanter — The other thing is ... getting actual design approval of something like that from DOT takes quite a long time, and so, you have to wonder if you should make that a condition of something, final approval, building permit, certificate of occupancy.... Board Member Conneman — How are you going to get everybody to work together if you don't put something in here. I mean it seems to me the Rite Aid thing was a simple crosswalk, period, this is... Mr. Kanter —And it was blown... Board Member. Conneman —Well, that guy could blow anything I think, but, that's another thing, but the issue here is how do we get people together here so we have a comprehensive, coordinated effort for this? Board Member Talty — Do you guys have experience in this?' Have you done this before? Mr. Freeman — I'll speak. What was the question? Board Member Talty — The question is Do you guys have experience in working with the State and County DOT in obtaining and asking for what we're trying to do tonight? Mr. Freeman — I think, my answer, in my clients be ... DOT is responsible for their intersection. maintenance, operation of their intersection. If there's a need for a crosswalk, I think DOT's re: Mr. Monkemeyer's responsible for his property. corner, DOT owns their right -of -way. defense, I think my answer would They're responsible for design, they agree with you and feel that ,ponsible for the crosswalk. I think He owns his own parcel on the Board Member Talty — Is there a standard for crosswalks? Mr. Freeman — absolutely. There's probably a standard... there's standards for sidewalks, there's standard for all that stuff but the intersection has to be designed and the intersection design consists of pedestrian timing, add push buttons, signal timing, you know, they've got to redesign that whole ... the pole. system has too. there's other utilities that go through there ... the poles may not support whatever. you put on those and to force a private developer that's not impacting the PB 4/3/07 Pg. 61 intersection to pay for work on the intersection, I don't know whether you can do that or not, but I do know that if he's responsible for ... if he's impacting the DOT's right -of- way, you need to number one, get their approval, number 2, construct whatever's constructed within their design constraints and they have extensive specifications in design criteria that needs to be met for those types of things. Board Member Talty - So my question is; CE you're doing, and ask them, we are proposing, propose to put a sidewalk on County property intersection, where would you like it to go? Mr. Freeman — We can certainly ask. i you ask them and tell them what the Planning Board is asking you to and we're going to lead it up to this Board Member Talty — Okay, why don't we do that. I don't know where that gets us but it's better than herky- jerky, we're trying to put a sidewalk and we don't know where the crosswalk's gonna be at the intersection. Mr. Freeman — That's correct. Board Member Conneman — How did we do that at the Overlook Jonathan? Somehow they built a crosswalk there. Mr. Walker — That was a little bit different situation because they were building a fourth leg on an intersection. They were actually physically changing an intersection and they had three lanes.coming intot he intersectiona do they had to actually pay for building the new road, which became a Town road, plus giving DOT the space for turning lanes for the future, plus reconfiguring the signals because the signals were related to the new road. Plus we asked them to put crosswalks and pedestrian crosswalk signals in. But they were impacting that intersection, big time. Mr. Kanter — Where as this project could be done without changing the intersection at all, presumably. Mr. Walker — And they've already looked at the curb cuts and said this is what we'd. like to see. Mr. Kanter — I think, summary, we want something in here that makes reference to the Board wants to work with everybody to get a crosswalk there, but, it shouldn't be the applicant's total responsibility to get it there. Chairperson Wilcox — No, we can't make it the applicant's total responsibility. Ms. Brock — No, but we could say, coordination among the various agencies and the applicant. Ms. Brock — Well we could require the applicant to work with the various agencies... PB 4/3/07 Pg. 62 Chairperson Wilcox — Which is what we want ... without imposing any sort of ... I don't want to impose on whose going to ... what the solution is other than the sidewalk has to line up with the intersection. Mr. Bartellotti — In the past we've had experiences, in the City of Auburn, we've worked on projects there where they've required us to provide... obviously in this case you wouldn't need an easement, but we did note on our drawings.. we showed a sidewalk, we said future sidewalk, knowing in the future the developer was going to help in the construction and coordination of putting the sidewalk in, but it wasn't built at this time and maybe I could offer that to the Board. You know, we label on our drawings "future sidewalk" and wherever that goes and the coordination of which, we're still obligated to provide. Mr. Kanter — I think that's getting into a different area though. I think we are talking about a future crosswalk, not a to be built sidewalk. . Chairperson Wilcox — Right. We gotta get past this. Come on, let's be creative here, it's only 10:35...1 know, that's the problem, it's getting late. What is it we want? We want the developer to work with the other agencies to come up with a solution for crossing Route 96B safely for pedestrians, right? Right. So how do we put that in legalese? I know, it's late... Board Member Hoffmann — And we want them to come up with a solution for how they can place the sidewalk that they are building so that it coordinates with the crossing. Chairperson Wilcox — And how do we force that coopera ... you know ... weIre trying to deal with that cooperation and somehow have something on the site plan that indicates...yeah, that's the issue. Yeah. So is it site plan? Or is it just the submission of... Board Member Talty — Proposed sidewalk, like what he just said, that's fine with me. Chairperson Wilcox —Well the issue here isn't the sidewalk, it's the crosswalk across 96B... Mr. Bartellotti — Could we offer that the developer would coordinate their pedestrian circulation with the decisions of the County and the State? What they're gonna do on Route 96 and King Road? And their crosswalks, so that we'll align? Board Member Hoffmann — That sounds okay to me, but I think one would want to ... That almost implies that it might be a future sidewalk, and I think we'd want to be sure that the sidewalk is not too far into the future. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 63 Ms. Brock — Well, we could go back to e, revision the ., L3 to include a sidewalk along the King Road East frontage of the project site and along the site access driveways, said sidewalk to line up with ... am I gong the right way ?... Chairperson Wilcox -- you're going okay ... YOU 're doing okay... Ms. Brock -- to line up with a proposed, future crosswalk... Chairperson Wilcox — pedestrian crosswalk.. Ms. Brock — thank you... proposed, future pedestrian crosswalk at the .... Chairperson Wilcox -- Route 96B /King Road East intersection... Mr. Walker — Should we use crosswalks in plural? Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, hold on, hold on... should we continue on ...subject to the location and design requirements and specifications? No, that's up to the State... Mr. Kanter — I would put ... an s in parenthesis after crosswalk, because there could be several... Ms. Brock — There could be several that's right,, and then we would still keep the rest of theat ... and submission of construction details of said sidewalks... that could follow this new inserted language... Chairperson Wilcox — Good. Ms. Brock — So that takes care of that... Board Member Hoffmann Could you read it one more time. Ms. Brock — Revision of the layout plan L3, to include a sidewalk along the King Road East frontage of the project site and along the site access driveways, said sidewalk to line up with a future pedestrian, with proposed future pedestrian crosswalk(s) at the Route 96B /King Road East intersection, and submission of construction details of said sidewalks. And then, going back to o. ...revision of relevant site plans to include reference to proposed pedestrian crosswalks) at the Route 9613/King Road East intersection ... and the rest of that can read as it currently is. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other changes? PB 4/3/07 Pg. 64 Ms. Brock -- ...r).. II want to make clear what happens before the issuance of the CO and what has to happen prior to final site plan approval ... So I wanted to put in ... well, I was going to put in a reference to something that needs to happen final site plan approval... I'll read it ... submission of application, for and approval status, of all necessary permits from County, State and /or federal agencies, or documentation that no such approvals are required, prior to final site plan approval, comma, and the rest of it can read the way it is. So the last bit... submission of documentation of all necessary approvals would be happening prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Okay. Add a new t) ... revision of the Layout Plan (L3) to include the proposed fountain and the stormwater pond and submission of construction details of said fountain, satisfactory to the Planning Board. And that way, if they propose to light it, you will have the ability to approve or disapprove that. Be it Further Resolved....at the very end, stating that the Planning Board recommends to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, that any variance for... regarding the square footage of the building, limit the square footage occupied by any one tenancy to no more than 10,000 square feet. Chairperson Wilcox — These changes acceptable Kevin and George? Ms. Brock — I think there were a couple of other small things that Jonathan has. Mr. Kanter — Under k) ... sign details ... I added illumination ... submission of all sign details, including illumination to conform to all relevant sections of Chapter 221 ... and at the end of that section... add... including that the total area of the freestanding sign shall not exceed 50 square feet, which is, again, part of the Code, but I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Chairperson Wilcox —To they get 50 total? Or is that ... Mr. Kanter — Total. According to the definition of signed area... Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, now ... Rite Aid had two entrances right ... so they got a sign at each one... Mr. Kanter — As this one could, although they are only proposing one. But that doesn't mean that you can have one at 100, so if they chose to put a second one, they would have to show us the details of that, but.... Chairperson Wilcox — Right. Got ya. Mr. Kanter — and m) ... submission of maintenance plan for the stormwater ... cross out pond, and put the word facilities. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 65 And then you wanted wording on the view simulation, showing landscaping. So, this is the proposed wording for that, which would be a new condition u) ... Submission of prospective drawings or view simulation showing the view from the Montessori School area, through proposed landscaping towards the proposed commercial building. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, everyone okay? We done gentlemen? Mr. Kanter — At the end of s) talking about the building elevations.. you know, actually, it wouldn't hurt to add at the end of that to require samples of materials to be used, and also submission of perspective drawings AP 1.1 that were shown to the Board at the April 3, 2007 meeting. Chairperson Wilcox —And that's the drawing that I am looking at right now, which is in front of me... Mr. Kanter — So that's it. Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable Board Member Talty — Yes. Board Member Conneman — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, you're happy? Ms. Brock — I'm set. Vote ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Resolution No. 2007 - 035 College Crossings Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Special Permit Tax Parcel No. 43-1 -3.2 Corner of Danby Rd. & King Road East Town of Ithaca Planning Board, April 3, 2007 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed College Crossings Development located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of .Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 43- 1 -3.2, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal is for a +/- PB 4/3/07 Pg. 66 19,644 gross interior square foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail, commercial, and office space. The project will also include between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant occupancy), landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant, Scott L. Freeman, Keplinger Freeman Associates and James M. Kerrigan, Attorney, Agents, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in coordinating the environmental review, has on April 3, 20071 made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application materials, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 3, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including College Crossings Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by RZ Engineering, PLLC, dated 1/2/06; Traffic Impact Study for the proposed College Crossings, prepared by SRF Associates, dated December 2006; and a set of site plan and architectural drawings, entitled, "College Crossings — Preliminary Site Plan Review , prepared by Dal Pos Architects, LLC, Keplinger Freeman Associates, and RZ Engineering, PLLC; all enclosed with Cover Sheet AO.1, dated 3/19/07, which includes L -0 through L -9 (revised 3/5/07)9 PL -1 and MP -1 (revised 3/5/07), and A2.1, A2.21 A2.3 and A3.3 (no date, date stamped received 3/20/07), and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed College Crossings development, located at the corner of Danby Road and King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.2, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones, to consist of a +/- 19,644 gross interior square foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail, commercial, and office space,' between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant. occupancy), landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments, as described in the College Crossings Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by RZ Engineering, PLLC, dated 1/2/06; Traffic Impact Study for the proposed College Crossings, prepared by SRF Associates, dated December 2006; and a set of site plan and architectural drawings, entitled, "College Crossings — Preliminary Site Plan Review", prepared by Dal Pos Architects, LLC, Keplinger Freeman Associates, and RZ Engineering, PLLC, all enclosed with Cover Sheet AO.1, dated 3/19/07, which includes L -0 through L -9 (revised. 3/5/07), PL -1 and MP -1 (revised 3/5/07), and A2.1, A2.2, A2.3 and A3.3 (no PB 4/3/07 Pg. 67 date, date stamped received 3/20/07), subject to the following conditions to be accomplished prior to Final Site Plan Approval, unless otherwise noted: a. Obtaining any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, and b. 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 c. Revision of the Layout Plan (L3) to show the location of proposed fire or other emergency zones, and the location of any fire hydrants on or accessible to the site, and d. Revision of the Layout Plan (L3) to include at least one off- street loading space or designated area with adequate area for truck parking and turnaround, as required in Section 270 -122.A of the Town of Ithaca Code, and e. Revision of the Layout Plan (L3) to include a sidewalk along the King Road East frontage of the project site and along the site access driveways, said sidewalk to line up with proposed future pedestrian, and submission of construction details of said sidewalks, to line up with a proposed future pedestrian crosswalk(s) at the Route 96B /King Road East intersection, and submission of construction details of said sidewalks, and f. Submission of plans showing the details of the proposed walkway from King Road East on the project site to the College Circle Apartments, including grading, base and surface materials, dimensions, lighting, landscaping, trash receptacles, and other elements, and g. Submission of evidence of an easement or other agreement necessary to allow the construction and connection of the walkway for public use on the College Circle Apartments property, and h. Construction, maintenance and repairs of the above - referenced walkway shall be the responsibility of the applicant (Ithaca Estates Realty LLC) or subsequent owner. Submission of a draft maintenance agreement relating to the walkway shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval, along with documentation that such walkway will be available for public use, and i. Revision of the Layout Plan (L3) to include at least one bicycle rack, and j. Revision of the lighting plan and lighting details to replace any proposed unshielded light fixtures with fully- shielded light fixtures so that no light rays are emitted by the installed fixture at angles above the horizontal plane, to PB 4/3/07 Pg. 68 minimize excessive glare and light trespass and to include lighting details for the Bank ATM, and k. Submission of all sign details, including illumination, to conform to all relevant sections of Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding "Signs", including that the total area of the freestanding sign shall not exceed 50 square feet, and I. Submission of documentation from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that the proposed stormwater management system, including the subsurface piped storage and the above- ground treatment, either complies with the accepted water quality treatment practices in the NYS stormwater manual, or that the stormwater system has undergone the Regional SWPPP review and has received the necessary approval from DEC, and m. Submission of an operation and maintenance plan for the stormwater facilities, for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, and n. 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 building permit, and o. Revision of relevant site plans to include reference to a proposed pedestrian crosswalk(s) at the Route 96B /King Road East intersection, subject to the location and design requirements and specifications of the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT), and p. Submission of engineering details and construction specifications of all proposed structures, roads /driveways, water /sewer facilities, stormwater facilities and pond, and other improvements, including, but not limited to, specifications for water lines, including locations and descriptions of mains, valves, hydrants, appurtenances, etc., and profiles and specifications for sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities, including locations and descriptions of pipes, manholes, and other facilities, and q. Submission of all final site plan drawings, revised as required above, each having the name and seal of each registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared any of the site plan materials, including the topographic and boundary survey, drainage plans, etc., and r. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, or documentation that no such approvals are required prior to final site plan approval, and submission of documentation of all necessary approvals from county, state, and /or federal. agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, and PB 4/3/07 Pg. 69 S, Submission of detailed building elevations, including colored renderings, illustrating the specific colors and materials of the building, and labeled with accurate dimensions of the building and submission of samples of building materials to be used, as well as submission of perspective drawings on Sheet AP 1.1 that were presented to the Planning Board at the April 3, 2007 meeting, and t. Revision of sheet L3 to include details of the proposed fountain and stormwater pond, and u. Submission of perspective drawings or view simulation showing the view from the Montessori School area through the proposed landscaping toward the proposed commercial building, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes a reduction of required parking spaces by 20 %, from the 150 parking required to the 120 parking spaces proposed, pursuant to Section 270 -227.A (2), finding that: a. The reduction in the number of parking spaces will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, will leave adequate parking for all reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and b. Conditioned upon the revision of Layout Plan (L3) to include the full 120 parking spaces shown, and C, The Planning Board hereby waives the additional conditions listed in Section 270 -227.A (3) (a) through (e), and 2. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes the placement of parking in the front or side yards of the project site, pursuant to Section 270 -227.6 (2) and (3), finding that: a. The particular use, nature, or location of the proposed project or building, requires that parking be in one of such yards; b. It is not practicable to limit parking to areas outside the required yards; C. Parking in such yards does not significantly adversely affect adjacent properties or the character of the neighborhood; and d. No such parking will occur in any buffer areas, and PB 4/3/07 Pg, 70 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit for the College Crossings development to include a building larger than 7,500 square feet (Section 270 -128 of the Town of Ithaca Code), subject to the granting of the necessary variance by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the building to exceed 10,000 square feet, and authorizing a bank with two drive - through lanes (Section 270 -127 of the Town of Ithaca Code), determining that: a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of the Town of Ithaca Zoning .Code and the specific purposes, are being promoted, and b, the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, and such use will fill a neighborhood or community need, and C. the proposed use and the location and design of proposed structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, and d, the, proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, and e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination, or other public nuisance, than the operation of any permitted use in the zone in which the use is located, and f. community infrastructure and services are of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, and g1 the proposed use, facility design, and site layout comply with all of the provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations of the Town, and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses is safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and i. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the. community, and PB 4/3/07 Pg. 71 j. the lot area and access are sufficient for the proposed use, and k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices, and existing drainage ways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and 2. That the Planning Board recommends to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that any variance regarding the square footage of the building, limit the square footage occupied by any one tenancy to no more than 10,000 square feet. A vote on the motion was as follows: AYES: Conneman, NAYS: None Abstentions: None Absent: Thayer Hoffmann, Howe, Talty, and Wilcox The motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox -- Motion to adjourn.... Board Member Howe — I will not be here at the next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — Motion to adjourn... Mr. Kanter — We had at least one thing I'd like to get some... Board Member Talty — Yeah, I mean we're here ... what's two seconds... Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, no second ... I tried... Mr. Kanter — Okay, let me see if I can find it amidst this mess here... Chairperson Wilcox — Which one do you want to talk about Jonathan? Do you want to talk about childcare or do you want to talk about Briarwood? Mr. Kanter — Well, both preferably, but if we only have one, Chairperson Wilcox — You only got time for one. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 72 Mr. Kanter -- I guess we gotta do the Cornell childcare. And then at the end I'll just throw in a reference to the other one. Chairperson Wilcox— You got 30 seconds... Mr. Kanter — Well, no. Don't give me 30 seconds cause I need more than that.:. Chairperson Wilcox — I wasn't going to give you any... Mr. Kanter — Well then it's your... Board Member Talty — Just. ..go... Mr. Kanter — You know guys, it's late, we all want to be home, alright. You have some things here about the Cornell childcare center ... that we have received a formal submission on. You have the report, which we will be scheduling for a presentation at the next meeting, I believe, April 17th Board Member Talty — Will they be first? Mr. Kanter — I'm not sure. We have a letter from Lawrence Hoetzlein from Cornell with a proposed schedule for coordinating the review with the Village of Cayuga Heights. So that we would propose to put on the April 17th meeting, as I said, presentation by Cornell and then hopefully get comments from the Board, actually at that time, on the SEQR determination to send to the Village. Because the whole issue of the coordination here is that the Village can't act until we act and we can't act until they act and so there's this whole sequence of meeting dates that Lawrence has put forth. This seems like a reasonable schedule to me but We just wanted to get some very quick feedback from the Board on ... on, you know,...the timing of putting this on the April 17th meeting is fine ... if you can, take a .look at the reports between now and then. You already will have them, take them home and read it. We'll try and do that as Staff and put some ideas together for.you, but please be prepared to comment directly on the environmental review at that next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — portion of the project within the Town or the entire project? Mr. Kanter — The environmental review should be for the entire project. Chairperson Wilcox — Our review can be for the entire project? Mr. Kanter — On any comments you want to send to Cayuga Heights because Cayuga Heights will be making the SEQR determination on behalf of both of us. And subsequently, the actual site plan approval and special permit will be just those elements in the Town. PB 4/3/07 Pg. 73 Chairperson Wilcox — The sidewalk and the underground utilities. The sign is now gone I heard. Mr. Kanter — Yes. Mr. Kanter We were asked by the Town Board to just report to you on what Dan and the Town Board, are doing with the drainage analysis for the Briarwood II /Northeast drainage. The Town Board actually set up a subcommittee to look into hiring a consultant to review the Briarwood II drainage plans. So that's what they have done. Dan, if you want to just mention quickly, what the process is for the... Mr. Walker — Yeah, we've put out an RFP, we've sent it to 4 different consultants; 1 local, 3 out -of -town consultants. Chairperson Wilcox — Was the 1 local sitting in this room previously? Mr. Walker — Yes ... And that was ... the original proposal from TG Millers, just to do the review on the work, but at the Town Board Meeting some Town Board members thought we needed more detail in looking at the existing and past drainage problems in the area. So after some thinking, we scoped out an RFP and we sent it out to several consultants with a return date for their proposals of April 13th, why we picked Friday the 13th, 1 don't know, but, and with the intent that it would be a fairly short, probably a 30 day period for them to generate a report once we select them. And how that meshes in with the review of Briarwood and the revised or any revisions to the SEQR that have to be done. Chairperson Wilcox —Thank you. I don't care about the next meeting agenda, we'll get to it. Mr. Walker — Now, I just want to let the Board know, I will be out of the office for about 3 weeks in May so Creig Hebdon may be handling some of this stuff. Chairperson Wilcox — We will treat him with the same respect we . treat you. (laughter) Mr. Walker — He's more sensitive though, you're going to have to be a little more careful. He'll tell you what he thinks. Chairperson Wilcox — We'll do the minutes next time. Any comments or concerns? Motion by the Chair, seconded by Rod Howe to adjourn at 10:54 p.m. Submitted by, PB 4/3/07 Pg..73 Chairperson Wilcox — The sidewalk and the underground utilities. The sign is now gone I heard. Mr. Kanter — Yes. Mr. Kanter — We were asked by the Town Board to just report to you on what Dan and the Town Board . are doing with the drainage analysis for the Briarwood II /Northeast drainage. The Town Board actually set up a subcommittee to look into hiring a consultant to review the Briarwood II drainage plans. So that's what they have done. Dan, if you want to just mention quickly, what the process is for the... Mr. Walker — Yeah, we've put out an RFP, we've sent it to 4 different consultants; 1 local, 3 out -of -town consultants. Chairperson Wilcox — Was the 1 local sitting in this room previously? Mr. Walker — Yes ... And that was ... the original proposal from TG Millers, just to do the review on the work, but at the Town Board Meeting some Town Board members thought we needed more detail in looking at the existing and past drainage problems in the area. So after some thinking, we scoped out an RFP and we sent it out to several consultants with a return date for their proposals of April 13t ", why we picked Friday the 13t ", 1 don't know, but, and with the intent that it would be a fairly short, probably a 30 day period for them to generate a report once we select them. And how that meshes in with the review of Briarwood and the revised or any revisions to the SEQR that have to be done. Chairperson Wilcox —Thank you. I don't care about the next meeting agenda, we'll get to it. Mr. Walker — Now, I just want to let the Board know, I will be out of the office for about 3 weeks in May so Creig Hebdon may be handling some of this stuff. Chairperson Wilcox — We will treat him with the same respect we treat you. (laughter) Mr. Walker — He's more sensitive though, you're going to have to be a little more careful: He'll tell you what he thinks. Chairperson Wilcox — We'll do the minutes next time. Any comments or concerns? Motion by the Chair, seconded by Rod Howe to adjourn at 10:54 p.m. ,7 Paulette Neilsen, 0 puty Town TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, April 3, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies Entrance Gate, 100 Tibet Drive. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for a modification to the Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies project located at 100 Tibet Drive (off Danby Road across from Sesame Street), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The modification includes constructing a +/- 20 foot high open ornate archway -like structure (entrance gate) over the main drive approximately 38 feet east of Danby Road. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant; Scott Tobey, Agent. 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: College Crossing Development, Danby Road and King Road East Intersection. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed College Crossings Development located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.2, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal is for a +/- 19,644 gross interior square. foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail, commercial, and office space. The project will also include between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant occupancy), landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant, Scott L. Freeman, Keplinger Freeman Associates and James M. Kerrigan, Attorney, Agents, 7:45 P.M. Presentation and discussion of the draft scoping document for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) regarding the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41-1 -30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. Also, consideration of scheduling a public scoping session to hear public comments on the draft scoping document for the Athletic and Events Center EIS. The proposal includes the construction of a +/- 300,000 square foot field house building (containing a 200M track, indoor field for practices and games, seating and floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving well, indoor tennis courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center, etc.) an outdoor - lighted artificial turf field and 400M track, and the creation of 1015 +/- parking spaces (553 existing parking spaces moved and 462 new parking spaces). The project is proposed in several phases and will also include new walkways, access roads, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. 7. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 8. Approval of Minutes: March 20, 2007. 91 Other Business: 10, 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 ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, April 3, 2007 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, April 3, 2007, 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 Site Plan Approval and Special. Permit for a modification to the Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies project located at 100 Tibet Drive (off Danby Road across from Sesame Street), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The modification includes constructing a +/-.20 foot high open ornate archway -like structure (entrance gate) over the main drive approximately 38 feet east of Danby Road. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant; Scott Tobey, Agent. 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed College Crossings Development located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 43- 1 -3.2, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal is, for a +/- 19,644 gross interior square foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail, commercial, and office space. The project will also include between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant occupancy), landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments. Evan N. Monkemeyer, Owner /Applicant, Scott L. Freeman, Keplinger Freeman Associates and James M. Kerrigan, Attorney, Agents. 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 26, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 :Wednesday, March 28; 2007 THE ITHACA JOURNAL IZ y h< TOWN OFwITHACAr PLANNING BOARD NOTICE'OF: '7 ::PUBLIC HEARINGS ', Tuesday, April 3,�2007i Boar&cif the Town'of Ithaca;? on4uiesday, April 31 2007, "ai 215 North•Tiogat ,East "irate ?sectwn Town of Street, Ithaca N Y ;'at the following times-and-oh' the i ":Ithaca Tax.Parce( No.;41 1 folloWng.maRers ;3:2r, ;Neighborhood :Corry: p: 7 105 P.M. Consideration; '•'mercial ;and low. Density. fof, P�elimihary'" and nak jResidentiaLZones iThe pro- :Site Plan ', Appproval and:! ,posal is fora +/_ 19 644! ;Special Permit toCa modify' gross interior squcre fool'' cation to' the 'Namgyal} tv01ldto 9eleoen ctenantfoer Monasteryry Institute .6 Bud- P .dhist Studies project located' :new. ' retail, t' commercial; at; 100 Tibet Drive (off band office, space. The prof- Canby ,RoadAacros3 from'. feet will<olso 'include lie 'Sesame- Street) 'Town ,of j twee i 105 and ,l 20-+/ Ithaca Tak Parcel No; 43 2 ; :parkmg';3paces (ilependmg 10, Medium Density Resi 3 Icon tenant occuponcyj, land denfiaiZone The modifico-{ i scapmg ighhn i stormwat(; facilities; sid9e=` 4hon includes cons hucting a ;N 'alks; :ond`a,r ew.walkway, i +/- 20`foot higgh ,open or•j i:connectidn to ;the ,College inate archway like-structure (enhance, gate) -over the{ Grcle. Appartments.'' Evam i, main,-drive_approximatelyi .<N :Monkemeytt - -L: oer /; i'r38 feet :east . of 'Dan by, Applicant; Scott• L.', Free `,:Road. ,NaingyoWM naitery ;man,: Kephnger - Fre ' Institute of Buddhist Studies' :Associates and >JamesyM; Owner /APphcanf Scofl`, i-Kerrigan, Attorney, Agents. . Tobey;:Agent 7:10 P.M Consideration; Said Planning Board will `of. Preliminary Site, Pl6n• Ap* f at id' Limas a d.,,s in" ppr oval, and Special <Permd P ort''of such matters or,, for- Aii'proposed.'Cci eye,,,, PF ob echon's,theieto :I?ersons` wtv "Crossings ,Developpment o-, ;`ma appear b a ent or io heated on the northeast coy - y PP, y g. ner - o( Danby /.Rodd -(WS'+ "person Individu6k`s mw "`,Route 96Bj and King Road;; visual!'irripaume its; hearing' impairments or _other P 's e make -such '._a = request vnot; rless than'48;hours'prior ' to" the Time of $6e. P_ubylici hearings., -I x Jonathan Kanter, AICV t`" ,Director-of- Planningg 273 - 1747;? =Dateda.:.Monde , March 26, 2007 Publish: Wednesday;,, ,-,March 28, 2007 '., :• Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street April 3, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN4N Please Print Clearly, Thank You I v'OY 42 4e!:�;-�•% jL/ 1 "(l o v to a f4 (AV 6t;y (j l�C� \ T 1J c 4 r �vM .I � . 0 . Address ?'37') lci� LY 126040 /' 22u CO jo t03 tj�,, &I a- kd 72 / � ��) cey 5 z (' (�I v<< �51 1 / ruq .S Q +1 -1 .. , �. . / :i A :.� J A . A Name Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street April 3, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN4N Please Print Clearly, Thank You 'Vc Address Gi r tick 0- 407�J4�. �r►�� 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 April 3 2007 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: March 26, 2007 March 28, 2007 60'-V .a OO&c .. Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28`h day of March 2007, Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052678 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 J