Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-07-03FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 7 :00 p.m. PRESENT Chairperson: Fred Wilcox Board Members: George Conneman, Eva Hoffmann, Rod Howe, Larry Thayer, Kevin Talty and Susan Riha, Alternate Board Member: Hollis Erb, STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan Walker, Town Engineer; Sue Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk, OTHERS PRESENT: Herman Sieverding, Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp, Ithaca Fred Noteboom, and Rich Schoch, Town of Ithaca Public Works Tim Marchell, 221 Eastern Heights Drive Matt Napierala and Jim Emmerick, Napierala Consultingl 10 Fayette St., Manlius, NY Les Black, 107 King's Way CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened record Secretary 's Affidavit of Posting and. Publication in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 25, 2007 the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon and the Town of Danby., upon the Tompkins County I the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, agents, as appropriate, on June 25, 2007. at 7:04 p.m., and accepts for the of the Notice of Public Hearings and June 27, 2007 together with the Clerks of the City of Ithaca ;ommissioner of Planning, upon and upon the applicants and /or Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PERSONS TO BE HEARD There was no one wishing to address the Board at this time. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:05p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances to allow a lighted rock sign for the Pine Tree Office Building located at 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1- 3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to install a freestanding rock engraved entry sign in the landscaped island in front of the new office building, which will exceed the size permitted. The proposed sign will be lit using two PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 2 small ground mounted spotlights. Cornell University, Owners Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant; Herman Sieverding, AICP, Agent. Herman Sieverding, Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp, Ithaca I did hand out some supplemental information to try and make the proposal a little bit clearer. The original sign that we had submitted with the site plan application that you approved last year was a metal fabricated sign that was going to be internally lit and the plan has been all along to install that sign, but if you may remember this landscaped island, which is the first photograph I put on your desk, which is in the front of the building, which to most people is the back of the building because the building is between it and Pine Tree Road, you can't even see this thing from the road, is sort of a rock -based sort of a landscaped island. In the process of planting some of these, placing some of these rocks, one of them split and some folks from Cornell that were touring the site, thought that rather than having a metal fabricated sign in this nicely landscaped spot, sort of a garden, let's try and reuse this rock and engrave it with the same information that was going to on that metal fabricated sign. Three - ninety -five Pine. Tree Road, Cornell University. Because this is a change of what you had. previously approved and the Zoning Board had previously granted variances for, there is a need to come back. and seek variances for making this change. I think the two key areas are the size of the sign. The rock is a lot bigger than the metal fabricated sign. It is 12feet 6 inches approximately long and about 4 foot 6 inches: high. By the time it actually gets planted and buried and actually has a foundation under it, it may be a little bit shorter, but, let's just call that the outside dimensions. The second part of the variance is for illumination. Whereas before we had a sign that was internally lit, obviously we can't do it with this one. So, the. proposal is to use two ground spots and in the intervening time since we were here, the Town has adopted an illumination ordinance and ground spots on signs are not allowed by that ordinance. What we're proposing to use in terms of illuminating this sign is also. attached in this additional information that I put on your desk and it shows one possibility, there may be others, and I think we are certainly open to suggestions. But this is a small ground mounted spot that has a directional shield that will cut off any kind of up lighting and it comes with a relatively small, 50 -watt lamp. The idea would be to use two of those to illuminate the central portion of the sign which carries the text. If you flip that page over you see that adjustable, or that picture with all kinds of adjustments up and down to make sure that none of the light spills up. So that's the proposal and it's a narrative that we put together describing this. I think it addresses each of the five criteria that ultimately the Zoning Board will have to consider relative to granting this variance and I guess if you have questions about that, I'm happy to answer them. Board Member Hoffmann — Where would the lights be places? PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 3 Mr. Sieverding — In front of the rock sign. That rock sign will actually be located in place of the fabricated one and just in front of it, pretty much where that island narrows, it will be out in front, inside of the vegetated landscape bed. So you probably wouldn't even see the light fixture itself, but you would see the light coming up and shining on the rock. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I would like to know how far from the rock and how far from the end and what distance between them do you foresee them being placed. And I also was wondering what this black square is here on the plan that is called C108? Mr. Sieverding -m I can't tell you that because I don't know. That part of the plan is cut off, but if you take a look at the aerial photograph, there isn't anything there. I don't think there is anything there because I know we don't have anything in terms of power or anything like that. Board Member Conneman — I have some more basic questions. Board Member Hoffmann — I didn't get an answer yet. Board Member Conneman — He said he didn't know. Board Member Hoffmann — I thought he was talking about the black square. Mr. Sieverding — Right and I was saying I don't know exactly what that black square depicts other than that we have finished all the work out there and there is nothing out there that resembles anything mechanical. Board Member Hoffmann What about the placement of the 2 lights? Mr. Sieverding — I suspect they will be 4 to 5 feet out in front of the sign and focused on the center. portion, maybe about 4 or 5 feet apart. If you were to take a center line of that sign, say it's 12'6 63 ", maybe place those lights 4' of that center line, 2' in each direction. Board Member Hoffmann — So the lights will be outside of the plantings probably. Mr. Sieverding — Probably not, actually. Board Member Hoffmann — Because when I was up there, that area, that egg shaped area has been planted where the sign is supposed to go. The plants are about this big and they are quite close together, actually, so if the lights are going to be 4' to 5' feet away from where the stone is going to be placed, I don't think that they are going to be in the plants. Mr. Sieverding — Okay, so I'll tell you what ... we could probably just expand that planting bed to include it, to sort of help shield if, if that's a concern. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 4 Board Member Hoffmann — Actually, I see on the photograph that you brought us today, it's 2007- 06 -29, there is a little white spot for the concrete little pad where the old light was supposed to go, that looked to me to be about a foot wide so if you look at that, you can see how big the planting is on either side of it. I can't remember the length of it, but the width; which is what you see in this photograph... so you are saying that you're going to expand the planting in order to make the lights be... Mr. Sieverding — To envelope the lights so that you're not looking at the lights and that they are coming up out of the landscaping. Board Member Conneman — I have a basic question. How many lighted signs are there on the Cornell campus? Mr. Sieverding — I don't know. This is not on campus ... this is an off - campus... Board Member Conneman — Well if you move all the administrators to this.place, this becomes a part of the campus, doesn't it? My question goes to ... you said in your letter that this sign would improve the character of the commercial district. Signs, in my opinio.n, are like water towers, they never improve anything, they're all, ugly. Mr. Sieverding — Right, but I think there is a big difference, George, between a metal fabricated . sign with internal illumination and taking a natural piece of stone and engraving on that stone the same information that you would have on metal fabricated, internally lit sign. I think this is a much more kind of naturally appearing, fitting into the landscape kind of approach than the original proposal was and that's certainly very much different than they have anywhere on campus. I mean, if you want to think about a comparable sort of a sign, think of the Alternatives Credit Union down in the west end. It's that kind of a sign that we are talking about in almost that kind of an environment. That's a big landscaped island.... Board Member Conneman — Alternatives is not part of the Cornell campus... Mr. Sieverding — No, I'm just saying that if you want an example of what this sign will look like. I think it's very much different than the typical sign that you would see in a commercial district and in that sense, I think that this is a vast improvement over what you see in front of Rite Aid, in front of East Hill Plaza, in front of the Best Western hotel, in front of any of those locations. Board Member Riha — My impression, too, is that this is not going to be all that visible to people other than people looking for this building. Mr. Sieverding — It's not. You cant' see this from the road. Board Member Riha — It's out ... it's not on the road. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 5 Board Member Conneman — The issue is that it violates the Town's lighting ordinance and as I read the material... Mr. Sieverding.— That's correct. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me we finally have a lighting ordinance .that makes some sense and to violate it first up doesn't make any sense to me. Mr. Sieverding — I suppose there's always a disadvantage to being the first one here (laughter) but I would say, George, that the mitigating factor there, as I pointed out in the narrative, is that this isn't visible from any public right -of -way and .... Board Member Conneman — If it's not visible, why do you want it lit? Mr. Sieverding — For the people who are coming to the building. Who are purposely driving back to that site, 700 feet back from Pine Tree Road... Board Member Thayer — The building is used quite a bit at night? Mr. Sieverding — I think it could be, yeah. Board Member Conneman — Won't you have lights in the parking lot and all of that to light up the area? Mr. Sieverding — Yeah, sure. Board Member Conneman — Well what do you need a light for on the sign? Mr. Sieverding — To illuminate the message. Board Member Thayer — Have you experimented with clamps over the top or anything like that? Have you looked into that type of lighting? Mr. Sieverding — Yeah, I think the fear... Board Member Thayer — Other than drilling, like you suggested, might fracture it. I can understand that, but it seems to me that some kind of a clamp over the top with a gooseneck on it or something... Mr. Sieverding -- May be possible. I think it all takes away from this sort: of natural look that you're trying to create in terms of a rock that blends in with the rest of the fairly large rocks that are placed on that island. Board Member Riha — I just want to commend that because I think that it's really nice that you guys are using natural material and this came up at the Cornell master plan meeting too. The extent to which Cornell can continue to use some of the natural material around to help identify some of the buildings with the whole geological setting. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 6 So I think it's really nice that you guys are using that as sign material as opposed to just aluminum. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't have a problem with the material, f think it is quite attractive too. I am just concerned about the size and I wanted to ask you, actually, if you are now free to tell us what the use will be of this building. Mr. Sieverding - The use of the office building. Around 7 or 8 different units of Cornell that are going in there. There's a group that deals with technology transfer with patents, there's a group that does risk assessment, there's a financial group that's going in there. These are all sort of administrative kind of units of the University that are going in there. Board Member Hoffmann -Okay, so most of the people.who will be coming and going are people who work there and once they find the building, the sign is not that necessary, for them. Board Member Riha — There's all the Cornell people who have to find theses places, I can tell you, when you have to find...research three and there's no signs on any of the buildings... it's really inconvenient to not, to be looking for a building and there's no signs... Board Member Conneman — At night? Board Member Riha — At night, because a lot of the year people are working til five — five thirty and it's... Board Member Hoffmann — It gets dark in the winter, but does it have to be such a big sign. There is a sign already at the road. You know there is going to be a sign at the road too... Board Member Riha — At the entrance... Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, at the entrance. So people will see that and that will be lit and they will know where to turn in. Board Member Riha — So that's the only entrance to this thing hmmm... Alternate Member Erb — Actually, that's not the only entrance because it is quite possible to approach this off of Ellis Hallow Road and weave your way around the east side of the strip of buildings between that strip of buildings and the hotel, the motel, and so there. are people who might be coming in that direction and will have to find their way up across that sort of sloped parking lot and find this. Board Member Hoffmann — I suspect, though, that if they know to wind their way around that, they... PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 7 Alternate Member Erb — They would know where they're going. Board Member Hoffmann -- ...they are going to find the building. I don't think that that's a problem really. Alternate Member Erb — I just felt like they were making happened to be the size it was and that I was very pleased of the slab available, they showed restraint in the amount of the actual sign part. And I thought that that was a very nice sure that the lights are positioned such so that only the sign didn't bother me that we were talking about a form of light with code, because I felt that the material for this sign was happy to have use of this material and go with a lighting that use of the stone that just to see that despite the size the sign that would become feature and I'd like to make part of the slab is lit. And it .ing that was not consistent so different that I would be allowed its use. Board Member Conneman — There will be a sign at the road? Mr. Sieverding — Yes. There's a small metal fabricated sign, internally lit at the road. Similar to one that will be in the place of this rock if this doesn't go through. Board Member Conneman — You need two signs... Mr. Sieverding — Well yeah ... our plan has been approved for two signs. We have a four foot high by five foot long internally lit sign where we're now proposing to use the rock, which, frankly, is an improvement over what's been approved. Board Member Hoffmann — I'd just like to make the comment that you mentioned that this is not campus. The people who are working on the Cornell Master Plan are calling this campus. In fact, they are including the land all the way down covering the pig barns on Pine Tree Road and the fields there as campus and at the last presentation they had a little more than a week ago, they were talking about East Hill Plaza as East Hill Village. That's their vision. So it's definitely part of campus as far as Cornell University is concerned. Mr. Sieverding — Okay. Board Member Riha — They were also talking about more signage, so maybe we should have more discussion about that. They did bring up that they felt that there needed to be more signage. So we should maybe think more about... Board Member Conneman — Well I think they were saying that they thought that those brown signs that are around campus are sort of ticky -tacky and the. (inaudible) was a better way to give directions. But I don't think that anybody needs directions to this place, they work there. Chairperson Wilcox — There's two issues here. One is the sign and the size of the sign and it's location and two is the lighting. To me there's two separate issues. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 8 Board Member Talty — What's the height of the light. I couldn't find anywhere where the height of the light fixture ... I was just thinking that when it snows, which it has a tendency to do around here, a lot of times lights that are located low to the ground get covered. Mr. Sieverding — Yeah, that's what happens with ground spots, but it's no more than,. Jf it's horizontal, it's no more than 6 inches, if it's tilted up it would get to 8 or 9 inches, to the top of the fixture. Board Member Hoffmann —That's the total height? Mr. Sieverding — There's probably a base there that would raise that a little bit..Yrn just looking at the dimensions on the back of the sheet. So the total is about 6 inches and there is a base there that might add another 3 inches so that's why I am saying maybe 9 inches ... 10 inches. Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board, there being no one, the public hearing was closed at 7:24 p.m. and the matter was brought back to the Board. Chairperson Wilcox — What's our pleasure here ... I heard something about ensuring that the light fixtures are screened by the plantings, something Eva brought up and agreed to by Mr. Sieverding. If we are in favor of the lighting as proposed and the rock sign as proposed then I think that would be a good idea, either to extend the planting or to ensure that the lights are within the plantings that exist. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess my concern about the placement of the lights, and I am disappointed that they are not shown on the plan, is if they are too far away, there is more of a risk that light gets scattered outside the edges of the sign. But if they are centered and about 4 or 5 feet apart, I think is what you said and the sign is 12 Y2 feet long, then that should probably be okay, but that's just a guess on my part. And I don't know if this light tilts sideways or if it just goes up and down. Mr. Sieverding — I think it tilts up and down. But one of the approaches to this would be that final placement of these lights could be done in conjunction with Staff to make sure that as they are placed they don't spill out beyond the face of the rock itself. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I am just wondering if it would be better to have them closer to the stone than the 4 or 5 feet you suggested and then they would be able to be concentrated directly on the stone and there would be less chance of spillage. Mr. Sieverding — It may be and that is why I am suggesting that maybe one way to deal with it would be that final placement of light would be done in conjunction with staff so we avoid that spillage of light beyond the confines of the rock sign itself. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but we are the one's that are suppose to be responsible for the decision, so we need to talk about it so we can direct Staff. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 9 Chairperson Wilcox — Remind you that we are only making a recommendation to the Zoning Board this evening. Board Member Howe — I'll move the resolution. Board Member Thayer — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. Based upon our discussion about screening the lights, did you come up with anything? Ms. Brock — Under 1A, under the resolve clause, add the screening language after the phrase "that no more than two shielded light fixtures be used" add the following language: and be screened by plantings so that the phrase becomes; that no more than two shielded light fixtures be used and be screened by plantings. Chairperson Wilcox — Acceptable gentlemen? And the question ... we also have a line to fill in here in terms of the number of lumens ... 60 watt is 800 -850 lumens... something like that? So if we say that the wattage is no more than 1000 lumens, I think that's consistent with the use of 60 watt bulbs that are proposed. (discussion off -mike amongst members about lumens) Mr. Sieverding — I believe on the back of that cut -sheet table there that says initial lamp lumen .... and they're all also give you options in regard to beam spread and this in terms of working with. Staff, to pick a beam spread and light on the lettering of the sign and reduces the spillage. light fixture to do that. for that ground spot, there's a under a 1,000 Iumens...They is what I was suggesting Eva, a lumen level that focuses that The options are there with this Ms. Ritter — Those are pretty low lumens, I talked to Mike before he went on vacation. He was showing me different spotlights and many of the spotlights were much higher than this so it does seem like a low wattage spotlight. Chairperson Wilcox — So we're going to use... Ms. Ritter — Yeah, we could go even lower, it looks like, if you want to... Chairperson Wilcox — The highest one on the chart is 850 right ... so no more than 850 each ... and that the light fixture contain light bulbs with no more than 850 lumens... meaning each bulb. Ms. Brock — And Fred, while we're in there, I have some other suggested changes that weren't discussed tonight; and that any excessive up- lighting or glare noticeable from neighboring properties ... I think we should say as determined by whom ... who's going to make that determination of excessive glare? The Director of Planning? PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 10 Chairperson Wilcox — That's enforcement. That would fall under enforcement. Mr. Kanter — Well, we are usually the one's that check these sort of things. Ms. Brock — So add as determined by the Director of Planning after the words "neighboring property" and then change the word "would be remedied" to "must be remedied ". And then under B, this was another change that was being discussed by the Board tonight, submission of the lighting fixture details and locations for approval by the Director of Planning, so add the words "and location ". Chairperson Wilcox — Changes acceptable? For the record, I love the sign, I don't like the lighting. To me it's in violation of the sign law, or not the sign law, the lighting ordinance that we spent so much time on. Board Member Hoffmann — And I think that if some of you who are new on the Board think that we are a little fussy about this, I think it's because it is the first time with the new lighting ordinance... Board Member Thayer — Hopefully we are not setting a precedent. Board Member Conneman — That's my concern... Alternate Member Erb — I do understand your concern about precedent, but it's that the material for this sign is so different from what I suspect was the usual sign, that I think it would .... I'm looking forward to this rock -faced sign because I think it will be a handsome thing to see there as opposed to something metallic. And I think clamping something on top of it would destroy that good impression. Board Member Hoffmann — I agree. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Vote ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 -065 Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Sign Variance — Cornell University Pine 395 Pine Tree Road Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -3.4 Tree Office Building Sign Review Board (Planning Board) July 3, 2007 PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 1 I MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign variance to allow an illuminated +/- 56 square foot sign to be installed on the landscaped island of the driveway circle near the building entrance, at 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The sign text will be engraved.on a large natural stone face, +/- 4.5 feet in height and +/- 12.5 feet in length, and take up +/- 8.5 square feet of area, and be illuminated by up to two ground mounted, shielded arid narrow, spotlight fixtures. This proposal would replace the previously approved +/- 25 square foot manufactured sign proposed for the same location. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 3, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a drawing entitled "Site Identification Signage Cornell Office Building" (C108), date stamped 6- 04 -07, showing the dimensions of the sign, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request to replace the previously approved self - illuminated +/ -25 square foot sign with a +/- 56 square foot sign in the form of an illuminated engraved rock, located on the landscaped island near the building entrance, for the Cornell University Pine Tree Office Building, be approved, subject to the following conditions: a. the ground mounted sign lighting shall be focused on the sign text only, that no more than two shielded light fixtures be used and be screened by plantings, that the light fixtures contain light bulbs of low wattage containing no more than 850 lumens, and that any excessive up- lighting or glare noticeable from neighboring properties, as determined by the Director of Planning, must be remedied by either modification of the fixtures, the light bulbs, or the fixture orientation, and b. submission of the lighting fixture details and locations for approval by the Director of Planning, and c. the applicant must obtain sign permits prior to installing signs. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, Riha. NAYS: None. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 12 The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Board Member Conneman — And it is in the minutes that it is not precedent setting. Chairperson. Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:32p. m. SEAR DETERMINATION Eastern Heights Park Playground, SkyVue Road and Tudor Road. Fred Noteboom, and Rich Schoch, Town of Ithaca Public Works Chairperson Wilcox — What's the address of the facility, out where you are? Mr. Noteboom — 106 Seven Mile Drive. In 2005 the Town applied for a grant to replace 3 of our aging pressure treated play structures. One of which is Eastern Heights Park and then we have one on Tareyton Park and one on Salem Park. We received the grant. The first one we would like to do is the Eastern Heights Park. We are proposing moving the site of the playground from where it is now, it's down in kind of a secluded woody area so drainage is pretty poor. It's kind of out of sight of the rest of the park. This will be much more visible area. It'll be a pre- manufactured structure, all ADA compliant, Consumer. Product Safety Commission, all the approvals are there: We'll have a wooden fiber mulch base under it. It will be handicapped accessible. There will be ramps leading up into it There'll be some minor grading of the site to allow that to happen. The old site where the old treated structure will be, we'll be demolishing that as part of this project, there is money in this grant for demolition and disposal of the material. We'll be trying to salvage of it. It was built on a superstructure of utility poles. We hope to salvage those, the treated wood and the rest of it will be disposed of at Solid Waste. We will create a tipping fee there. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review. Board Member Hoffmann — How will the old site be used? Have you a new use for it? Mr. Noteboom — We're going to put it largely back to lawn and plant trees and shrubs and make it more of a natural, area. We have a trail system below there and a picnic area and we'll maintain those. But as I say, it's a pretty poorly drained area and we have problems mowing it and so forth. So we'll reduce the lawn area and do more tree and shrub plantings in the area. Board Member Hoffmann — But it's a very nice picnic area because it is shaded. Mr. Noteboom — Yes, we don't intend to change that part. Board Member Hoffmann — And very nice lawn area a step down, another flat area which is grass drawing that you provided us, tt edge? PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 13 the other question about the playground. There is a step is not the word, but, downslope a little bit there is now, and if you put this mulch on, it looks like on this iat there will be some edging? (yes) How high is the Mr. Noteboom — I believe it's a foot high. Board Member Hoffmann — You say there are going to be some access ramps to get there? (yes) Where will they be? Mr. Noteboom — Leaving from the SkyVue parking, main parking lot entrance will be as you go down the first terraced lawn area and then down the slight slope ... the first thing you come to will be the handicap ramp and the edging. Board Member Conneman — Is the playground part ... the walking area goes through the playground? Is that right? It says walking trail and then it's got... Mr. Noteboom — It goes by it. Board Member Conneman — It goes by it. Board Member Hoffmann — That's a wide grassy area. Mr. Noteboom — There's a little stream crossing and then you get into the woods and another picnic area and then the trail system and that will remain unchanged. Board Member Hoffmann — So, I guess, just one more question about the field area where the woodchips, I think you said, why do these areas have to be raised like this? It seems to me it puts an obstacle in the way to have a raised bed. We just had another playground proposal come in recently where it was the same thing. Mr. Noteboom — We've done the.. and it leads to drainage problems, then, where do you run that out to? mulch material a lot better too and material last that much longer so wE as often, for one thing... .we've excavated We have to put Just by elevating it will drain out bE won't need to go on some of our older structures, a lot of drainage underneath and it, we can maintain the 12" of fibar otter and it's just ... it will make that to the expense of freshening it up But the drainage is really the key issue, I would say, for raising it up. It greatly improves that. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, I didn't realize that. That makes sense. But otherwise, I feel like that edge is an obstacle, actually, as a grandparent , with knee problems, the 12" height is not so easy to go up and down. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 14 Chairperson Wilcox — Or to step over. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, you would step up, because I assume that the woodchips are up to the top of that edge. Mr. Noteboom — Just slightly below so they are contained in there. Board Member Hoffmann — And if it's slightly below, then it might be the kind of thing that people trip over. So, I don't exactly love that feature, I understand why it's there... Mr. Noteboom — It's really commonly done that way. It just makes a tidier site as well, in the playground and there is less spillage of the mulch and the other material out into the lawn area, for one thing. It's just easier to maintain around it and so forth. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I am just wondering if maybe if the soil around it could be raised so that it's level and then sloping off. The grassy area could be sloping up to the top of the 12" height instead. That's more work, that's more materials, but, it seems to me friendlier. More user friendly. Mr. Noteboom — That's possible to do, but again, it will lead to a drainage problem if you bring the dirt back up... Board Member Hoffmann — Not if you put drainage pipes and such through it... Board Member Talty — I think it's a valid point by Eva. Whether you have, say, the lawn area on the outside slightly elevated up or internally, you could put the pine bark mulch as a slight modification inside this, like in a corner, where you just kind of, you have an upslope, I'm sure 3 feet by 4 feet ... it wouldn't cause a huge drainage issue. Something to just consider. I had a question with regards to pressure mistaken, doesn't it have arsenic in it? destroyed or, I'm not just talking about jL general ... Is that a concern when that is shouldn't be burning it, so if you don't burn you do with it? Like where does it go? treated lumber. My question is, if I'm not The old pressure treated..'when . that's ist you guys, I'm talking about anybody in brought to a dump and I know you really it, you got to bury it, right? I mean, what do Mr. Noteboom — Take it to Solid Waste and let it be their problem. Board Member Talty — Well, I know that's funny but it's not so funny when it goes in the lake. I was just wondering in general because there is a lot of that pressure treated lumber that is harmful and I was just wondering what is the disposal mechanism for that particular type of wood. So you guys don't know... Board Member Riha — That's a good question, but when that wood decomposes... the form that the arsenic would be in would be absorbed by the soil. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 15 Board Member Talty — What about the copper and the things like that that are in standard pressure treated wood? Because there is copper in it right now. So things that ... maybe not just the arsenic, but there are other things in there that develop the properties of pressure treated, and I am wondering, as that breaks down, in general, I can understand the arsenic, I hadn't heard that before, but how bout the other materials that go into the pressure treated? You guys don't know? Mr. Noteboom — We don't know. Board Member Riha — The big concern, really, is the sewage sludge, because it has a lot more of these heavy metals in it than wood would amount to in this lumber, so, there's a lot of work on that issue. Chairperson Wilcox — Certainly proper disposal of the old playground equipment is important. Alternate Member Erb — I was noting that you, a couple of times, talked about ADA requirements and making sure that there were some ramps down from the parking lot, for example, and, does that also mean that there will be ramps on up back onto this playground surface from the lawn? Mr. Noteboom — Yes. Alternate Member Erb — In that case, I see the transfer station, to me, that's the slide place where you get out of a wheelchair. What part of this is then accessible to a wheelchair -bound individual? Mr. Noteboom — Basically the lower deck areas that they can get to from the transfer point. Alternate Member Erb — By schooching along? Mr. Schoch — Right ... there are limited things that they can do, let's be frank about it, I mean, they're not going to be able to use the swing sets, for instance, but we are trying to appeal to all ... a wide range of age group and that sort of thing, so... Alternate Member Erb — You know, we heard a couple of weeks ago about a structure that is sort of a sway structure that will actually accepts wheelchairs. The Lutheran Church on Honness Lane. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is redoing their playground and has a structure where you can roll into... Alternate Member Erb -- ...wheel into a boat -like structure and actually do some swaying and fun, so, I just mention that, for what it's worth. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 16 At the old site, where the old structure is, there's a main structure but there's also two additional free - standing structures... sort of a chin -up bar and some swings. Are those slated for removal as well as the main structure or are they in good enough shape that they could stay for awhile for families that might be picnicking down in that area and have the kids at least swing. Mr. Schoch — The swing set is in reasonably good shape, a lot more than the rest of the structure and that could certainly stay and that's probably 20 -30 feet away from the rest of it. Alternate Member Erb — Because I was thinking in terms of, if a family goes down to picnic in that area, although I know that you are restoring much of it, there's still going to be the barbeque pit and the picnic tables, and if they are in good enough shape, a couple of structures for the kids to play on is not unwelcome. Mr. Noteboom — That would be fine. One of the reasons, besides drainage and stuff, for moving the structure up out of that spot is, we've learned over the years that when you isolate and screen areas like that, it leads to all kinds of problems, so, we don't want to create attractive nuisances to just drag kids down in there that could lead to problems and we have had problems at that park site on occasions. Troy Park is another one that is a park that is screened and we have had quite a few problems there. It seems to be a party spot. People want to go up in ... nobody can see them from the road or anything else, so ... weIre just trying to avoid that. Alternate Member Erb — Did I misunderstand? I thought that the picnic area was going to remain. Mr. Noteboom — Yes. But if families go down there, you won't ... we generally have kids going down there to picnic all by themselves... what I am merely pointing out. You could possibly, if you leave a swing down there or something, have a child wander down by themselves just to get on the swing. So we have to be a little cautious about that. Isolating those kinds of things. Alternate Member Erb — Okay. I'll take your judgment. It was just a comment because they were free - standing. Board Member Hoffmann — I think it's a good point to have something for the children to do while the adults are picnicking because they tend to run around and ,if they run over to this new playground, they will be out of view from the adults, which is probably, for small children anyway, not such a good idea. I wanted to ask you, also, if you are planning to put some seats around the play structures in the new area for adults to sit on? PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 17 Mr. Noteboom — Oh yes, there will be benches around. Our standard park bench that you've seen. Board Member Hoffmann — How many? Mr. Noteboom — We really haven't determined. We have to maintain a 6' free zone. ..it's completely free from the exterior to any of the play components. Basically called a free zone. So it would have to be in various corners that we would site some benches. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, as far as I'm concerned, they could be outside of this area too, closer to the trees so one might sit in the shade. Depending on what time of day it is there will be shade on both sides of it because of the trees nearby. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions or comments with regard to the environmental review? Would someone like to move the SEQR motion. So moved by George Conneman, seconded by Susan Riha. Any further discussion? There being none ... vote, ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 =066 SEAR Preliminary and Final Site Plan Eastern Heights Park = Playground SkyVue Rd / Tudor Rd Tax Parcel No.'s 57 -2 -1.1 and 57 -2 -1.2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board, July 3, 2007 MOTION by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Riha. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed new playground in the Eastern Heights Park located off SkyVue Road and Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 57 -2 -1.1 and 57- 2 -1.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing play structure and constructing a new +/- 4,200 square foot playground area located to the south of the existing play field. Town of Ithaca, Owner /Applicant, 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 3. The Planning Board, on July 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 "Eastern Heights Park — New Playground Structure" dated April 28. 2007, and three sheets from PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 18 Miracle Recreation Equipment Company titled "Eastern Heights Park — Town of Ithaca" dated 2/9/07, 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; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes of environmental significance in accordance with Article Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York Sta Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part I Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: a 8 to 0 I, negative determination of the Environmental Environmental Quality n the information in the and, therefore, a Draft AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, Riha. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announced the next agenda item at 7:48p. m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed new playground in the Eastern Heights Park located off SkyVue Road and Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 57 -2 -1.1 and 57 =2 -1.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing play structure and constructing a new +/= 4,200 square foot playground area located to the south of the existing play field. Town of Ithaca, Owner /Applicant. Fred Noteboom and Rich Schoch, Town of Ithaca Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the site plan as proposed? Board Member Talty — Not questions, but I would like to see, if this is .going to be an ongoing thing with the different parks that we have around the Town, I think it's a great recommendation by Eva to have some type of slight modification, slight modification, on some type of accessibility for grandparents and children in general, say a small child of two, boys are rough and tumble, but maybe my little girl can't, she'll use that little ramp. So I'd like to have some type of consideration, whether it's outside the bounds, like the grass, like a grassy knoll, or internally where you just modify the mulch slightly, where you don't have that drainage issue. I think that would have a precedent as you go PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 19 through other types of parks around the Town, where you could just build that into your plan as you go. Mr. Noteboom — Which I have made some notes on that and we can accommodate that rather easily. Board Member Talty— Good. Chairperson Wilcox — Who has ultimate... well, the Town Board has ultimate financial control over this project. You said you have some funding for the new structures... Mr. - Noteboom — It's part of our capital plan planning goes. It's in the budget. That's all done as far as Chairperson Wilcox — But we could ask for something that might add $5,000 or $10,000 to the budget and the Town Board may say no or... Mr. Noteboom - Yes. What could add to it, this particular play structure is on the State Bid, for example, if the Planning Board didn't like it at all and we had to go out there, it would add substantial dollars to it which would not necessarily be budgeted. We'd have to go back to the Town Board ... and work that out. Board Member Hoffmann — This is not a question but a suggestion. About 5 years ago, I remember I was looking for where parks with playgrounds for small children were in the Town and I went to the Town's website and I couldn't find any maps indicating where they were. It could be that I had trouble negotiating my computer but, my suggestion would be that you put out maps on the Town's website, not just showing where the parks are, but what's in them, if you can go to that detail, and where, in a big park like Eastern Heights Park, the play structure is and so on. Mr. Kanter — Well we had something like that and I think we are in the process of updating and modifying that and I think it sort of stalled, maybe. Mr. Noteboom — A work in progress, but we do have a spreadsheet with all the amenities at each of the sites, what's available there, and that would be part of that map. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. And that will be on the Town's website? Chairperson Wilcox — Maybe, eventually. Mr. Kanter — It certainly could be. Any of those types of maps... Ms. Ritter — We do have a parks map there now. I think it may be a mix of park and trails. It's in with the whole list of maps that we have of UNA's and Zoning and all types of maps. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 20 Board Member Hoffmann — But it shows essentially just green areas. Ms. Ritter — Right, it doesn't show the details that they're talking about but at least we do have the maps on the web. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but I think it really would be useful to have descriptions of what's in those parks. Ms. Ritter — That's the next step, I think. Board Member Riha — Another suggestion would be, before the Salem and Tarreyton replacements, to really get a sense of how many people are using those and whether or not they could fulfill the requirements that you were saying, of having more open space, because I get the impression over in our neck of the woods, a lot of the kids use the playgrounds at Northeast School. That's there preferred playground because they're open and they're well developed. So I'm not clear how many people are using those. Mr. Noteboom — Salem Park is a little bit isolated... Board Member Riha — It's isolated. I haven't seen a whole lot of kids ... I've never seen any kids use it, actually. Alternate Member Erb — It could be like Eva said, a lot of people might not even be aware. Board Member Riha — They're not aware and it's too isolated, so, you might get a sense of, Tareyton probably more ... but you might get a feel for how many people really use it before thinking about is there some other thing you could do with it... Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board. Timothy Marchell, 221 Eastern Heights Drive Our property borders on the Park. I want to thank the Board for considering all these changes to the playground and considering the needs of grandparents as well as ... in my own home, my parents reside with our young children and the park is a well used park. The play structure itself is well used but has been a concern to us because of the pressure treated lumber. There are numerous families in the neighborhood with young children, increasingly so and I think that the new structure will be a valuable resource. So I encourage you to consider these various changes. Having not seen the plan itself and not really having a frame of reference what the size or scale of this or even. the design of the ....(he was given a plan).... One of the things that I have experienced in visiting various playgrounds in the community is that some PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 21 are designed for young children and some are for older children and are not appropriate... so I guess the only question I have regarding the safety issues is whether or not it is appropriate for multiple or a wide age span. It looks as though it is. Board Member Riha — It says 2 to 12. Chairperson Wilcox — One of the documents we have says "rides for ages 2 to 12." Alternate Member Erb — And it includes both of the types of swings. The ones for the babies in diapers, the criss- cross, as well as the regular swing. Mr. Marchell - And the location is going to be...okay, I see ... right at the top of the sledding hill. That's great that responds to my questions. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. Thank you. Anybody else this evening? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 7:56p.m. Someone like to move the motion as drafted? So moved by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Larry Thayer. Any changes Susan? There being no changes, there being no further discussion... Board Member Talty — We said we were maybe going to bring into the fold accessibility ... I thought that was going to be a change? Was I not hearing that correctly ... or am I off -base on that? Board Member Hoffmann — Well we had a lot of discussion about it, but... Board Member Tatty — I kind of wanted it drafted, myself. Ms. Brock — My understanding was that there actually is a ramp onto the structure itself, so you do not have to negotiate the 12 inch height, so I thought that that addressed that particular concern. Board Member Hoffmann — Well it depends on how many ramps there are and if they are all around. Let's say that you are sitting on the bench on one side of the park watching the kids, and they have a dramatic fall somewhere and are bleeding and crying, you're not going to walk around to where the ramp is to get to the child. You're going to jump right there at the closest way and then you have to negotiate this 12inch step if there is not a ramp there. Mr. Kanter — How many ramp opening are there? Mr. Noteboom — One. I have to apologize because I was talking to the gentleman and didn't hear all of the discussion, but if you would like to put that in the resolution, I don't think we'll have a real problem with it. We'll try to address that and make it more accessible. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 22 Chairperson Wilcox — What are we looking for? At least two, equally spaced around the play area? Mr. Noteboom — Eva was suggesting all the way around it, as I understood it. Board Member Hoffmann — That's what I hear you offering to do, to put. soil up so that the edge, this edge, which is around the area with the bark chips is level with the grassy area outside, which then gently... Board Member Riha — There was another alternative which was thinning out the bark chips, which I really like better. I really don't like trying to pile up soil because the chances of it staying piled up for long periods of time aren't that great. Board Member Hoffmann — But it would be grass... Board Member Riha — Yeah but then it.. ..people run around it, and the grass....having experiences in other places, it's harder to maintain that kind of surface .and it gets to be a muddy mess. So I kind of like the idea of maybe grading out the bark. Board Member Hoffmann — Instead of having the sharp edge... Board Member Riha -- ...yeah, somehow be able to grade it down to 2" or .... Board Member Hoffmann — That's the simplest solution. Board Member Riha — It would seem to me that would be more easy to sustain. Mr. Noteboom — We can do it. Chairperson Wilcox — How do we put that in words... Ms. Brock — Do you want to specify how they are going to make it accessible or just require that it be accessible? Board Member Riha — The latter sounds better ... To minimize the barriers to getting into the playground... Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, and it seems to me that if one were to do that, one would essentially not put this 12" edge in anywhere. One would just pile up the woodchips to whatever height is necessary and have it gradually peeter out. Board Member Talty — Well, that would be a problem, for sure, because as woodchips go they will slide and be all over. Mr. Noteboom — You need to contain it with something but we can also either lower that containment in the ground partially to mitigate everything and add the extra drainage to PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 23 take care of some of the other problems, but we can actually do that. We have the tools and everything. Board Member Talty — What's the actual square footage of the playground? Because what you could do is one per X amount or square feet, two double it, three, triple it... you know what I mean....the bigger the playground the more accessible ramps. For other playgrounds as you come back so you have a bench mark to go back to. Board Member Riha — How do they do it at the schools? Mr. Noteboom - Northeast has the same playground... Board Member Riha — When I've been over there, it has the same sort of barrier. Alternate Member Erb — But there must be one ramp area at least that is wheelchair accessible. Mr. Noteboom —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — So I am looking for, if we want to add something to the resolution, I am looking for some help here on how to quantify this accessibility and put something into the resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — I think I hear there is an understand of what the problem is and a willingness to take care of it, so, I guess we just need some language.... What were you proposing, Susan.... Board Member Talty — How about this ... It's 4,200 square feet, so why don't you just say that you need one for every 1,300 square feet, because that would give you three, on this particular... Board Member Riha — So that would be an actual ramp? Board Member Talty — Yeah. And then if there is one that's larger, then it's 4 ... proportionally. Board Member Howe — I thought you were proposing to make it accessible the entire way around? Board Member Talty — I wasn't necessarily, I was just ... I mean, if you want to do north, south, east, west ... I don't want to get too complicated. I was just saying that you need something quantitative, like Fred said, so that when you come back for future playgrounds, you know exactly what we're looking for. So if, I don't know, do four for 4,000 square feet ... that's fine, whatever the Board's pleasure is. If you want per 1,000 square feet... PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 24 Chairperson Wilcox — It's not clear to me, yet, what this Board prefers. Whether it's additional ramps of whether it's mitigating the 12" step all the way around. Board Member Howe — I like mitigating all around. Board Member Thayer — Fred, what dictates too much change? You mentioned if you had too. much change, you would be in trouble with the grant. Mr. Noteboom — I don't think that's too much change. It's a matter of., moving. dirt and adding some drainage. That will fit within the money we have. Board Member Talty — So if you were to lower if from 1' all the way around to say 6" all the way around, let's just say, does that mean you'd have to excavate for those other additional 6 "? Mr. Noteboom — We already will be excavating some, so it will just be part of the excavation. It will just mean excavating more or less, it won't necessarily add more dollars. Putting in some drainage will add some more dollars and I really don't know how much but I can't imagine on that size site, it being terrible... Board Member Talty — What's the normal rise on a stair? Dan? Like rise in rung? Mr. Walker - Eight to nine inches. Board Member Talty — Why don't we go with one stair will be 8" instead of 12 ". Board Member Hoffmann — I still think, just like Rod, I would prefer a sort of gradual thing all around. Board Member Talty — But bark chips, correct me if I am wrong, but it will be a mess, right? Mr. Noteboom — but we'll keep the containment. We're not getting rid of the containment if we raise it or lower it. We'll keep the edging, if you may, to hold it. I mean, if we just let the chips go free, we're going to have a problem. Board Member Talty — You gotta have some kind of containment, so even if it's 2" you gotta have something. Board Member Hoffmann — If I interpret what you are saying, you're saying that you can dig it down so that the top level of the woodchips is level with the grass around it, is that correct? Board Member Thayer — No. Mr. Noteboom — No, close, real close ... we can do that, yes. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 25 Board Member Hoffmann — that would be preferable. Chairperson Wilcox — The Board's intent here is to minimize the rise from the natural level of the land over the containment area.. the structure that contains the chips. We want to minimize that height change to the greatest extent possible. Which means possibly burying the 12" of chips down a little bit. That's what we want. We want to minimize that change in height. Board Member Thayer — Right. There's your resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — Right. That's what I am trying to do here. Are we in a position to tell them exactly what to do? i.e. only have it 9" high ... or are we instead saying minimize the change in elevation from ground to woodchips. Board Member Thayer — Yes, that sounds good. Alternate Member Erb — In the long term ... If there were ever a situation where it was going to be easier to do on some sides than other sides, it seems to me that the access from the parking area and the access from where the aunts are going to be sitting on the benches and running to the kid that just fell, or got pummeled, that those would be the critical areas. But I like the idea of minimizing it as much as possible, but the more critical area, in my head, would be those kinds of areas. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan's writing... that's a good sign ... she's trying to read our minds and put it in writing... Board Member Talty — What's the drainage consist of? Perforated PVC? Mr. Noteboom — Probably stone, .a layer of stone and some PVC pipe ... maybe some of the flat stuff to keep a low profile. Board Member Talty — Is that usually 6"? Mr. Noteboom — Some of it can be rather small. They have a lot of new products on the market nowadays. Alternate Member Erb — There is a channel on the eastside of that slope that's already sitting there. So you've got a nice drain to area. Mr. Noteboom — And there won't be a tremendous amount of water there, obviously, but it's just to keep it from becoming a pond. Chairperson Wilcox — How are you doing Susan? PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 26 Ms. Brock — Well, what the ... how do we describe the area under the structure itself? It's the pad that's filled with woodchips but is there a word or name for that? Or do we just call it the pad filled with woodchips? Mr. Noteboom — The surfacing is what it's call, basically. Ms. Brock — Surface under the play area. Maybe that would work. Well .then let's try this: At the end of the second resolve clause, add "upon the condition that the applicant minimize the change in elevation between the ground level surrounding the play structure and the surface under the play structure." Chairperson Wilcox — Love it. Moved and seconded by who... okay... Eva and Larry... you all set? Good. Any further discussion? There being none ... Vote ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB RESOLUTION NO: 2007 -067 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Eastern Heights Park - Playground SkyVue Rd / Tudor Rd Tax Parcel No.'s 57 -2-1.1 and 57 -2 -1.2 Town of Ithaca.Planning Board, July 3, 2007 MOTION made by Board Member Hoffmann, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan. Approval for the proposed new playground in the Eastern Heights Park located off SkyVue Road and Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 57 -2 -1.1 and 57- 2 -1.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing play structure and constructing a new +/- 4,200 square foot playground area located to the south of the existing play field. Town of Ithaca, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval has, on July 3, 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 3, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Eastern Heights Park — New Playground Structure" dated April 28. 2007, and three sheets from Miracle Recreation Equipment Company titled "Eastern Heights Park — Town of Ithaca dated 2/9/07, and other application materials, PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 27 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed playground at the Eastern Heights Park located off SkyVue Road and Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 57 -2 -1.1 and 57 -2= 1.2, as described on drawings titled "Eastern Heights Park — New Playground Structure" dated April 28. 2007, and three sheets from Miracle Recreation Equipment Company titled "Eastern Heights Park — Town of Ithaca" dated 2/9/07, upon the condition that the applicant minimize the change in elevation between the ground level surrounding the play structure and the surface under the play.structure. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty, Riha NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:10 p.m. SKETCH PLAN Proposed expansion of the Manley's Mighty Mart located at 1103 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -2 -2.1 and 43- 2 -2.2, Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone. The proposal includes a +/- 1,357 square foot addition to the existing store including a drive thru, two new fuel pumps and an addition to the canopy, a new +/- 20,000 gallon under ground storage tank, and a new +/- 1,000 square foot drive thru car wash with two exterior vacuum stations. Manley's Mighty Mart, Owner /Applicant; Napierala Consulting Engineer, PC, Agent. Matt Napierala and Jim Emmerick, Napierala Consulting,110 Fayette St., Manlius, NY Mr. Napierala — Unfortunately, due to the closeness to the holidays, Mike Tomanocy from Manley's Might Mart could not be in attendance tonight as well as, Manley's Might Mart has retained counsel, Sarah Grace Campbell of Binghamton will be here with us when we go to the next stages of this. So we will have a team to work our way through this process. We understand that this particular application, which is for renovations, upgrade and expansion of the Big AI's Manley Mighty Mart will require a multi -step PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 28 process through the Town in which we hope to work through that with you folks, the ZBA and such. As the Chairman has indicated, and I will briefly go through what our proposal is ... It's a multi- faceted, as I indicated, renovation and upgrade that we're looking at for this facility. First to deal with is an expansion of the existing convenience store itself. A building addition and as well, a drive -thru and as was indicated in the Planner's. review letter, that drive -thru is to house a Dunkin Donuts. Manley Mighty Mart has worked on a franchisee type of an agreement with Dunkin Donuts to enhance their services to their customers. Associated with that convenience store will be upgrades to the internal workings of that store. Additional square footage, some additional cooler space as well as the dedicated area for Dunkin Donuts internally and the drive -thru itself. With that as well, and with the development, they're looking at expanding the existing dispenser and canopy area to add two additional dispensers to their fuel service in this particular corner. To do that as well, they are looking at a new underground, 20,000 gallon storage tank to deal with their fuel usage and supply for their customers. And the last amenity, they are looking at a drive -thru car wash facility on the eastern end of the proposed development with some associated parking and a couple of vacuum stations. The amenities to go with that are an expansion of the asphalt service drive in the gray- shaded area to serve both the drive -thru and the car wash facility. The existing dumpster for the facility is sitting in this corner, and under the sketch plan, we have located that in the back of the store to the west end understanding that there might be some concerns with regard to setbacks and such that we need to work through and properly work out. We are here tonight for sketch plan purposes to hear commentary and input so that we can take this plan further, advance it, and hopefully come to terms with regards to your commentary and come back before you under preliminary site plan review. Thank you. Board Member Talty — I would highly recommend a traffic study because of the amount of development going on in and around these particular intersections. There are other applicants that are coming in front of us that we are trying to negotiate sidewalks, crossing patterns, things of that sort ... so, not only having your own traffic study, but maybe getting together with the Town Planner on previous traffic studies, jumping on piggyback on that and see what's going on so far and working with the other applicants in and around that area I think would be highly conducive to your plan. Board Member Conneman — I think what we really need is a plan for the whole corner because, as you know, there's been a plan to have a restaurant and a shopping center on the other side of Sam Peter's, there's a hotel across the way ... there's all kinds of things going on and somehow, that ought to all be coordinated. It seems dumb not to do it at this point in time. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 29 Board Member Talty — Are you aware of that? Mr. Napierala — I was not aware of the other amenities on the other corner, no I was not. I am aware, obviously, of the construction that's happening right now with regards to the new hotel across the street... Board Member Talty — Over the top of Sam Peter to the next corner, where the evergreens are, there's a very large, potential shopping structure going in there. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Monkemeyer has received preliminary approval for that. Alternate Member Erb — Something on the order of 20,000 square feet. Board Member Conneman — And if this is all done correctly, and cooperatively and corroboratively, it seems to me that it can really be a great corner which will benefit you guys as well as the rest of them. So I assume you ought to meet with Jonathan and talk about the whole corner because I thinking that's what it's going to come down to. Board Member Howe — Right, as Christine has laid out in this memo, there's also the issue of traffic circulation in the site itself. Things are really tight, and I assume that you got a copy of the Staff memo about this, so,.there's a couple of paragraphs just about the site circulation itself that I think raises all the issues that I agree with. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I do too. And there are other problems, too. Like, there's a discrepancy about how many parking spots there are and there would be. There are parts of these structures and driveways and so on that would come too close to the boundaries. There are residences on the south side and on the eastside of these properties and I feel very strongly that it's really important to keep the proper buffers between a commercial zone and residential zone. So I think there are all kinds of problems that could be worked out, but they have to be looked at. Mr. Napierala — It's our understanding that the property to the east is zoned commercial, neighborhood commercial, the property to the south is residential, so... Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but the property to the south, the driveway and the structures are very close to that boundary. Mr. Napierala — I understand. And I think we can work on ... for the most part, we're following that existing line and we can work on this relocation where there's an existing fence and tree line so we're not disturbing that, and frankly, from our visit, maybe enhancing that fence line itself. It looks like it could use some tender loving care. With regards to the parking count, I just want to get clarification here. When we did our particular numbers, we took credit for parking spaces within the dispenser itself because as all of us who go to convenience stores, we leave our cars at the pump, we go in, we PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 30 either, if we're paying at the pump, we still go in and grab our particular flavor of choice and go on, but, if that's not allowed, that's certainly, we can certainly subtract that out but I think in a pragmatic sense, the people that are using the dispensers are as well using the store so we've taken credit for those parking spaces underneath each dispenser pump. And we can further clarify that in the submission if it's allowed, and if it's not, I think, as the memo indicated, we still have ample parking spaces without it, but just to keep the record clear. Mr. Kanter — One question in regard to that ... Are cars going to be able to park over the new underground storage tank? Mr. Napierala — Yeah. That will be fully H -20 loading capable so that particular pad will be capable without any problem at all. Chairperson Wilcox — Put it in English please. Mr. Napierala -- H -20 loading is tractor trailer loading for DOT trucks so that's a particular, when we deal with structural analysis of that concrete slab, it will be capable of withstanding a highway truck. Chairperson Wilcox — So the cars could park there and that wouldn't. impede the off- loading of fuel, for example. Mr. Napierala — The timing of that off - loading of fuel typically is in the early a.m., and again, we can work a schedule with Mr. Tomanocy and Manley's Mighty Mart that it would not impact those particular parking spaces. And again, as Ms. Hoffmann indicated, it is a tight site. There's no question about it and we're trying to work within the parameters of the boundaries to provide the necessary amenities within this planning concept of this entire corner. So, again, we're here to work with you guys and hopefully we can make this all fit. Board Member Riha — I'm really concerned about creating more impermeable surfaces and how you're going to deal with enhanced stormwater runoff. Mr. Napierala — There is an existing small mitigation basin here in the northwest corner and we're not impacting any of that as far as the ability to expand that particular mitigation basin to offset. So we will run the calculations as far as the existing runoff and proposed runoff. We understand, looking at the topography, that from our particular site, the drainage continues toward the college and beyond, down the hill, so we want to make sure that we are doing our part to mitigate our runoff on site due to those additional impervious, so we will provide that in a stormwater report. Board Member Riha — Okay. And how will you handle the drainage for the carwash? Mr. Napierala — The carwash is a self- contained type of facility itself and the containment of that facility will have its own water -oil separators and such and the PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 31 discharge to that will go to the sanitary sewer system. So there will be no flooding of water during that particular operation. Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to ask Dan Walker, I remember when we talked about this the last time, in the northwestern corner of the property, there was some special drainage facility put in that was going to trap runoff. Mr. Walker — Right, and it looks like it's still...it doesn't show on this drawing, but it's basically in that area to the east of the underground storage tank. To the north of the storage tank. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I saw some pipes there when I was looking. Mr. Walker — So they'll need to show that facility on there and if there's going to be more impervious surface, they may have to expand it. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and I wanted to ask you, is it working today, the way it's supposed to work. Mr. Walker — It seems to be. We haven't noticed any flooding problems coming off the site. The state drainage system is handling it. Board Member Hoffmann — Is this one of those that has to be maintained by being cleaned periodically? To work properly? Mr. Walker — Every structure will eventually develop a sediment load, but this is primarily off the paved surfaces, so I haven't noticed any major filling of the site. Usually during construction is when you get the most sediment into it and since nobody's using sand anymore on the roads, for deicing, that was the biggest cause of sediment on paved surfaces. Board Member Hoffmann — I notice that there is a big drainage ditch along the southern part of that western edge, along Danby Road, and there is a culvert under the road, and there are some huge, not huge, but big rocks in the ditch and I saw one in the culvert that goes under the road, and I was wondering if there are problems with that. Mr. Walker — I am not aware of any major drainage problems in that part of Danby Road. Most of the watershed to the south of that site is collected in a culvert that drains through over to the Auble property just south of the new hotel that's going up there. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I think that's the one I am talking about. There's a culvert that's south of the driveway into Manley's Mighty Mart going across the road into Auble's property. And I don't know how to judge whether something is filling up but I saw this rather big piece of stone at the beginning of the ... Mr. Walker — When you say rather big...two feet ... or a foot ... or. .. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 32 Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe a foot, foot and a half square... Mr. Walker — Well, when I am up there sometime I will take a look at it and call the State if they need to do some maintenance on their... Mr. Napierala -- That's a typical type of treatment that we like to have.on both inlet and outlets of large culverted pipes to help capture some of that sediment. or to energy dissipate on the discharge end so we are slowing the speed, especially on very steep grades of runoff water. So we typically will apply blasted rock to the. front end and the back end of culvert pipes for that purpose and based on our inspection, the pipes appear to be clear and the blasted rock is doing its job to help keep the sediment out of the culvert and to help during those runoff events. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I don't know how to judge that so I am just glad if you will look. Mr. Ritter — I just might add that I think that work was done before people were really paying much attention to the new regulations that dealt with water quality and there was much more interest in water quantity. So, this is an older facility. It's not necessarily the kind of facility that you would probably see today. Board Member Hoffmann — But if we were to encourage further development on this parcel, we would also have to have them build the facilities according to today's rules... Ms. Ritter — Yeah, it's a little tricky...One, we do not have a ...we hope to have a stormwater management ordinance by the end of the year and right now we are using DEC regulations which are ... maybe I would consider ... a little lax and so, I guess we'd have to look. I don't know if this would be considered a redevelopment, perhaps, that we could look at it from that point of view. How we would deal with stormwater. Mr. Napierala — And we're certainly going to work with your office. The one thing, the DEC deals with is a threshold before you have to apply for the SPEDES perm it.that holds the jurisdiction for stormwater and that threshold is 1 acre of construction disturbance. The proposal at hand, when we look at the disturbance area, we're less than 1 acre, but we're certainly going to work with your office as far as providing appropriate, certainly quantity mitigation and seeing what is an applicable quality mitigation. One thing when we get involved with the DEC reg's with quality mitigation is we get into, sometimes, deep pools of ponding of water and other things for that front end 4 -bay of water quality mitigation, unless we get into bio- retention or some other means that DEC allows us to do. But, we'll have that discussion and provide an appropriate answer. Board Member Riha — Yeah, and like I said, I would just second Eva's concerns here because with all this development that's going on in this area and the large increase in impermeable surfaces and the steep slopes coming off that hill, it just seems like we PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 33 need to be particularly comfortable that we have a really good stormwater system in place. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes and the one thing that we were concerned about for other projects up in this area and the previous expansion on this particular site is that the Buttermilk Falls State Park is very close and the drainage from this area goes across, into that creek. So, it's especially important. Board Member Riha -- Right, to maintain the character of the creek. Board Member Talty — You'll be...what's the owner's name again? Mr. Napierala — The owner is Manley's Mighty Mart. The agent that we work with is Mike Tomanocy. He is their Director of Development. Board Member Talty — As you speak to Mr. Tomanocy, there's a, in my opinion, a negative connotation with this property. There is a memo by the Town of Ithaca, I don't know if you're in receipt of this.... Mr. Napierala — Yeah, 1 saw that and unfortunately, I have not been able to address all those items to clear those up... Board Member Talty — I understand. But make it very clear to him that we're being very positive as we move forward with his new project, okay...We take it very serious when he does not communicate with the Town of Ithaca and their very reasonable requests. Mr. Napierala — I agree 100% and we'll have that discussion and feel free... Board Member Talty — He will be here in attendance at some point, right? Mr. Napierala — He certainly will. He apologizes today, that he couldn't make it. This is his one vacation Tony Manley gives him a year and he's in Cape Cod right now. Chairperson Wilcox — Right. You are here representing him. Mr. Napierala — Yes sir. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to hear that you're gonna have a discussion. I want to hear they are going to be resolved. Mr. Napierala — They will be resolved sir. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Quickly. Before you come back. And they will stay resolved. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 34 Board Member Talty — Because as that moves forward, that whole quarter mile area there...we want you guys to be the shining star of that area (laughter)... not artificial. Chairperson Wilcox —We should point out that there is a long enough history with this property when it was first developed into what exists there today in terms of what was done and what was not done and what resulted because of .the issues .with the development that occurred there. Board Member Talty — And, it is. not looking really neighborly right now. So I expect when you guys go through and you work with the Staff and you work with us; we want this not only to look great upon completion, but we want it to look great a year from completion. Board Member Conneman — In other words, don't come back until you solve the problems, and then present. Board Member Thayer — There have been problems with that site for a long time. Chairperson Wilcox — You're going to pay the penalty for close scrutiny. Alternate Member Erb — I was not attracted to the location for the dumpster. Thinking in terms of this poor resident to the south: When I drove around back there, it's already a really tight, tight, area and it's ugly as sin from the inside. The compressors or whatever they are, are terribly noisy. So 'l am very pleased that you're not going to disturb that solid fence and the brush, but, it seems to me that.with all the new construction over at the vacuum station and things, would it be that much farther to take the garbage sort of over there and build it in it's own nice little playpen. As opposed to having this need for a variance here and having even more noise and everything for the residents to the south. Mr. Napierala — I agree and actually, we put together the sketch plan based on input from the owner and upon our subsequent site visits, I wholeheartedly agree with those comments with regards to the dumpster and we're going to do a better job with that. Board Member Conneman — I like Dunkin Donuts, but I think a drive -thru, my wife would be surprised I'm saying this, but, the drive -thru has got to be done correctly, otherwise it's not very good. I mean, it can be a real distraction, a real disaster. The donuts are still good, but, that isn't our problem. Board Member Talty — I just want to jump on the coattails of that. Have you been to the Dunkin Donuts down on Route 13 at all? Okay. I don't know what they were thinking, but, in the morning, at times, there are cars backed up onto 13 for Dunkin Donuts. Now I don't know what the queue necessitates, but I would take a real good look at other Dunking Donut franchises in and around the area for that type of neighborhood, as you do the demographics, because the last thing you want is cars back out onto 96B or PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 35 something else. So make sure you give yourself enough queue to house, I don't know, 15 cars, whatever it might be, for that type of demographic in that area. Alternate Member Erb — Is this within 1,500 feet of the College Crossings development Mr. Kanter — I would say yes. Alternate Member Erb — And do we know ... you know what my next question is... Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I'm not going to answer the question because the real issue is a drive -thru convenience store or restaurant in this zone is not permitted period. No matter how far away it is from anything. It's not permitted. Chairperson Wilcox — Being the Chair, I let everyone else go first ... I was just going to say it. Mr. Kanter — I can't believe the Board went this far. So it would require a use variance, which again, is much more difficult to demonstrate the hardship criteria necessary for a use variance than an area variance, so, and the Zoning Board has been quite careful about granting use variances in recent years, months. But also, just think about the drive -thru and the other things you were talking about; the surface coverage, the tight circulation...That's primarily caused because of the proposed drive -thru. Lose the drive -thru and you lose some of those problems. When Manley's first called the office, I said, you know, you really need to think about the possibility of a Dunkin Donuts or something that doesn't need a drive -thru because there are a no guarantees that you're going to get a drive -thru here, and I really think the Board better think seriously about that issue. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. Now it's my turn. Board Member Conneman — We do have another developer who came here with a drive -thru proposed for Dunkin Donuts and he said you got to have a drive-thru if you're gonna have a Dunkin Donuts. I investigated in two different states, including Kenneth Square Pennsylvania and you don't have to do it. They have drive- thru's ... rather, they have Dunkin donuts without drive- thru's. Board Member Talty — That is true, but considering Dunkin Donuts is a client of mine, the reason why Manley's and everybody else wants a drive -thru is because 70% of all coffee is to go, currently, in general, not just Dunkin Donuts, 70 %, and that's why...people are lazy, we talk about it all the time, they don't want to bike, they don't want to walk, they want to go through a drive4hru, they want their #2 to go right, so I understand, demographics, I mean, that's kind of what I do, in disposables, but, I'll be willing to bet, if they can't get a drive -thru, there won't be a Dunkin Donuts at that location because the numbers won't work for the sales that they need to have go through there. Anyway, but I agree George, there are Dunkin Donuts, but in the venues PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 36 that they have no drive thru, there's a considerable amount of traffic already going past those venues. Sorry Fred. Mr. Kanter — Not to interrupt, but I thought we just heard that one reason people go to these convenience stores is because they pull up to the gas pumps, pump their gas, and then they leave their car and they walk. Now you need to get back in the car and go through the drive -thru. Board Member Talty — I'm just telling you how the demographics are on that particular customer. That's how it works. Tim Horten's.:.all those ... It's a little different with Starbuck's because they go in and sit down and open their laptops ... it's a whole different mechanism. But ... anyway....go ahead Fred. Chairperson Wilcox — I was thinking about how I learned patience at, actually, -going to Wegman's 20 years ago when the Wegman's aisles were so crowded and you . really learned patience. My comments. This Board in the past, and I was thinking about the pharmacy that was constructed up on East Hill and then the proposed hotel that came. behind it. This Board has been pretty consistent about not wanting nor allowing variances to the zoning ordinance with commercial /retail. The Board has been pretty consistent about that. Okay, that's what the Board has done. Okay, here's my feeling. Given the location, given the site, I can't see where I would be in favor of recommending variances. I- don't care whether it's setback, a drive -thru, and frankly, I, am hard pressed to think they are going to get a variance for a drive -thru, it's a use variance, not an area -variance, and in fact, if they are going to proceed with it, I think I would want to see the numbers myself. They're gonna have to come in and show that they.... they're going to have to bring in financial numbers to show that they can't make a reasonable return from any other allowed use on that property, in order to get what's called a use variance. .Very, very difficult. I'd want to see those numbers, if they even think they are going to try to convince me that it would reasonable to put a drive -thru where none are allowed in the current zoning. The buffering requirements are there for a reason because of the impacts that commercial zones have. Whether it's noise or trash, or lighting, or traffic or car motors running etc, etc, So consistent with how I have reacted with other retail such commercial development, I expect the same thing here. Ms. Brock — Can I just jump in ... I think some of the wording that's being thrown round about variances is being used in sort of a colloquial way. I just wanted to remind the Board that you can not base your decision on whether or not you think a variance should be granted because that decision is in the purview of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Normally, site plan approval comes to you before the variance requests go to the ZBA. It's possible, that since this involves a use variance down the road that the Town may decide that actually, the use variance issue should go to the ZBA first and then if that's resolved favorably for the applicant, then it comes to you. But I just want to PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 37 make sure you're clear in your minds that you're supposed to be looking at the site plan issues, and any variance issues need to be left to the ZBA. Board Member Conneman - But does the ZBA see the other problems that this creates without knowing about the site plan? Ms. Brock — In terms of area variances or use variances, or...what are you talking about? Board Member Conneman — Knowledge about the site plan. Are they only looking at the variance, or are they looking at the site plan? Ms. Brock — No, they look at the impact, if the variance were to be granted, they would look at what the impact of granting that variance would be on the site, on the neighborhood, on traffic, on all those types of issues. They take all of that into consideration. Those are criteria that they must .consider. They're supposed to grant the minimum variance necessary to achieve the result, among other things. That's for area variances. For use variances, it's a completely different set of criteria that they look at. Basically, the applicant has to show that no permissible use that's already permitted in that zone, can give them a reasonable economic return. Among other things. There are a bunch of other things, but that's the very first thing that they look at. So if this applicant can show that not having a drive -thru, they can still make a reasonable economic return on the property, then if the ZBA is doing its job, it can not grant the use variance. Chairperson Wilcox — And it can't be self - induced either. Ms. Brock — And it can't be a self created hardship. And taking possession of property, . with knowledge of the zoning, or even if you don't have knowledge of the zoning, you're supposed to have knowledge of the zoning. So knowing that the zoning says that drive- thrus are not permitted, and then afterwards they decide, well, we really want one anyway. That, that's going to be another huge hurdle for them. Mr. Kanter — Aside from the legal variance issues that Susan was talking about, though, there are the site plan issues of all these elements. There's the drive -thru, regardless of variance. There's the dumpster, regardless of variance. There are the setbacks of structures, regardless of variances. And if those are seen as important site plan issues and environmental issues, that are in the environmental review process, the variances don't mean squat. You don't have to think about that. Ms. Brock — Right. No, I didn't mean to imply that you can't look at those issues... Mr. Kanter — But I just wanted to clarify because you could interpret it from what you are saying that the Board can't get into those issues, and they certainly can. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 38 Ms. Brock — No, you can get into any site plan issue, regardless of whether a variance is needed or not. You can look at any site plan issue, that's within your jurisdiction. You just should not be discussing or basing your decision on, well it's really hard to get use variances, so we're not going to approve this site plan with this use in it because you're not going to get the variance from the ZBA. That's the type of thing we shouldn't be going back and ... (inaudible, 3 members talking over each other) Ms. Brock — Typically, the Town does the site plan approval first and then the project goes to the ZBA for the variance considerations. It may be that's what you'll do here but it may be, too, that it might make sense in this particular situation to have the ZBA actually look at the use variance issue first. That doesn't mean you still have to approve the site plan then, but at least you know, is this drive -thru in the mix or not. If the ZBA denies the use variance, that's just off the table. They do have another option, actually, besides use variance. They could ask the Town Board to change the zoning, which is entirely at the discretion of the Town Board, and that's a difficult thing to do too, but, there is that other option. Mr. Kanter — The only zone that would allow a drive -thru on this kind of a use would be a community commercial zone, and I don't think that's going to go any place. Ms. Brock — Or they could_ ask that a drive-thru be allowed in the vehicle refueling and repair zone. That be another use that gets added to this particular zone. That would be another option that they would have, but that then would be the Town Board's decision. Chairperson Wilcox — But even there, let's say, hypothetically, the Zoning Board of Appeals should grant a use variance, or, the Town Board should change the zoning to allow drive- thru's, this Board could look at the plan and say "it doesn't work." Ms. Brock — Yes, exactly. Chairperson Wilcox — We're not bound by... Board Member Thayer — It would make it easier if we knew... Chairperson Wilcox — Potentially could make it easier, yeah... Mr. Walker — Actually, on the site plan issue, for it's access, I don't understand how it's going to work. If you look at the car wash, where's the staging area for the car wash? Usually on these places they have a discount on the gas if you buy a car wash, how are you going to get from these pumps to the car wash without... Ms. Ritter — You have to buy a donut ... (laughter).... 1 . PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 39 Mr. Walker — I'd have to drive around that building and still have to get past the line for the donut drive -thru and get to the car wash, so, I think there's some very big site... Chairperson Wilcox — Onsite circulation problems. Now, we had some issues before, which I think were resolved, where the fuel trucks were sitting in the New York State right -of -way in order to off - load... Mr. Walker — That was resolved by ... you see that concrete pad. that's placed parallel to the road on the left., that's where the trucks are supposed to park now to off -load into the... Chairperson Wilcox — And not be in the New York State right -of -way, which is unusually wide in that area... Board Member Hoffmann — In addition to all of the problems that we have mentioned already, there are a few more things I wanted to bring up. One is, the site as it is now is very tight for maneuvering around in and I have a car that's very. easy to maneuver, but I find it _tight now. So I find it hard to imagine making these rather large additions and a carwash that it's not going to continue to be hard to maneuver around there. So that's one problem, the tightness of the site, which I agree with. And there is already a problem with the signs. There are sign violations. And if there were to be a Dunkin. Donuts located on the inner part of the site, not very visible from the road, I imagine there would have to be signs indicating that Dunkin Donuts are sold there, and I'm feeling a little bit concerned about that considering the problems with the signs now. And then the third thing is, this business of parking at the pumps and standing there while you go into the shop ... is that something,. Js there a regulation about that? Chairperson Wilcox — We all do it. Or you run in and pay for it and you buy a 6 -pack of beer, a 6 -pack of soda or a carton of cigarettes or a snack.... Board Member Hoffmann — It's one thing if you go in to pay and just pick up one more thing, but if you are beginning to have, they have a store there which I understand has quite a range of stuff and you might end up shopping for more than one thing, it might take a little longer. And then if they add some other business too, it seems to me that's not a very efficient use of the pumps... Board Member Howe — I think that's a management issue. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right, it's not that people are... Board Member Hoffmann — I don't do it myself, actually, so that's why I don't understand why people do that. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 40 Chairperson Wilcox — They're lazy. Any other feed... anything else at this point? Alternate Member Erb — It's just a tacky looking property right now. Board Member Thayer — And this doesn't help. Alternate Member Erb — Which doesn't sound like its going to be enhanced... Chairperson Wilcox — Have you heard enough feedback? Mr. Napierala -- You're doing pretty good... Board Member Talty — You can get a copy of the minutes and bring them back to the... Chairperson Wilcox — Do you need anything else? Mr. Napierala — I just, before we leave, between the Town Attorney. and Jonathan, if we can just get a suggested path as far as if the application stays like this, what you would suggest as far as continuing here with the Planning Board, or setting in motion the application to ZBA. So just think about that, and then we'll chat. Chairperson Wilcox -- Okay. This gentleman has been sitting here very patiently observing. This Board has generally given people the chance to speak as early as possible so we'll give you a chance to speak. Les Black, 107 King's Way I'm actually having a lot of fun listening in, I've never been to one of these before. I'm the people to the east. Actually, I kind of like the dumpster moving in that direction because it's away from me. I think that we just have issues with this whole project coming closer to our property. This was a very quite little intersection even a year ago when we moved in. There was no hotel, no talk of any development across from Mr. Monkemeyer, who we actually bought our house from, and no talk of this expansion. And I think that this whole intersection (tape change, he continued talking) and you almost get the feeling that that's the mindset of people who are doing business there. Just as an example, we had to complain several times to the County Police to stop garbage pick -up. Both at Sam Peters and at the convenience store. They were coming at 5a.m., which was a little bit too early and we found out that there was actually a noise ordinance that was pertaining to dumpsters that was for 7a.m. and I just got the feeling that when we went through this process of complaining, and it took a long time, actually, for the message to get through, I think it was the threat of a fine that eventually did it, I just had the feeling that there was more of a sense on that corner that it's becoming commercial, that it's not really a residential area anymore. And actually, if you look at that whole area beyond those businesses right on the intersection, it's all houses. It's all residence. So I just think a lot of care has to be taken right now with all this PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 41 expansion to the east to make sure that that barrier is intact and I would also petition for an expanded barrier for more plantings, evergreen trees, particularly, because we find, at our house, that we can see the light more, hear the noise and smell the gas, a lot more in winter than we do in the summer time. So I think some substantial planting there would certainly help and I think that would be a good mantra to anyone building anything on that corner at this point. That's about all I have to say. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask you a question. You said you live in that house immediately to the east of this property? Mr. Black — Yes we're in the house that is next to the one that they bought. So we're in that house that as you go in off the road, it's kind of... Board Member Hoffmann — We have an aerial map which I think shows it. Mr. Black — Our property actually touches... their property at the back of the south side and then the other property is kind of wedged in- between. So, most of this new development is right there, and I mean, the thought of a car wash with exterior vacuums, right there, is particularly. disturbing to me. I would think that that would be something that my 2 -year old would probably hear, well, he'll probably.be 5.by the time this is built. Board Member Hoffmann — but what I wanted to ask you though, is, is you're property zoned commercial? Mr. Black — There's some issue with that. I'm not exactly sure. I believe that Evan Monkemeyer had some kind of extra permit for a larger residence there, but then it only ended up being a single - family residence. I'm not clear on that issue. I can certainly tell you that we are only using it for residential purposes. Mr. Kanter — It is on neighborhood commercial. There is no question about that. Board Member Hoffmann — But it's at the moment, used as a residential property. Board Member Talty — What does that mean exactly, Jonathan? What does that mean? That term? Mr. Kanter — It just means that the property is zoned for commercial development for future use, on the property. That doesn't mean that the residence that is there is illegal. It was a preexisting house, so that can remain, but, clearly, the intent of that area was to be commercial. Mr. Walker — It is considered a legally non - conforming lot at this point. So if they wanted to put an addition on, they would probably have to go to the Zoning Board to get approval to do it because it doesn't. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 42 Chairperson Wilcox — Because it's zoned commercial rather than as a residential. Mr. Walker -- ...it doesn't meet the zoning as a ... plus residential doesn't allow... Mr. Kanter — Yeah, mixed use is allowed in that commercial zone, so (inaudible) Mr. Black — I wish I was clear on what that all meant... Chairperson Wilcox — It means you can put in a retail establishment in there if you wanted to, subject to approval. Mr. Black — Well I am wondering if I could petition to make it fully residential and make their life more miserable. Chairperson Wilcox — It doesn't make their life necessarily more miserable. It does change some of the setback requirements, but that's a process through the Town Board. If you want to petition, similar to you might want to change the zoning on your property, the applicant may want to change the zoning on their property. I mean, both to achieve something that benefits you personally or them as a business here. That's a Town Board issue, not a Planning Board issue. We're bound by the zoning that exists but we thank you for your comments. Board Member Hoffmann — I also think that we have to consider the use that exists, regardless of the zoning. Chairperson Wilcox — Well... absolutely... Board Member Riha — Is that the case? You mean we have to think about there is a residential home here ... so when we are looking at the site plan, we're thinking of that in terms of... Chairperson Wilcox — Buffer requirements... Board Member Riha — Even if it's not zoned for that... Alternate Member Erb — Well it's allowed use but it's zoned differently from a lot of living zones. From a lot of residential zones. Right? Mr. Kanter — The actual buffer requirement goes by zone as opposed to use, so, since this is a commercial zone, it requires a 30' buffer instead of a 50' buffer on that side. So from a zoning perspective, that's what you think about. From a land -use compatibility perspective, which is part of the SEQR review, you'd look at it as a house with somebody living in it. Mr. Kanter — And maybe you could talk the Manley's, and you could make yourself a healthy profit, and then Manley's would convert the whole site over. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 43 Chairperson Wilcox — It's getting late ... do you have everything you need... Mr. Napierala — Just to continue my comment as I left ... and we can do this offline Jonathan, come by your office and kind of talk about this with Mike Tomanocy as well, so, I mean, we don't need an answer tonight, but I think that 's the direction we want. We have a lot to consume here. A lot to review with his office and then come back with an application, but, somewhere along the line we are going to want to have a discussion as far as what do you think to work our way through either this particular proposal, or a modification to this proposal. How we should go through that process. So, we can probably do that through your office. Mr. Kanter — Yeah we can do that, that's what we usually recommend doing anyway. Mr. Napierala — Okay. So why don't we leave it at that right now. We're fine with the comments and we will stay in touch with Jonathan's office. Mr. Walker — I have one more engineering - related comment to the site that they should be aware of. There's a very steep slope from the entrance of this towards ,the gas pumps, in fact, that's why the handicap parking spaces are on the end of the building, because I don't believe the parking lot is at an ADA accessible slope. So make sure you have good topo when you do the design. on this. because there's some site constraints. Chairperson Wilcox — That's another part of the history of that building where they... Mr. Walker — They put the building at too high of an elevation. Mr. Napierala — Yeah, we noticed that as well. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, that was one of the issues. Anything else? Mr. Kanter — I just want to ... the lighting and the canopies. Our code enforcement office and Mike Smith, Planner, among others, who did our lighting ordinance, primarily, went out to inspect the new lighting that were installed in the existing canopy and determined that they are not compliant with the new lighting law. They were compliant, basically, with the requirements of the Planning Board when Manley's came in for the hours of operation permit, and we made it clear, when they chose that fixture, that they may not be consistent with our new outdoor lighting law, that had not gone into effect as of the date that they installed them, but is in effect now, or the 1 -year grace period is coming up. So, as part of the reconstruction, it probably would make sense to either totally redo the canopies as one whole new canopy with light that do conform to the lighting law, or definitely to retrofit so that they are entirely consistent with the lighting law. So, that's just... PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 44 Chairperson Wilcox — Another issue that has been part of the history of ...ongoing issue since the current configuration was built. Board Member Talty — This Board also likes to see, specifically, this Board Member, as you go through the process, you come in for preliminary, bring in materials, colors swatches, fencing, roofing,. whatever. See that post over there, with the light at the top ... there's a history behind that. So if there's any question at all in your mind, feel free to contact staff on that. Mr. Kanter — Quick one, just to point out the County Planning Department's preliminary letter, where they recommended that a sidewalk be installed along the Rte. 96 B frontage. Whether that would work or not, I don't know, but again, as George mentioned, we should be looking at this whole area for pedestrian improvements and if it can be done, even though there's no sidewalk yet to connect to, this whole intersection should be able to be connected up with pedestrian improvements. So that's certainly something to think about. Board Member Conneman — You guys would look like heroes if you could collaborate with everybody around you. Board Member Talty — You could wipe the slate clean. Chairperson Wilcox — It's interesting. The intersection here is with King's Way, not with King Road East and... Mr. Walker — But we're asking for a sidewalk in front of King Road East... Chairperson Wilcox -- ... that would get them here yes... Board Member Talty — So who quarterbacks that? I know we've been talking about a whole bunch of, the State the County the Town....who's quarterbacking though? I know all the people on the team, who's quarterback? Mr. Walker — King's Way is a Town road, East King Road is a County road on, that side and Route 96B is a State road. So, because the right -of -way is a State right -of -way we have to coordinate with the State, which usually does not object to sidewalks as long as they don't have to be responsible for them. Board Member Conneman — Ed Marx irritates me because he comes out with these pronouncements. Does he have any leadership abilities that might pull a whole group of people together, including the DOT, and look at the whole corner? I mean, who is the person that we have to get to that invites everybody who's concerned about this to a meeting and look at what's going on. Mr. Walker — From a practical standpoint on a day -to -day operational basis, our highway superintendent probably has the best relationship with the County Highway PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 45 and State DOT because they work with them all the time. From an administrative, political basis, I have no clue. Board Member Conneman — Well, we need to get a clue as to who it is. Mr. Kanter — I think this Board actually does play an important role in our Transportation Plan in a sense, as the quarterback, because that is where the policies and direction for things like future sidewalks and walkway connections comes from, and so, this whole area has been targeted, basically, as in need of pedestrian connections. So, again, working through this Board and the Town Board, you know, hopefully, we as Staff can help to some degree, shepherd it through the process, but, it's not easy, because there are so many jurisdictions. Board Member Conneman — Well, if the Village of Lansing can pull it off, we ought to be able too. We're as smart as they are. Board Member Riha — I agree. Alternate Member Erb — Are there many bicyclists who use East King Road? Because I don't see any bicycle parking on this sketch plan. Mr. Walker — I know that there are people who have talked about riding bicycles on East King Road, especially when we talk about the Montessori School there and everything, because the residents up above and they would probably come down to Dunkin Donuts maybe and walk their bikes through, I don't know, but... Alternate Member Erb — Well, people get subs and pizza slices in this location too. Mr. Walker — And then with the food store and vegetable store across the street and the other Italian restaurant there, so, I think the bicycle and pedestrian is an important thing to try and coordinate with this. Alternate Member Erb — So I am just saying, I don't see the bicycle... Chairperson Wilcox — They heard you. Mr. Walker — It's too steep, the parking lot is too steep to get the bicycles up there... Chairperson Wilcox — Are we all set? Mr. Napierala — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Very good. PB 7 -03-07 Pg. 46 MINUTES No minutes to approve at this point. OTHER BUSINESS We have the letter dated June 22nd from Mr. Sonnenstuhl which we were going to discuss today. I brought my copy ... I'd be happy to share it with anybody who didn't bring their copy... Having read the letter and the attachments provided, what would this Board like to do? Would we like to bring them in, allow them to make a presentation. .,We could ... We know that the entire.. we know that this development, at some point, as proposed, has to come back, and most likely go through SEQR review for the revised drainage... Ms. Brock — Any substantial changes to the project from what was previously presented. and approved and any substantial, new information that is received by the .Town; also can be considered. So you would then reassess the determination of environmental significance, to determine whether a. negative declaration is still applicable. Chairperson Wilcox — It's likely, given the decisions that have been made so far, that should the applicant come back and wish to proceed, we'll go through the environmental review for the revised drainage, right? Ms. Brock — Based on what they've told us about stormwater handling. Chairperson Wilcox — yeah, given the approvals they did or did not get. So far. ..from the State, or from DEC. Ms. Brock — Right. When it came in to you before, they had certain assumptions about how they were going to use the wetlands, I think to store the stormwater and that type of thing, and based on the (inaudible) I think it was DEC, indicated that they wouldn't, they would frown upon the proposal, so, through informal discussions with the Town Staff, they've been told that there will be changes made to how stormwater will be. handled. That ... we have not received back any formal submission from them indicating what those changes are but, there have been discussions. So, based on what we are hearing to date, it does sound like there would be a reassessment of the SEQR determination, at least based upon that. Because as of right now, it sounds like that would be a substantial change to the project. There may also be other new information which you would need to look at too, to determine whether that would impact the determination that was made. Among other things, the Town Board will be receiving the report from the stormwater consultant that they hired. I think that that is going to be discussed at the Town Board meeting next Monday. There is this letter, to the extent that you believe it provides new information that you didn't have before when you made your determination. That might also be PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 47 something that you might want to consider when reassessing the determination of significance. Chairperson Wilcox —Thank you. Now we can either ... we can have Mr. Sonnenstuhl and /or others come in and make a presentation now. They have indicated their willingness, their desire to do it. We could ask that they do it when they go back through some environmental review as just outlined by Susan. Board Member Howe — I would prefer to do it when they come back as part of that so that all the information was sort of fresh and you're hearing the whole thing at the same time. Board Member Talty — I agree. Board Member Conneman — Well, I don't know about that. What about the ... wouldn't it be a good idea for the applicant to see that and see some of the facts that are in there so that he could be prepared to answer those? Maybe he won't come back if he sees the facts ... I'm not making judgments on what the facts are in there, but... Chairperson Wilcox — I would leave it to the opponents and those that are concerned about the area of Sapsucker Woods to ensure that this information is getting to the applicant and /or their agents. Mr. Kanter — Well, this is a public document now, so we can certainly make it available for the applicant to see and... Board Member Conneman — Well I think we should. That's my point. We can wait... Board Member Howe — They've even indicated that our idea is to have that information presented publicly when this is brought back, if it comes back before the Board. So they're aware that we do want to give it a hearing. Board Member Talty — Or put it 2 -weeks before. Have them come in 2 weeks before ... it's still really fresh in our minds for 2 weeks later. They can come in, sit in the audience, see what they have to say and then they still have time, the 2 weeks or whatever, to Chairperson Wilcox — Or just during the SEQR review, they can be given an allocation of time and make a presentation similar to the way the applicant and their agents do. They absolutely have that right to do that. Susan is sitting therewith her lips pursed... Ms. Brock — That's Susan Riha, because there are three Susans now... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry....the Susan to my right. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 48 Board Member Hoffmann -- The consultant that the Town is working with, who will give a presentation to the Town Board soon, will they give a presentation to us too? Mr. Walker — That's not part of the contract at this point. They were contracted to provide the document to the Town Board and to prepare a report and that will be on Monday night. We have draft report in hand now, and they will actually be presenting their report to the Town Board Monday night and I don't know... Mr. Kanter — ...right after Persons to be Heard, so between 6:00 and 6.:30. Board Member Hoffmann — Would that be alright for us to come to. Mr. Walker — I think that would be an excellent thing for the whole Planning Board to come and hear it first hand, because in the. ..when you get a consultant to come from out of town, it costs more money if they have to come to another meeting. So, the only meetings that were in there was with the Town Board. Ms. Brock — Right now, on the Agenda, it is listed as the next item after 6:00 p.m. Persons to be Heard and Board Comments. That typically, well, it depends on who shows up to be heard, that typically is not a terribly long item, 5, 10 minutes typically. Mr. Walker — I would recommend that if you are really interested in hearing it, get here shortly after 5:30 or by 6:004 Ms. Brock — No, they won't do it before 6:00. Mr. Walker — Well if the City doesn't show up and the County doesn't show up for reports ... they didn't set a specific time for it. Board Member Riha — Dan, will the report be available ahead of time? Mr. Walker — We just got it in hand today. I just got a copy ... I was out of the .office this afternoon and the finalized report was on my desk when we came in. We can make copies available to the Planning Board, at this point, yeah. It's not a big deal. I think... Ms. Brock — It's a public document at this point isn't it? Mr. Walker — Well, it's not been accepted by the Town Board yet, so I don't know it it's considered a public document or not. It's going out in the Town Board packet to the Town Board members. Board Member Howe — Wouldn't that make it public? Ms. Brock — hmmmm Mr. Walker — I don't know. Susan's.the lawyer... Mr. Walker — As far as the Staff is concerned, a concerned, it's not a big problem, in fact, we were walking in, they could get copies of it, read it for their of it if... It's not an officially accepted report but it is in we like to have, if it's a report to the Town Board, we to look at it first before it goes out in wide public. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 49 s far as the Town Supervisor is told that if people outside, public information and just pay for copies the report to the Board. Generally like to encourage the Town Board Alternate Member Erb — At some point, I'd really appreciate getting a copy. Ms. Brock — You're gonna get copies now ... Paulette's getting copies right now. Alternate Member Erb — I can not be there next Monday... Mr. Walker — We'll get you copies... Ms. Brock — And Paulette just said that the Town Supervisor told her that any member of the public that wants a copy can have a copy. The Town's not going to withhold it so it's available... Board Member Hoffmann — It just seems to me that if we're going to be talking about the Sapsucker Woods proposal and we're going. to be hearing a presentation by consultants, that the residents there have arranged, then we certainly should get this report that the Town has permission to look at. Ms. Brock — You're getting it tonight... Chairperson Wilcox — Wait, wait...Let's ... Please ... Let's not jump to conclusions .... We would certainly get a copy of the report. Whether we get it tonight, whether we get it next week after the Town Board accepts it, we would certainly get a copy. It doesn't matter whether it's next week or... Mr. Kanter — It's being copied right now... Chairperson Wilcox — I know it's being copied right now but I don't want to hear that "we should get a report " ... Of course we'll get a report ... we know we're going to get one! Board Member Hoffmann — Well somebody said something that made it sound to me as if maybe we would get it. Mr. Walker — No it's not a problem...One comment I want to make is, the comments that are in this document... they did a very thorough job on looking at all the drainage issues and they went through the methodology very thoroughly and basically did a really good job of outlining all the things that we as Staff do at the same time ... We don't always, probably, communicate to you as well how much work we do on these things, but they outline that very well in here. They made some very specific comments on the PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 50 subdivision plan. The subdivision plan that they saw was the revised drainage plan that has not been officially submitted to the Town yet. It was a draft plan that the developer's engineer brought to the Staff to work with us on and get some preliminary comments. So their comments are comments that are going to go back to the engineer and the developer because there are certain things, like there's three lots with right -of- ways with sewer lines going through them and they said those shouldn't be built on. We said the same thing in Planning Board meeting. And we said the same thing to the developer ... I don't know if we said it in the Planning Board meeting.but we said ... So, they made some very good comments on a set of documents that are not officially submitted to the Town yet. So, the actual submissions may vary from. .they may be based on these comments. So I just want to make that clear, that this was a very thorough review of those documents. Chairperson Wilcox — What do we want to do with Mr. Sonnenstuhl? Now or later? Board Member Hoffmann — It seems to me we should see the report by the Town's consultants at the same time that we look at this too. That we take everything into consideration. Mr. Kanter —There are two parts to this letter. One deals with the unique natural area, the other deals with drainage. So you could conceivably address each issue separately if you wanted to. Mr. Walker — But the really SEQR issue as part of the Planning Board review... Chairperson Wilcox — There are SEQR issues... Mr. Walker — Just one other footnote ... in communication with the developer's. engineer, they have been waiting for this consultant's report prior to making their submission. And they told me that as soon as this report comes in, they were planning to look at that and then finalize their submission and getting it to us fairly soon after this report. So, whether soon is 30 days or 60 days, I don't know, but it would seem to me that the logical thing to do would be to do it all ... maybe you could have one meeting just for this project and cover all these areas. Chairperson Wilcox - Susan to my left, you wanted to say something. Ms. Brock — It would be useful to know whether Mr. Sonnenstuhl would be providing different information than what he submitted now in writing to you. Because one of the things you will need to do is look at whether you have received new information and if so, what the impact of that is on your determination of significance. We can go through what he's presented in writing to you and compare it to what was before the Board before to determine what's new and what's not. If, in his verbal presentation he's going to be presenting yet more additional information, if you're getting that on the night that you're determining what this... significance can be ... we may not have, really enough time to reflect on ... what ... is the things he's saying tonight really different from what this PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 51 Board heard before, a year ago. So, if in fact what he is proposing to do is pretty much come in with people who are just going to reiterate the things that are here in writing, then that's okay if that happens that night. If in fact they want to say things that are different than what's here in writing, I think it would be easier for you to hear that in advance of the meeting where you are reassessing the determination of significance so that we have time to go back and compare that new information, or what we're hearing that's different from what's in writing, with what the Board had in front of it a year ago. So we can determine what's new and what's not new. Is that clear? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann — And very important too. Chairperson Wilcox — The distinction there is that new information can allow us to re. ..to look at SEQR once again. But simply coming in and stating the same information that we heard before and trying to convince us to change our determination by saying it louder or more often or frequently is not something that... Ms. Brock — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So based upon what Susan has said, what's our approach... Board Member Talty — I think that's a good course of action. Let them submit, if there's any changes, if there isn't, if it's the same data, then they can come in either the same meeting or two weeks prior ... I don't know what a reasonable amount of time is for everybody ... if there's new material to be added, how much time do we need ... a month in advance, 6 weeks in advance...so I guess that's a good course of action, to find out if there is new material, first and foremost. Alternate Member Erb — You mean additional material to this? So that you can determine whether in fact it's new... Board Member Hoffmann — I would hope that everybody involved understands that it's fairest both to us and to the applicants for us to have the information ahead of time so that we can really consider it. It's not fair to us to give it to us at the last minute and then we can't be fair to them, because it's just too much at once. So I am trusting that everybody understands that. Certainly Mr. Lucente and Mr. Fabroni should understand that, they have been before this Board enough times. Board Member Conneman — Dan, the report that the consultants made ... that has a lot of new information in it? Mr. Walker — I wouldn't say it's new information ... I think they stated ... they did a really good job of organizing all the data and stating all the information this way. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 52 Board Member Conneman — What about this? Is this new.information or is it... Mr. Walker — That's ... I haven't looked at that thoroughly myself and I'm not ... they are talking about some changes in the UNA designation and... Ms. Brock — I haven't gone back to see exactly what was before the Board. before. I know the UNA data sheets were part of your packet, so you had that information about what flora and fauna were on the site as of the 2000 inventory. They've provided now, some information, I believe, that's different, about birds and maybe some other species as well ... I don't know. We really need to go back and look and see ... what you had before you before, and is what is in this new submission different from what you had before. Susan Ritter ... have you had a chance to-do that... Ms. Ritter — All I can say is that you guys did have the UNA information, what was important. I do not know if all the rare and scarce plant species that they have listed were ... if this is new information on some of these or if they were in the original UNA documents. I have not looked at that. Board Member Howe — So one of you will do that? Or do you want us? Do we do that as a group? Who makes that determination whether there is new... . Ms. Ritter — That is something that we can certainly look at and then you could also take both reports yourself at some point and compare as well. Board Member Conneman — If you remember, at least I remember, Larry saying, well, looked at the birds out there and there didn't seem to be anything important,.. Ms. Brock — We'll look at the minutes, we'll look at all the information that was in your packets and that will tell us. We won't have to rely on anybody's memory, we have a record. Mr. Kanter — Again, I think this letter stresses what George was saying, that the applicant said this and that wasn't necessarily true. But that wasn't all that the Board heard or discussed, there was more than that, and our environmental assessment form included information on the unique natural area and the Board discussed some of that. So the question that Susan is raising is, did what we discuss, what is on the public record, how does that compare with what's in this letter and is that a significant in terms of new information. Not only is it new, but is it significant new information that would have changed your judgment. That's something only the Board can do. Ms. Brock — Right. I think that Staff can look at what was before you before and what's being given to you now and say this ... these pieces appear not to have been before you before, these pieces were, but then you have to make the determination, okay, if there is new information here, is this enough for us to determine that the initial determination is no longer appropriate. That's your judgment call. PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 53 Board Member Howe — Right and you can give that information to us, that will be very helpful. Ms. Brock — Right. I think that the screening can be done by Staff. But then you make the call, the judgment call as to whether or not ... what impact this has on the determination of significance itself. Board Member Howe — And that could happen anytime ... as we are still moving forward ... that you might, at our next meeting, present us with that information so we can have that discussion....or whenever. Ms. Brock — Right. Mr. Kanter — Or maybe the meeting after that because Susan has way too many things on her... Ms. Brock — Yeah, and I think your discussion about the determination of significance that you probably want to look at all of the different things.. 'any proposed changes to the project, which you can not really discuss until the applicant formally submits them, that the proposed changes and new information. Be it from Mr. Sonnesnstuhl, be it from the consultant, be it from another source. I think you will probably want to look at all of that at one meeting, comprehensively, in reassessing the determination of significance. Board Member Conneman — But we need a lot of time to do ... I think the discussion will be very time consuming. I hope that we don't schedule three other public hearings on the same night. That's important, I think. Board Member Howe — So are we ready to hear what our agenda is for the next one,.. Mr. Kanter — We actually have the agenda here that Fred just looked at. Chairperson Wilcox — It's two pages. ..When it's two pages... Mr. Kanter — It does have the Cornell Sailing Center, which is a biggie ... that will be the last item. There are a couple of simple, two lot sub divisions...as we know, they are always not so simple ... There are some parking lot and building renovations at the Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witness site located on Danby Road, and there is a proposed silo at the Ithaca Beer Company on Elmira Road, to store their.....whatever.... Chairperson Wilcox — It's a nice full agenda. Any other business... Board Member Talty — Did Ithaca Beer ever clean up their site back there? Wasn't there an issue back there with all those pallets and all that stuff? Mr. Kanter — There was. I know that Fred had raised that too... PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 54 Chairperson Wilcox — With the Unis Realty ... I'm trying to think of the company that they rent the building from. ..that the site could have been in better shape. Mr. Kanter — We'll have to check that one. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other business? Board Member Talty — I won't be here next meeting. Alternate Member Erb — I won't be here next meeting. Not. Chairperson Wilcox — It's your chance to finally get to vote... Alternate Member Erb — Yeah but I'll be able to vote on the Northeast. My mother scheduled her 87th birthday before I knew about it... Board Member Talty — While I was up touring Manley's today, I went over ... and the hotel that's being built there, and that looks like it's an awful lot of wood. I just wanted to make that comment. Number 2 is, you know our friends the monks ... they started to pour their gate, which I'm glad, by the way, that this member ... I'm glad that we pushed the gate back. They had a bad pour, I think, cement wise, because a whole chunk fell off one of the posts after they removed their framing, to pour their cement, so ... and it's pretty high. So I just wanted to make sure that pieces do not continue to fall off...l thought that maybe just to bring it up... Mr. Walker — Well, I am sure the building inspector is aware of any structural problems there, so... Board Member Talty — Yeah, it looked pretty nasty, so I just wanted to say that, those two items. Chairperson Wilcox — So we're down two the next meeting... Board Member Howe — It might be good to get a sense of the meeting in August too. I won't be here for the first meeting in August. So is that ... is there a concern about the first meeting in August? Mr. Kanter — Well if we decided we wanted to put the Briarwood discussion on that, there would be room on that right now, because we are getting pretty close to that date, close enough to know that there aren't too many actions for that August 7th Alternate Member Erb — You'd be down 2 people... Mr. Kanter — So for now, basically, we are not telling Mr. Sonnenstuhl to do anything, other than stay tuned... PB 7 -03 -07 Pg. 55 Ms. Brock — Or ask him whether the presentation will have additional, different information than what was submitted in writing. Board Member Conneman — Does he know about this meeting with the. Town Board that is going to receive this report? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure. Mr. Kanter — I assume the whole neighborhood will know about it. Board Member Conneman — I assume the whole neighborhood will know. Chairperson Wilcox — If they don't know now, they will know soon... Chairperson Wilcox — And the Town Board meeting is Monday, correct ?: The first Monday after the first Tuesday or the whatever.... Ms. Brock —July Stn Meeting adjourned upon motion at 9:30 p.m. Respectwly submitted Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town C TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 3, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances to allow a lighted rock sign for the Pine Tree Office Building located at 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to install a freestanding rock engraved entry sign in the landscaped island in front of the new office building, which will exceed the size permitted. The proposed sign will be lit using two small ground mounted spot lights. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant; Herman Sieverding, AICP, Agent, 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Eastern Heights Park Playground, SkyVue Road and Tudor Road. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed new playground in the Eastern Heights Park located off SkyVue Road and Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 57 -2 -1.1 and 57- 2 -1.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing play structure and constructing a new +/- 4,200 square foot playground area located to the south of the existing play field. Town of Ithaca, Owner /Applicant, 7:30 P.M Review of a sketch plan for the proposed expansion of the Manley's Mighty Mart located at 1103 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -2 -2.1 and 43- 2 -2.2, Vehicle Fuel and Repair Zone. The proposal includes a +/- 1,357 square foot addition to the existing store including a drive thru, two new fuel pumps and an addition to the canopy, a new +/- 20,000 gallon under ground storage tank, and a new +/- 1,000 square foot drive thru car wash with two exterior vacuum stations. Manley's Mighty Mart, Owner /Applicant; Napierala Consulting Engineer, PC, Agent. 6. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 7. Approval of Minutes: (none available) 8. Other Business: 9. 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 HEARING Tuesday, July 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, July 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 a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances to allow a lighted rock sign for the Pine Tree Office Building located at 395 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 63- 1 -3.4; Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to install a freestanding rock engraved entry sign in the landscaped island in front of the new office building, which will exceed the size permitted. The proposed sign will be lit using two small ground mounted spot lights. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant; Herman Sieverding, AICP, Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed new playground in the Eastern Heights Park located off SkyVue Road and Tudor Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 57 -2 -1.1 and 57- 2 -1.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing play structure and constructing a new +/- 4,200 square foot playground area located to the south of the existing play field. Town of Ithaca, Owner /Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter 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 hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, June 25, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 Wednesday, June 20, 2007 THE ITHACA JOURNAL , 01"'O' .RHACAJ - ',HEARING: , >... Low` ✓ • island in' front; of "the i:office :building, `which I ezceed,the•size permit L, =The proposed sign.will lily ^using:: :two? I S � a_ lli )und- mounted`spoivlights:._; rnell - University iO•wner, , qrated'Acquisition:& De:4 opment'. Cdrpp'. , ' Apppli =l 1t;Herman'.. ieverdmg ;lf P;•Agent' hutting-- 0,, new,, square . foot.; plat and area -located to th h ",of; the - existingg pia Town,. Ithaa A'pphcant ier / I Planning Board wilt i time "and. sbid ,plat all:personi.m supPo ich'matier or!obiectror ito. '. Persons..m al by;ogent or m.persor rnduals &r ith"vrsual- in me_ nts,h'eanng, "impdi ts- `orVother : spepc is, will ibe -- provide assisianceias necessc upon %request' :Person i ring:.;'a3srstance-7 mu: e such Io` request ,nc than - r,liburs.'06or`t time , of the' publi inn ' :Dated: Monda "y June 252007 _. June 27, 2007 ,. ' Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street July 3, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name Address 3 1S (f 3 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 Tiog_ a Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday July 3, 2007 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: June 25, 2007 June 27, 2007 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27`h day of June 2007. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20, 0