Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2014-03-04^ TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. March 4. 2014 AGENDA 7;00 P.M, PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign variance for the proposed Belle Sherman Cottages Temporary Sign located at 102 Walnut Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59.-3-9, Planned Development Zone No. 13. The proposal involves the installation of a freestanding temporary real estate sign, approximately 23,5+/- square feet in area and 6 feet tall, to be located on the comer of Walnut Street and Mitchell Street. Belle Sherman Cottages LLC, Owner; Dan Gaultieri, Applicant. 7;15 P,M, PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed catering tent at Agava Restaurant, located at 381 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2-1.123, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal involves using a temporary tent (up to 30' x 80') in the Agava Restaurant parking lot up to six times a year for special events or parties. Comell University, Owner; POD of Ithaca, D.B.A. Agava, Applicant; Todd Nau, Manager Agava Restaurant, Agent. 7:30 P»M, PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a Sign Variance for the proposed Dunkin' Donuts restaurant located at 302 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.-1-2.1, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former bank building into a Dunkin' Donuts restaurant. Modifications include removing the drive-up teller locations and canopy, installing a new building interior, adding new windows and building entrances, updating the exterior finish, upgrading the site lighting, adding new freezers and coolers along the back wall of the building, and installing new signage. Yunis Properties, LLC, Owner; ESW Realty, LLC, Applicant; Timothy Buhl, P.E., Agent. 4. Persons to be heard 5. Approval of Minutes: Febmary 18, 2014. 6. Other Business 7. Adjoumment Susan Ritter 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 MEETING Tuesday, March 4, 2014 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli (Alternate),John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Creig Hebdon, Town Engineer; Susan Brock,Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign vari- ance for the proposed Belle Sherman Cottages Temporary Sign located at 102 Walnut Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59.-3,9, Planned Development Zone No. 13. The proposal involves the in- stallation of a freestanding temporary real estate sign, approximately 23.5+/-square feet in area and 6 feet tall, to be located on the corner of Walnut Street and Mitchell Street. Belle Sherman Cottages LLC, Owner; Dan Gaultieri, Applicant Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Mr. Gualtieri stated that they feel the new sign will clean up the overall look of the site,which right now is cluttered. The current sign is not sufficiently large to read from the street; this could prove dangerous for cars driving by and slowing down.A larger sign will also reiterate that lots are for sale and not for rent, and since the goal is to finish the project as soon as possible, the larger sign will help them in achieving that goal. He pointed out that they've installed street trees and lights ahead of schedule to boost sales. The signage will help with this boosted effort to move lots. Ms. Balestra passed around photos of the existing site, which include the existing marketing sign that they will replace and an Audrey Edelman real estate sign. Mr. Bosak said this uncontroversial thing has him in a quandary. He was reminded of a two-lot sub- division a couple weeks ago,which had neighbors worried about the character of the neighborhood; it involved moving a garage, and Board members were taken to task by the audience, who thought the default action should be to turn people down. Mr. Bosak said his response was that the Planning Board was trying to follow the intent of the Town Board for zoning a certain way, and that there was nothing about that particular project that violated the concept of what the Town Board was trying to establish - it was just a technicality. This proposal is not about a technicality: that is all there is to the sign law, and this isn't even a generalized sign law: it is specifically applied to this PDZ. The Town Board, in creating the PDZ, said you have to follow the Town sign law regarding temporary real estate signs, and that law says those signs can be no more than six square feet in area. Mr. Bosak wondered what was so special that the Board should approve a sign four times as large as what the Town Board said they wanted to have on this particular piece of property. Everything the applicant said makes Planning Board Minutes 03.04.2014 Page 2 of 15 perfect sense; they all seem like perfectly good reasons. He has no objection to the way the sign looks. It seems perfectly reasonable having a sign this size, but it didn't seem reasonable to the Town Board to have a sign of this size. He asked why the Planning Board was considering going against the Town Board's thinking when they set up the PDZ. Ms. Collins said she doesn't know what the Town Board was thinking, but it may be that the real estate signs they were thinking about were the kind that go in front of each house, and this is a differ- ent kind of sign. Maybe they didn't think about that. Mr. Haefeli commented that it's representing the whole PDZ at once. Mr. Bosak said the original sign law only ever allowed one sign per lot. But he thinks what Ms. Collins and Mr. Haefeli said is that this is a bunch of lots; they can add up all those sizes. Mr. Bates wanted the Board to be clear that the applicant needs two variances in order to do this. This sign is prohibited because of the way it will be used, and they will need an off-premise sign be- cause even though they'll advertise the parcel it's on, they'll also advertise all the parcels behind it. The sign currently on the property advertises the development,which is allowed under the sign law; it doesn't advertise properties for sale. What they're proposing to do is not allowed under the sign law; there is nothing in the sign law that addresses what they want to do. Ms. Collins pointed out that the current sign says "homes now for sale." When she read through the material, she thought they simply wanted to replace the current sign, which advertises homes for sale, with a larger sign. Mr. Beach agreed. Mr. Wilcox stated that his issue is that the sign is self serving; its purpose is to help them sell the houses more quickly. Is that something that deserves a bigger sign than is allowed? Mr. Bosak said the sign law isn't just talking about signs in general, it seems to talk specifically about signs that do what this one does: a temporary real estate sign. Ms. Balestra pointed out that many current neighborhood signs are allowed to be larger. Mr. Bates said the current sign is allowed under current regulations without a permit. The size sign they're proposing is not permitted anywhere in the sign law. That's one variance. The other is an off- premise sign because it advertises lots that it's not sitting on. Ms. Erb is not opposed to this sign; it's more attractive than the signs that are there now. The Board allowed an oversized sign at the little flower shop to the east of this property. That was a permanent sign, not a temporary one. She would like to see that infill development go forward with haste and contribute to the neighborhood as it was meant to be. She's glad that some of the infrastructure be- sides the street has been put in; she'd like to see it at the point where the playground and pathway through to the recreation way are in. She wondered what the current residents are going to have to look at on the opposite side of the sign. Planning Board Minutes 03.04.2014 Page 3 of 15 Mr. Gualtieri responded that it will just be a blank piece of plywood. They can paint it.To a sugges- tion from Ms. Erb, he responded that Mr. Millman does not want to do landscaping around the tem- porary sign. Ms. Fogarty asked why the sign has prices; she finds it offensive. Ms. Balestra reminded the Board that they do not have the authority to dictate the content of signs. Mr. Bosak does not have a problem with any aspect of this, but he wanted some reason that the Town would approve a sign that's four times as big as what the Town Board said they wanted. He asked what is different about this case. Ms. Balestra stated that no one has ever asked for a temporary real estate sign of this size. What they originally proposed was a bigger sign(120 square feet), but she dissuaded them. She pointed out that there are other signs in the area that are larger - neighborhood signs, signs for churches, nursing homes, etc - that are sometimes permitted up to 24 square feet. She doesn't think the Town Board considered signage when they dealt with this PDZ. They were probably thinking about the temporary real estate signs that are usually put up in people's yards. Ms. Erb pointed out that the Board recently recommended an oversized sign for Northeast Pediatrics. The argument was visibility for traffic going by. The traffic on Route 96 is faster than that on Mitchell Street, but there is a visibility issue. Mr. Haefeli stated that since it is representing the whole PDZ, it calls for something bigger in scope. Ms. Erb pointed out that French Lavender was granted an oversized sign based on the argument that people driving by need to be able to catch it and read it. The proposed sign is also a very attractive sign with no lighting involved. Mr. Haefeli asked about construction signs. Mr. Bates responded that this is in a residential zone versus a commercial zone,where most construc- tion signs appear. His determination is that this PDZ is in a residential zone, not a commercial zone, so they have to abide by the residential part of the sign code. Ms. Brock stated that in all matters where a ZBA variance is needed, the Planning Board is not to base their decisions on the fact that the variance is needed and whether the Board thinks it should be granted. Instead, as the sign review board, the Planning Board's job is to say whether the sign, as pro- posed, fits in with the character of the neighborhood, whether it obstructs views, whether it impedes traffic in some way. That's the type of thing the Board should be looking at. Putting aside the fact of whether the size is permitted or whether it is off premises, this Board's decision should be based on whether the sign's physical location is objectionable based on criteria they always apply to site plans. Mr. Wilcox said that if Planning Board were to take into account whether or not it needed variances, they would be acting as the Zoning Board. Planning Board Minutes 03.04.2014 Page 4 of 15 Gregor Brous said he drives by this property every day and if he could imagine what the Town Board might have been thinking when they included real estate signs in the law is when real estate agents stick up a giant sign to try and have a transaction take place from one owner to another. He thinks what's happening here is that they're trying to develop a neighborhood, and that they need the visibil- ity because the quicker this happens, the quicker lots are sold, and the quicker the Town brings in revenue. These properties will increase the tax base. The quicker the lots are sold, the quicker we can have a beautiful neighborhood and the more valuable the Town is. It benefits this neighborhood and the Town as a whole. He encourages that any type of sign that is tasteful and encourages these proper- ties to sell as quickly as possible be supported and allowed. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. Mr. Gualtieri said they actually wanted to see if they could leave the sign up for three years. Planning Board members preferred to keep it at two years. PB Resolution No. 2014.013:Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, Sign Variance - Belle Sherman Cottages, 102 Walnut Street, Tax Parcel No. 59.-3-9, Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board (Planning Board) Moved by John Beach; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a sign vari- ance for the proposed Belle Sherman Cottages Temporary Sign located at 102 Walnut Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59.-3-9, Planned Development Zone No. 13. The proposal in- volves the installation of a freestanding temporary real estate sign, approximately 23.5+/-square feet in area and 6 feet tall, to be located on the corner of Walnut Street and Mitchell Street. Belle Sherman Cottages LLC, Owner; Dan Gualtieri,Applicant; and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 4, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative from the applicant, a location map, and a sheet that shows the dimensions, materials, and colors of the proposed sign, all date-stamped January 29, 2014, and other applica- tion materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve the request for a sign variance for one 23.5 square-foot, 6-foot tall freestanding temporary real estate sign for the Belle Sherman Cottages,where temporary real estate signs are limited to 6 square-feet in area, subject to the following conditions: a. The sign shall be removed within two years of the date of any Zoning Board of Appeals ap- proval, or within 15 days after the sale of the last lot, whichever is sooner, and b. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to installing the sign, and Planning Board Minutes 03-04.2014 Page 5 of 15 c. The back of the sign shall be painted the same color blue as is shown on the front. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed catering tent at Agava Restaurant, located at 381 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-24.123, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal involves using a temporary tent(up to 30'x 80') in the Agava Restaurant parking lot up to six times a year for special events or parties. Cornell University, Owner; POD of Ithaca, D.B.A. Agava, Applicant; Todd Nau, Manager Agava Restaurant, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Nau said that they've put tents up twice before and it's been for graduation. They get a lot of in- quiries from people who would like to do weddings and larger parties. He passed around pictures showing two different tent layouts. Six times per year would be the maximum. Ms. Collins asked whether the 30' x 80' is all under one roof. Mr. Nau responded that it is. Mr. Bosak asked whether the tents have to conform to any plans Mr. Nau handed out:whether this is the site plan or whether these are representative of other possible layouts. Ordinarily the Board ap- proves the plans before them. Mr. Wilcox said he doesn't interpret this as a site plan, but rather how a tent might be utilized on the site. Mr. Bosak asked if there's not some implication that these are in some way normative. He asked what the drawings are they telling us: that you can have a tent under which people can sit. We knew that. He doesn't need the plans to know an 1800-square-foot tent will fit in the parking lot behind the property. He wanted to know whether the plans are in any way binding on what the applicants are able to do. If not,what are these drawings for? Ms. Ritter pointed out that the resolution says the plans show two possible tent layouts. It's a repre- sentation of what's possible; to see how they might fit in that space. They're really just coming in to get permission to put this tent in the back parking lot, because that wasn't part of the approval for this restaurant. But it's not permanent. It's for permanent buildings that we look so closely at site plan. Mr. Bosak wanted to know- aside from demonstrating that it's possible to put up a big tent and seat people under it -what these drawings are telling us that's meaningful. Ms. Erb pointed out that as with other site plans,we often get interior layouts, but are not wedded to them. She was interpreting this in the same way. On the one hand,we look at the interior layouts and Planning Board Minutes 03.04.2014 Page 6 of 15 see how people can get in and out and where the parking should go, but she's not wedded to them not being able to move a wall around. This is true of everything the Board does. Mr. Bates stated that this is just a representation; it is not necessarily how it will be set up. It gives you an idea of approximately how many people will be there so that when you're looking at parking issues, etc, you can make a judgment.This is going to be a tent on that property. How they regulate the inte- rior will be determined by the event. Ms. Brock pointed out that site plan review doesn't look at the interiors of spaces. Ms. Erb said she was confused by the proposed resolution: it says there are two possible tent layouts, but she sees three. Mr. Nau said that what they represent is the code requirements:we have to be so far from the road and from the building. The tents have to be a certain distance away from each other. The tables and chairs in each tent are based on the maximum capacity for fire codes. Ms. Collins pointed out that she asked about the two tents on the drawing, and was told that the second schematic was all under one tent roof. Mr. Nau responded that he misunderstood the question. The 30' x 80' tent is a separate tent, and according to code, the two tents have to be 12 feet apart. Ms. Erb said the draft resolution is only approving a single tent at a time. Mr. Brous responded that, depending on the event, it might make sense to have two or three tents in the same layout, such as if there are three different groups. For them, the question is whether they are able to use the space as temporary additional seating for special events. Ms. Erb said the current regulation says a tent no more than 2400 square feet.Adding a second tent and more square footage are both contrary to the draft proposal. Mr. Wilcox added that it is also contrary to the public hearing notice. Ms. Erb asked about parking. there are lots of parking options. Mr. Nau confirmed that there is parking at the office building and the lot directly east of the car wash. People can also park in front of the P&C plaza. For other events, Cornell has given them addi- tional parking at the CISER parking lot. This equals hundreds of spaces. They have never filled these lots even for their largest events. Ms. Brock said the public hearing notice said a temporary tent,which means one. The SEQR form said up to six times per year, but their letter said up to once per month. The Board can approve some- thing tonight and the applicant can come back for a modification, which could be an additional tent or more frequency. Given the public hearing notice, the Board could not approve more than one tent. Planning Board Minutes 0.04.2014 Page 7 of 15 Mr. Brous wanted to go with it as written. He said they could come back if they want to add another tent. Frequency is not a big deal; the likelihood that it would be more than six times per year is slim to none. Mr. Bosak said that he would be fine approving what they actually want, and it might be cleaner for them to come back in a couple weeks with a proposal for what they actually want. Ms. Brock said that it would have to go back to the County for the 30-day approval, but they would not necessarily take the full 30 days. Ms. Erb wondered whether Planning Board approval would mean that if they had an extraordinary situation where they needed a second tent, they could go to the building department for the tempo- rary permit. Mr. Bates said that was part of the reason they are seeking Planning Board approval.When they came for the tent permits last year, the debate was whether or not they should be allowed to do this. He allowed them on the condition that they come before the Planning Board this year to get it straight- ened out. There are concerns because they are increasing the amount of people they'll be serving. He still has to look at bathroom facilities, etc, for each event. Ms. Ritter said the main reason this was brought forward was the extra tables, not so much because of the structure of the tent, because tents are allowed as long as they get a building permit.Agava got approved for a certain number of seats, and this increased the number of seats and it's taking up the parking spaces. Ms. Erb doesn't think parking is an issue and likes the location of the tent behind the building,which keeps it away from the road view and brings it closer to the additional parking. Eva Hoffmann stated that she likes this place. She doesn't like to eat indoors much because it's too noisy, but she likes to sit outside in the summer. One problem she has encountered at Agave is wasps, which are attracted to food. She wondered what would happen if someone in the tent panicked at seeing a wasp.What would happen if lots of people tried to rush out at once? Mr. Bates explained that the building code addresses the number of aisles and pathways that are re- quired and the number of egress openings and how they are marked.As far as pests, you can't predict Mother Nature, but the code does address the issue of bees' nests that you can actually see as part of the maintenance of a structure. Bees are more of a problem associated with a continuance - they come back to where they were before. If they're attracted to a tent today, but the tent disappears, they're not going to hang around. The outside deck where the wasps are now is associated with food - they know they can come back. It is not the same as a tent. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2014-014:Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Agava Restaurant Catering Tent, 381 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 62-2-1.123 Planning Board Minutes 03-04.2014 Page 8 of 15 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed catering tent at Agava Restaurant, located at 381 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62-2- 1.123, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal involves using a temporary tent(up to 30' x 80') in the Agava Restaurant parking lot up to 6 times a year for special events or parties. Cornell University, Owner; POD of Ithaca, D.B.A.Agava,Applicant; Todd Nau, Manager Agava Restau- rant,Agent, and 2. This is a Type II Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(7) of the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Envi- ronmental Quality Review Act, because the Action constitutes "construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consis- tent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facili- ties," and thus approval of the site plan is not subject to review under SEAR, and 3. The Planning Board, on March 4, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, application ma- terials including a narrative (dated October 4, 2013), plans showing two proposed tent layouts (date stamped January 29, 2014), and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having de- termined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant altera- tion 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 use of a temporary tent in the Agava Restaurant rear parking lot up to six times a year, subject to the following conditions: a. the temporary tent can be used no more than six times a year, is to be in place for no more than 5 days at a time, unless otherwise approved by a code enforcement officer, and can be no larger than 2,400 square feet in size, and b. if required by applicable law, a building permit(for a temporary membrane structure) is to be obtained from the Town of Ithaca each time a tent is installed, and c. notwithstanding the proposed layout showing two tents, only one tent is allowed on the prop- erty at a time because the public hearing notice listed only one tent. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb Planning Board Minutes 0.04.2014 Page 9 of 15 AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a Sign Variance for the proposed Dunkin' Donuts restau- rant located at 302 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.-1-2.1, Community Commer- cial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former bank building into a Dunkin' Donuts restau- rant. Modifications include removing the drive-up teller locations and canopy, installing a new build- ing interior, adding new windows and building entrances, updating the exterior finish, upgrading the site lighting, adding new freezers and coolers along the back wall of the building, and installing new signage.Yunis Properties, LLC, Owner; ESW Realty, LLC,Applicant; Timothy Buhl, P.E.,Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. Mr. Buhl is the site plan designer for this application. This is an existing building that the applicant wants to convert to a Dunkin' Donuts restaurant. The footprint won't change substantially. The ap- plicant wants to do modifications to the roof line and exterior skin of the building for their own branding and to better define the entrances. They'll use the existing parking and enhance the existing landscaping with new plantings. They will put a dumpster and coolers and freezers at back of the building. They want to remove the exterior canopy and update the exterior finish to create a clean and crisp look for the restaurant. The stormwater will be updated to enhance the runoff treatment and hold it back with bioretention swales. The application is for two tenancies - the second is unde- termined right now, but will most likely be another restaurant like a sub shop. Neither application requires a drive-up. Parking is adequate; it more than meets the ordinance. The only special thing they're asking for is a second set of wall signs, which are not allowed by right, because they have front- age on two streets. Ms. Erb said the argument about having two different streets doesn't wash with her because the sec- ond sign isn't facing a street, but rather the Rite Aid. Mr. Wilcox added that two freestanding signs are allowed. Mr. Buhl said the reason they want one on the north side is because you don't see the freestanding sign on Pine Tree Road until you're right on top of it. The signs increase the visibility of the location, especially the pylon signs as you're driving past. Ms. Erb thought that driving north to south,you would see the sign on the building on the north side facing the Rite Aid far better than you would see the freestanding pylon sign. If the concern is coming through the intersection from south to north, you're going to be facing the other wall sign on the east doorway. In other words, she would be happy trading a second wall sign for getting rid of one of the pylon signs. Mr. Buhl confirmed that the pylon sign on Pine Tree Road is perpendicular to the road and double sided. He also said the wall signs are quite small and that's why they're requesting both.Town code allows both types of signs to be internally lit. Mr. Haefeli said he would be more tolerant of two signs on the building if they weren't that style; he feels like the Town is getting a lot of internally illuminated signs. Planning Board Minutes 03-04.2014 Page 10 of 15 Ms. Brock stated that the ZBA was sued over their denial of a variance for a drive-through at that loca- tion. The case was argued before the Supreme Court, and we're waiting for the decision. Mr. Wilcox said that it's interesting that they went to the ZBA and didn't get the variance for a drive- through, and while that's still being litigated, they're coming to the Planning Board for consideration of a site plan approval without a drive-through. Ms. Brock agreed that the Planning Board can't consider the possibility of future signs on a drive- through. She also pointed out that the Planning Board is the sign review board making a recommen- dation to the ZBA, who will decide whether to grant the variance. The Planning Board has the right to state in their recommendation whether they think it should be granted or not based on visual im- pact and other issues they think are relevant. Ms. Erb said it bothers her that Mr. Buhl said this isn't exactly the landscaping that will be there. The Board usually has a plan that staff can check against to see whether the plantings match the approval. She likes that the building will be reused; she's glad to hear about the enhanced stormwater runoff, and she thinks it would be silly to take away parking. She likes that the garbage bins will be fenced in. She thinks the traffic increase will be trivial. Mr. Hebdon said they did more than they needed to for stormwater. They are not required to meet today's standards. There aren't any known drainage problems in that area right now. Ms. Erb asked what landscaping will look like. Mr. Buhl said it will look like exactly what is shown; the only modifications he's seen them do is to put annual flowers around the front entrance. Mr. Haefeli said he'd be more willing to consider two signs on the building if they were not interior illuminated and if they weren't a box style; he'd like to see something externally illuminated and more integrated with the architecture. It was determined that the restaurant would be open while it is dark. Ms. Balestra said the Town al- lows top-mounted illumination, not spot lights. Mr. Wilcox said his concern is the need for the second wall sign given that they get two freestanding signs. He asked what the signage on the building adds, and pointed out that the corporate color scheme is also like signage. Ms. Erb stated that with the dual-door vestibule, the entrance to the building is already defined. The only argument for the second wall sign is the entrance into the building, and the architecture defines that. Mr. Haefeli suggested trading a pylon sign for two wall signs. Ms. Collins said that the sign on Pine Tree Road really doesn't serve a purpose. Planning Board Minutes 03-04.2014 Page 11 of 15 Ms. Erb said she would go with the two pylons and one wall sign. They're already allowed; it worked well enough for the bank, and it seems that between those and the coloring of the building, even for new visitors in town, it's plenty of signage. Mr. Bosak said he could live with Mr. Haefeli's proposal, but he thinks it's more straightforward to just say no to the second wall sign, which is the proposal before the Board. Eva Hoffman asked if it would be possible to eliminate the two pylon signs and put information about the new business on the two Rite Aid signs. From a traffic point of view, it would make sense to use the entrance from Mitchell Street,which is further west. There is better site distance from there. Ms. Balestra responded that that property belongs to a different owner and is off premise. Ms. Hoffmann related an incident in which her daughter,who was living in Painted Post, attended a public hearing about a proposal to build a Burger King there.There was a lot of opposition. One man commented that Burger King isn't so bad, citing the one in the Town of Ithaca as an example. Ms. Hoffmann's daughter spoke up and told them that that didn't happen by itself- it happened because the Town Planning Board and staff worked very hard with the developer and his representative to come up with something really good; not just the typical brand.All developers come in with what's best for them: to make them visible; to help their businesses. But when she was on the Board, they explained that the Town had a vision about what it should develop into, and they found that - espe- cially the local franchisers -were quite willing to work with the Board. She thinks that with the Town eventually trying to build more neighborhood commercial centers in other spots in the Town, the East Hill Plaza area can work as a model. She thinks it's important to try to work with the developers as much as possible to work toward the best possible solution, and not just go for the first plans they come in with. They're usually willing to make something better. Ms. Hoffmann said she took photos, which she did not have time to print before the meeting, of how soon - as one goes from north to south along Pine Tree Road - one can see the eastern facade of this building and see a sign there. One can't really see it at the edge of the cemetery where there's a drive- way into the Rite Aid, in part because, even without leaves on the trees, they partly obscure the view of the corner of the building, and with leaves, one won't be able to see it. By the time she got to the driveway in back of the P&C, she could see that corner of the building. She would have no problem seeing a Dunkin' Donut sign there. By the time you get to the crosswalk from the P&C to the Rite Aid, that corner is totally visible. One does not need a sign on the northern face; the one to the east is the one most useful and is very visible. She said the sign was described as being small, but Mr. Buhl just measured the area where the lettering is. She thinks one could make an argument for the whole area where the colored stripes are - from the ground up to the top, including the lettering - as being a sign. If you look at the color names of the stripes, they are named after coffees. The thing she most wants to emphasize is when the Board thinks of development in the Town, they try to impress on the applicant that the Town has a vision of what it should look like in the future and use that as a guide to negotiate with the applicant. Mr. Bosak asked on what grounds the Planning Board was able to negotiate with Burger King. Ms. Hoffmann responded that they brought in the typical plans with no alterations to make it fit the local circumstances. There was a lot of opposition from the local residents, which the franchiser and Planning Board Minutes 03-04.2014 Page 12 of 15 developer heard, and they decided they wanted to please. So the Board had good reasons for asking them to do things in a certain way, and they understood that. It was based on the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Balestra stated that she was the planner who reviewed the Burger King proposal, and it was a very controversial project. Staff sat down with the applicant and let them know the Board was looking for something a bit more creative. But there was no building on that site as there is in this situation; it was just grass and trees. This building exists. At least from the staff perspective,we had a bit more leeway in asking Burger King to provide more architectural diversity because it was going to be a brand new building. From a staff perspective, we didn't feel that strongly about this building because they're not making too many changes from the existing building to make it into a Dunkin' Donuts. Mr. Wilcox stated that the attorney for the developer on the Burger King project, Bill Seldin,wanted to work with the Board to come up with parking and landscaping and visual impacts and signage. That was an important part of that whole process. Ms. Erb knows it was controversial because she was one of the people who sued the Town. She re- called the changes the developer made to the original proposal as part of the negotiations. That's what got her interested in the Planning Board. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:07 p.m. Mr. Bates stated that according to code, they need another exit for the general public; right now eve- rything funnels through that front corner. They show a total of 38 seats, but with the bench seating, they've got seating for 48 people. If you adjust the number for standing/waiting patrons and for staff, it goes even higher. He doesn't want to tell them where to put the second exit, but the code says that the two exits have to be at least half of the diagonal across from each other. Mr. Buhl agreed, and suggested locating the second exit on the north side of the building, across from the tenant serving area. Mr. Bates said they can work out the details, but he wants it included in the resolution. It doesn't have to be an entrance; it can be for exit only. Technically, anywhere a person stands in the room, they have to see two exits clearly marked, and those exits have to be a certain distance apart. Ms. Erb agreed with the placement of the door on the north side, saying she sees it underneath the wall sconce to the right of the window. She added that it will help break up the monolithic appear- ance on the right-side elevation. Mr. Wilcox thought the sense of the board was to recommend that the ZBA not grant the request for a sign variance for a second wall sign. Mr. Bosak stated that he didn't want to walk away from the points Ms. Hoffmann raised about work- ing with the developer to get an improvement. The improvement the Board would want would be to reduce the size and prominence of the two freestanding signs. Given that the developer has that of right, and that there wasn't a groundswell of public opinion, Mr. Bosak didn't think the Board had much to negotiate with. Planning Board Minutes 03-04.2014 Page 13 of 15 Mr. Haefeli suggested that the only thing the Board had was trading off the wall sign for smaller py- lons. He suggested going with what zoning allows unless the developer wants to propose something else along that line: a compromise. Mr. Bosak thought that it boiled down to the fact that if Dunkin' Donuts were amenable to a less ugly setup, they would have proposed it in the first place. Mr. Wilcox disagreed, saying that they would come in with their standard corporate design and only when push comes to shove would they bring out alternative solutions. Mr. Buhl said he would be happy to relay to the applicant that if they were to do some additional work on the pylons, either in reduction in the size or the number to one, that they might be able to get the second wall sign. He's perfectly willing to take that back to them. Ms. Erb pointed out that because they don't have the second wall sign as of right, they would still need to go before the ZBA. Mr. Buhl said he understood that. PB Resolution No. 2014.015:Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding a Sign Variance, Dunkin' Donuts Restaurant, Tax Parcel No. 62.-1-2.1, 302 Pine Tree Road Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This action involves Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recom- mendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a Sign Variance for the proposed Dunkin' Donuts restaurant, located at 302 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.-1,2.1, Community Commercial Zone. The proposal involves converting the former bank building into a Dunkin' Donuts restaurant. Modifications include removing the drive-up teller locations and canopy, installing a new building interior, adding new windows and building entrances, updating the exterior finish, upgrading the site lighting, adding new freezers and coolers along the back wall of the building, and installing new signage.Yunis Properties, LLC, Owner; ESW Realty, LLC, Applicant; Timothy Buhl, P.E.,Agent; and 2. This is a Type II Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(7) of the regulations of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation promulgated pursuant to the State Envi- ronmental Quality Review Act, because the Action constitutes "construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consis- tent with local land use controls, but not radio communication or microwave transmission facili- ties," and thus approval of the site plan is not subject to review under SEAR; and Planning Board Minutes 03-04.2014 Page 14 of 15 3. The Planning Board, on March 4, 2014, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, application ma- terials including a narrative, titled "Narrative For Site Plan Review, Proposed Dunkin' Donuts Restaurant, 302 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY 14850" dated 2-3-2014; Sheet ST-1 titled "Site Plan, Proposed Dunkin' Donuts, 302 Pine Tree Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," prepared by Timothy C. Buhl, P.E., dated Jan.31, 2014; Sheet Al, titled "Floor Plan; Details," dated 07/29/13, prepared by James D. Smith,Architect, AIA; Sheet A4, titled "Exterior Elevations; Finish Schedule," dated 02/10/14, prepared by James D. Smith,Architect, AIA; Sheet MA, titled "Exterior Elevations; Pylon Elevation; Finish Schedule," dated 02/10/14, prepared by James D. Smith,Architect, AIA; and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having de- termined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a neither significant altera- tion of the purpose of site plan control nor contravene 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 Dunkin' Donuts restaurant, as described in the materials listed in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of one original large-sized set of the final site plan drawings (Sheets ST-1,Al,A4 and MA), revised to show the correct number of patron seats, an additional exterior exit that complies with the requirements of the New York State building code, deletion of words and graphics on the window awnings, and correction of the window awning color to brown, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect or landscape architect who prepared the materials, prior to the application for any building permits; and b. Granting of any sign variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the application for any building permits; and c. All proposed outdoor lighting shall conform to the requirements in the Town of Ithaca Out- door Lighting Law; and d. Placement of screening material on the chain link fence portion of the dumpster enclosure so the dumpsters are not visible from locations outside the enclosure; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals deny the request for a sign variance for the installation of a second wall sign for the Dunkin' Donuts unless the applicant proposes to reduce the height and/or number of the freestanding signs. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb Planning Board Minutes 03-04-2014 Page 15 of 15 AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the Board. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Hollis Erb, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAugistirfB,T3cputy Town Cler