Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2016-01-19TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. January 19. 2016 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Rodeway Inn Modifications, 654 Elmira Road. 7:00 P.M, PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal and Special Permit for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal inyolyes adding a 1,146 +/- square foot addition on the existing structure (Building #2) for a new registration office, conyerting the existing office to a community room, and modifications to the exterior facades of the existing buildings. JAMNA Hospitality Inc., Owner/Applicant; Joseph Tumowchyk, HEX 9 Architects, Agent. 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination; EAC Montessori School Entrance Driye, 120 East King Road. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal and Special Permit for the proposed improyements to the front entrance driye and parking area at the EAC Montessori School of Ithaca located at 120 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43.-1- 3.5 and 43.-1-3.22. The proposal inyolyes creating a separate parking area from the drop-off loop, proyiding 14 additional parking spaces, improyed ADA access, and new landscaping, lighting, and stormwater facilities. EAC Montessori School and College Crossings II, LLC., Owners; EAC Montessori School, Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent. 7:40 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed new deer fence at Cornell Uniyersity's McGowan Farm located at 791 Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64.-1-2.2, Planned Deyelopment Zone No. 9. The proposal inyolyes the construction of an eight-foot tall open wire fence around approximately 22 acres of the farm. Cornell Uniyersity, Owner/Applicant; Dayid Cutter, Campus Planning Office, Agent. 6. Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2016. 7. Persons to be heard 8. Approyal of Minutes: January 5, 2016 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment 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 or SPOLCE^TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (http://wvvw.tow n.ithaca.nv.us/meeting-agendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday. January 19.2016 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, January 19, 2016, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal and Special Permit for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal inyolyes adding a 1,146 +/- square foot addition on the existing structure (Building #2) for a new registration office, conyerting the existing office to a community room, and modifications to the exterior facades of the existing buildings. JAMNA Hospitality Inc., Owner/Applicant; Joseph Tumowchyk, HEX 9 Architects, Agent. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approyal and Special Permit for the proposed improyements to the front entrance driye and parking area at the EAC Montessori School of Ithaca located at 120 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43.-1-3.5 and 43.-1-3.22. The proposal inyolyes creating a separate parking area from the drop-off loop, proyiding 14 additional parking spaces, improyed ADA access, and new landscaping, lighting, and stormwater facilities. EAC Montessori School and College Crossings H, LLC., Owners; EAC Montessori School, Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Indiyiduals with yisual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be proyided 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. Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 Dated: Monday, January 11, 2016 Publish: Wednesday, January 13,2016 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall. 215 North Tioga Street. Ithaca. New York, on Tuesday, January 19. 2016 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: January 11, 2016 Date of Publication: January 13, 2016 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this IS'*^ day of January 2016 Notary Public DEBORAH KELLEY " -Rotary Pu^o. New York " : -No.-diKEcvCssoys r.: Qualified h> Sch'uyrar Coun+yy u j^mth'ission E^ires May 17,20 THE ITHACA JOURNAL WFbNESDAY, JANUARYS, 2016 TOWNOFTOACA PLANNING BOARD I NOTICeOFPUBUC ! HEARINGS Tuesday. January 19,2016 By direction of the Chairper son of the Ranning Board NOTICE IS HERffiY that Public Hearings will be held by the Ranning Board of Ihe Town of Ithaca on Tuea- I day, January 19. 2016, at I 215 North Tioga Street. Itha ca. N.Y.. at the foltovnng times and wi the following matters: 7:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and final Site Plan Af^roval and SperSal Permit for the proposed mod ifications to the Rodeway Inn located at 654 Elmira Road. Town of Ithaca Ta* Parcel No. 33.-3-6. Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The pro posal involves addinga 1.146 +/• square foot addition on the existing structure {Build ing #2) for a new re^stratlon office, converting the existing office to a community room, end modifications to the exte rior fficades of the existino biddnga. JAMNA hfospttaH- ty Inc.. Owner/Appficant; Jo seph Tumowchyfc. HEX 9 Ar chitects. Agent. 7:20 P.M. Consrderation of PiefaTiinary and Pmal Site Plan ^iproval and Special Permit for the propose im provements to the front »>■ trance drive and parking area at the EAC Mcntessod School of Ithaca located at ' 120 East King ftead. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43.-1- 3.5 and 43.-1-3.22. The pro posal involves creating a s^ • arate parking area from the drop^jff loop, providing 14 addrtiond parking places, inv proved ADA access, and new landscaping, lighting, and stonnwater fficHiUes EAC Montessoh School and Col lege Crossings II, LLC.. Own ers; EAC Montesseri School. Applicant: Kimbeiiy Michaels; Trowteidge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP.A^nt. Sid Planning Board w« «- said Ume and said place hear ail persons in support of such, matters or obfectlons thereto. Persons may appear by agent or In person. Individuals with visui impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, wdl be proWd- ed with assisiance as neces sary, upon request. Ftersons desring assistance must m^e such a request not lessthan 48 hours prior to the time of Ihe public hearkig. Susan Bitter Dkector of Planning 273-1747 bated: Mon.Janll.20162^)312016 Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street January 19, 2016 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN-IN Please Print Clearly. Thank You Name Address [2.0 q A 6io un. n'- 4''M ^3 (S/gviri '^ycf^S joC C?^plc-^J ^fpeH (Jo TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, January 19, 2016 215 N, Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox (Chair), Linda Collins, Joseph Haefeli, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Liebe Meier Swain, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Mike Smith, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaetc, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting and publication of the public hearing notices. He noted that Mr. Bosak and Ms. Meier Swain arc starting new terms. Mr. Wilcox also announced that there would be no SEQR review of the Montessori School project because it's a Type II action. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Rodcway Inn Modifications, 654 Elmira Road Mr. Pratik Ahir, owner, said that the property is fo mily-owned and that the house on the property is the family home. They're proposing to build a new office and connect the home to the office. The existing office is right in the middle of the motel. It's very outdated and first impressions are im portant considering the new hotels going up in Ithaca, so they want to update it. Mr. Bosak noted that the drawings show an owner-occupied apartment on the second floor, and asked whether both the house and the apartment arc occupied by the family. Mr. Aliir said they are. Ms. Fogarty commented that the current office is two stories. She asked whether both stories would be renovated. Mr. Aliir said it will be a community room with 24-hour coffee, snack machines, etc. They will keep it in the middle because it's more convenient for guests. They aren't doing any major renovations to this. Mr. Wilcox said he was disappointed with the quality of the SEQR form. There were many things that had to be changed by staff, incomplete answers and wrong answers. He said that if Mr. Turnowchyk can't write English, the board can't understand what he's trying to say. Ms. Balestra said that she learned from Ms. Brock that afternoon that since the previously approved project hasn't been built yet, the SEQR is supposed to look at the entire project. She gave Mr. Wilcox Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 2 of 16 a copy of the SEQR from the original approval before the meeting. She advised incorporating into the new SEQR the previously approved elements of the project. Ms. Brock said that she talked to the DEC about this in the past. The answer that came back to her was where a board has approved a project but it has not been built yet, and the project comes back to the board with additional changes or modifications, the SEQR should look at everything that has not been built yet, not just the piece right before the board. This is to avoid segmentation. Otherwise, if someone proposes X, and the board finds no potential for significant adverse environmental impacts and makes a negative determination of environmental significance, and then the applicant comes back months later and says they're adding Y, if the board looks only at the second piece, you might find that that by itself also isn't significant environmentally, so you give it another negative determi nation, but if you looked at it all together, you might make a different decision. The DEC advised her that as a procedural measure, the board should consider the impacts of the entire project. Ms. Brock suggested that, instead of adding all the text from the old form to the new form, Mr. Wilcox simply reference the attached original SEQR. PB Resolution No. 2016-005: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval &. Special Permit, Rodeway Inn Modifications, 654 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-6 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Fred Wilcox WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn, located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves adding a 1,146 +/- square foot addition on the existing structure (Building #2) for a new registration office, convert ing the existing office to a community room, and modifications to the exterior facades of the existing buildings. The SEQR review for this project incorporates the 2013 Planning Board- approved improvements as well as the proposed improvements. JAMNA Hospitality Inc., Own er/Applicant; Joseph Turnowchyk, HEX 9 Architects LLC, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting in an uncoor dinated review, with respect to site plan approval and special permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on January 19, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant. Parts 2 and 3 pre pared by Town Planning staff, a narrative, plans entitled "Modifications for: Rodeway Inn, 654 Elmira Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," including drawing numbers related to modifications to Build ing 1 (CS-1, SP, SlOl, AlOl, A201, A202, A203, A301, A302), Building 2 (CS-2, SP, A1-A3, A7), and Building 3 (CS-3, SP, and A202), all prepared by Hex 9 Architects, dated October 30, 2015, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi cance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 3 of 16 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves adding a 1,146 +/- square foot addition on the existing structure (Building #2) for a new registration office, converting the existing office to a community room, and modifications to the exterior facades of the existing buildings. JAMNA Hospitality Inc., Owner/Applicant; Joseph Turnowchyk, HEX 9 Architects, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Hearing no one, he closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2016-006; Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Rodeway Inn Modifications, 654 Elmira Road, Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-6 Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Joseph Haefeli WHEREAS: 1. Tliis action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn Suites, located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.-3-6, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposal involves adding a 1,146 +/- square foot addition on the existing structure (Building #2) for a new registration office, converting the existing office to a community room, and modifications to the exterior facades of the existing buildings. JAMNA Hospitality Inc., Owner/Applicant; Joseph Turnowchyk, HEX 9 Architects LLC, Agent, and 2. This is a Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting in an uncoordi nated review with respect to site plan approval and special permit has, on January 19, 2016, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 19, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, plans entitled "Modifications for: Rodeway Inn, 654 Elmira Road, Ithaca, NY, 14850," including drawing numbers related to modifications to Building 1 (CS-1, SP, SlOl, AlOl, A201, A202, A203, A301, A302), Building 2 (CS-2, SP, A1-A3, A7), and Building 3 (CS-3, Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 4 of 16 SP, and A202), all prepared by Hex 9 Architects, dated October 30, 2015, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby finds that that the special permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270-200, Subsections A - L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a, the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, will be promoted, as the project largely involves interior renovations with some minor exterior additions and improvements to the existing building fa cades that will not affect the health and safety of the community, and for the reasons set forth in "b (ii)" below, b. (i) the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the use is permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial zone and has existed on the property for many years, and (ii) the proposed use fills a neighborhood or community need as the proposed office entry and addition will provide a larger, more obvious location for patrons to check in and communicate with motel staff, c. the proposed use and the location and design of the proposed structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, for the same reasons noted in "a" above, d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neigh boring inhabitants, for the same reasons as noted in "a" and "b" above, e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone, for the reasons noted in "a" and "b" above, f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, road ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of ade quate capacity to accommodate the proposed use because the use is already operational, and there are minimal changes proposed, g. provided that the Zoning Board of Appeals grants any necessary variances, the proposed use, building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Town Code Chapter 270 and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles. Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 5 of 16 i. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, for the reasons noted in "a" and "b" above, j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use, and access, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drain- ageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, per the recommended condition of approval by the Public Works Department noted in the Further Resolved clause below (#2 a), and I. the proposed use and structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270. AND BE IT FURTHER 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 a significant alteration of neither 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 Special Permit and Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the Rodeway Inn, located at 654 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33.'3'6, as described in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Before applying for a building permit, submission to and approval from the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, of a Simple Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan (Simple SWPPP), b. Before applying for a building permit, granting of any necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and c. All lighting must comply with the Town's Outdoor Lighting Law, Chapter 173. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed improvements to the front entrance drive and parking area at the EAC Montessori School of Ithaca located at 120 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43.'1-3.5 and 43.-1- 3.22. The proposal involves creating a separate parking area from the drop-off loop, providing 14 Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 6 of 16 additional parking spaces, improved ADA access, and new landscaping, lighting, and stormwater facilities. EAC Montessori School and College Crossings II, LLC., Owners; EAC Montessori School, Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m. Kimberly Michaels; Andy Sciarabba, TO Miller; Lisa Smith, Montessori School; and Peter Littman, school attorney, were present. Ms. Michaels said they want to expand the parking area to get as many parking spaces as possible and to separate vehicles dropping people off from vehicles going to park. Right now, parking and dropping off is all together in one location. In the proposal, you would come into the drive and either choose to park, after which you would take a sidewalk around and to the front door, or choose to drop off at the door and loop back and leave. Lighting is dark-sky compliant and uses the same fixtures the school is currently using. An outstanding item in the resolution was the Notice of Intent, which came that day. Mr. Sciarabba said it's a letter of no impact from SHIPPO. Evan Monkemeyer owns the property adjacent to the school and the school has a right-of-way use to a section of the property, which they can use and modify. One of the conditions is some form of documentation from College Crossings saying they are comfortable with the proposal. There's a letter in the packet from Mr. Monkemeyer requesting that a certain swale be piped, and that is included in the drawing. They also asked that property pins be reset at the boundaries, and TO Miller will do this once better weather arrives. Mr. Monkemeyer also wanted it acknowledged that he retains the right to develop that part of his property. Mr. Thaete said that, with regards to Mr. Monkemeyer's property, he knows there's a deed in place and he thinks it's vague. He wants some type of sign-off from the school's attorney stating that they read the deed to say they can make these modifications. Mr. Littman said the right-of-way is in the deed, which is from 1986. There's an understanding that in the future, if Mr. Monkemeyer wants to use it for other purposes, the deed can be modified. Mr. Thaete said that from the town's perspective, there's drainage work going on, and that's the part he specifically doesn't read in the deed language. He just wants a sign-off from Mr. Monkemeyer or the school's attorney providing their interpretation on what the deed means. He wants to be certain that drainage work can be done on that property. Mr. Littman agreed to comply with Mr. Thaete's request. Mr. Sciarabba said that inside the existing the right of way, there's a drainage channel, so they'll be modifying the drive as well as the existing drainage system. Tliey're not adding a new drainage system. Ms. Fogarty wondered whether three lamps would provide enough lighting for the entire parking lot. Ms. Michaels said it won't be gas station bright, but rather a low-level light that provides enough illumination to get to your car. The lamps are 40 feet apart, which is standard. Ms. Smith added that the current parking lot is heavily lit, and it's the same lighting. Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 7 of 16 Mr. Bosak said that Appendix B is supposed to be showing us all the soil conditions, but it's not legible. Mr. Sciarabba responded that his copy is color, and Mr. Bosak's is black and white. He'll provide grayscale in the future. Mr. Haefeli was curious about the reduction in parking space size, asking whether he could get a van or SUV in there. Mr. Wilcox said town code calls for 180 square feet orlS ft x 10 ft; it's becoming more common for the board to see 18 x 9, which is 162 square feet, whereas they're proposing 18 x 8.5, which is 153 square feet. Mr. Bosak said that these spaces are not comfortable for a pickup to get in and out of. Mr. Wilcox added that it would be a problem for any 2-door car. Ms. Michaels explained that the industry standard for a 90-degree pull-in is 9' x 18'. The parking spaces at Wegmans are 9.5' x 18'. The ones on the plan are 8.5 feet wide because the spaces are angled. You don't need the entire 9 feet if the spaces are angled. There's a set of physical standards that change as the parking arrangement changes. The formula for size requirements changes depend ing on the angle of pulling in. They realize they're looking at parking for families with mini vans and don't feel they skimped on the ability for the parking lot to operate correctly for the school. Mr. Wilcox agreed that you don't need as wide a space with the angle for pulling in, but said when opening doors, it's a different story. Mr. Bosak said it assumes everyone parks perfectly. The reason he's not making a bigger issue of this is that cars are getting smaller. Ms. Fogarty wondered when the work will be done. Ms. Smith said they will start fundraising post approval. It won't happen this summer. She said a lot of this is about safety. It's not every day that they need all of these parking spaces, but rather for all- school events. Currently, they are parking on King Road, so this is one step toward their goal. Ms. Fogarty asked about soil removal and staging. Ms. Michaels said they might need to bring in a little fill; she doesn't have the numbers. Mr. Wilcox said that if they need to bring fill in or take any off site, they should make use of state highways to the greatest extent possible as opposed to county and town roads. Ms. Smith said they will shut down the front during construction, so it will all be contained on site. Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 8 of 16 Ms. Meier Swain asked how much space they will continue to occupy on King Road during school events. Ms. Smith said quite a bit. This is the first phase in trying to get cars off King Road. She thinks it will help significantly. If they had more land, they would try to accommodate more parking. Mr. Monkemeyer said they ought to provide future access to the rear of the property, and to make use of some of the land to the east, which would allow them to expand the parking. There's a drainage easement that comes down from the east and drops off onto the right-of-way. Tlie right-of-way was designed and planned as a future roadway for the town, as a kind of Main Street for South Hill. As long as they realize that in the future, the elevation of the roadway, the width and size of it, may all change. He has no problem with their drainage work as long as they understand that it can change in the future. He agrees that this additional parking is needed. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2016-007: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Montessori School Front Entrance Drive, Tax Parcel No.'s 43.-1-3.5 and 43.-1-3.22, 120 East King Road Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed improvements to the front entrance drive and parking area at the EAC Montes sori School of Ithaca located at 120 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43.-1-3.5 and 43.-1-3.22. The proposal involves creating a separate parking area from the drop-off loop, providing 14 additional parking spaces, improved ADA access, and new landscaping, lighting, and stormwater facilities. EAC Montessori School and College Crossings II, LLC., Owners; EAC Montessori School, Applicant; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Archi tects LLP, Agent, and 2. This is a Type II Action, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Section 617.5(c)(8) 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 "routine activities of educational institutions, including expansion of existing facilities by less than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area and school closings, but not changes in use related to such closings." Thus, approval of the site plan and special permit are not subject to review under SEQR, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 19, 2016, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, a "Stormwater Management Study" prepared by T.G. Miller P.C. dated August 5, 2015, and drawings titled "Cover" (LOOO) dated 09/08/2015, "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" (ClOl) dated 08/05/2015, "Drainage Plan" (C102) dated 08/05/2015, "Details" (C201) dated 08/05/2015, "Existing Conditions" (LOOl) dated 08/05/2015, "Demo Plan" (LlOl) dated 09/08/2015, "Layout Plan" (L102) dated 09/08/2015, "Grading Plan" (L301) dated 09/08/2015, "Porous Pavement Grading Plan" (L302) dated 09/08/2015, "Planting Plan" (L401) Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 9 of 16 dated 09/08/2015, "Details" (L501) dated 09/08/2015, prepared by Trowbridge Wolf Michaels Landscape Architects LLP and T.G. Miller, P.C., and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby finds that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270- 200, Subsections A - L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, will he promoted, as the proposed project will separate the parking from drop-off routes removing pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and improving vehicle circulation, improve ADA access, improve site lighting, and improve stormwater facilities, and h. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the premises already con tain a school use with the associated drives and parking areas, and (ii) the proposed modifica tions fill a neighborhood or community need, and for the reasons noted above, and c. the proposed use and the location and design are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, as the layout and site elements will he consistent with the existing school premises, and d. the proposed use will not he detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants, for the reasons noted above, and e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone, and f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, road ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of ad equate capacity to accommodate the proposed use. Additionally, the use is already operation al as a school with an existing driveway, drop-off area and parking, and there is room on the site for modifications, and g. the proposed use, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, and h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site lay out provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and i. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use; and access, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, as the property already contained a driveway, drop-off area and parking in the same general location on the property, and Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 10 of 16 k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties. The applicant has provided drainage plans to the Town Public Works Department and the Department has approved the plans, per a memo provided by Daniel Tliaete, PE-Engineering, dated 01/11/2016, and I. the proposed use complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in this chapter. AND BE IT FURTHER 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 a significant alteration of neither 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 & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Montessori School Front Entrance Drive project located at 120 East King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43.-1-3.5 and 43.-1-3.22, as described in the set of site plan draw ings noted in Wliereas # 3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of one set of the final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan material, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and b. submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies, prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby authorizes, according to Section 270-227 (A) (4) of the Town Code, the standard 180 square foot parking space to be reduced to no less than 153 +/' square feet, finding that the reduction will not cause any adverse effects on the project, on the surrounding properties, or on the neighborhood, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes the placement of parking spaces to be located in the required side and rear yards of the project site, pursuant to Section 270-227.B (2) and (3), finding that: a. The particular use, nature, or location of the proposed project or building, requires that parking be in one of such yards; b. It is not practicable to limit parking to areas outside of the required yards; c. Parking in such yards does not significantly adversely affect adjacent properties or the character of the neighborhood; and Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 11 of 16 d. No such parking will occur in any buffer areas. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed new deer fence at Cornell University's McGowan Farm located at 791 Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 64.-T2.2, Planned Development Zone No. 9. The proposal involves the construction of an eight-foot tall open wire fence around approximately 22 acres of the farm. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; David Cutter, Campus Planning Office, Agent David Cutter and Glenn Evans, director of operations for Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station, were present. Mr. Evans manages a number of farms, including the 22-acre McGowan Farm. Mr. Cutter explained that the main access is off Dryden Road. All the land is used for agricultural experiments, and it is subdivided into smaller plots. They are within the PDZ #9 and also within a protected view area. The plots themselves have been suffering from increased damage, mainly from deer. The solution they're proposing is to enclose the critical parts of the plot with an 8-foot-tall deer exclusion fence, which is a 4" x 4" wire mesh. It's a fairly open and visibly transparent fence. In order to think about what the visual impact of the fence would be, they did a couple simulations of the view with a low fence inside, and you can't really see it. Mr. Wilcox said he has no problem with the fence. If you look at a farm field, part of the field is the fence; it's open and allows you to see through it. His concern is that they're fencing out the deer, which means someplace else will be impacted with more deer. This came up more than a decade ago when they were thinking about fencing in part of the Plantations, and the Forest Home neighbor hood was vocal about their concerns. Mr. Smith said the conservation board looked at it and had a couple concerns, but after talking about it at their last meeting in January, they decided they didn't want to send comments on. They felt that the number of deer in this area would be pushed onto another Cornell property; it would be four or five deer. The Plantations already has the most important things fenced in to protect them. So they didn't feel like it was a big concern. Mr. Beach asked whether the gates would always be closed; deer are very intelligent. He also shared Mr. Wilcox's concern about shifting the deer to another part of that immediate neighborhood. Mr. Evans said the gates would always be closed. Wliat they typically do on other farms with fencing is put a small sign indicating that the last person out needs to shut the gate. Ms. Collins said that because we are concerned about a view, she wondered whether they had looked at other types of fencing. She recalled that another project talked about putting two four-foot fences two feet apart; the deer will not jump them. She wondered whether that had been considered. Mr. Evans responded that the fence they're proposing is the rural standard now. They currently use the type of fencing mentioned by Ms. Collins at the site, with the temporary electric fence around the Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 12 of 16 plots. What they found is that it worked well the first year, and then the deer got smart. They got comfortable clearing that type of fence. Mr. Bosak said that this is his initial impression only and he reserved the right to change his mind when we get to the approval. He thinks the fence is a negative visual impact and he also thinks that if you're going to conduct agriculture there, they have no choice. All they can do is put in a fence with the least visual impact. When he moved to Ithaca, he spent the first couple years determining where he was going to grow stuff and building fences to keep the deer out. He doesn't agree with the argument that he was damaging his neighbors by pushing his deer into their yard. Ms. Fogarty said she wasn't uncomfortable about the viewshed. There's a lot of fencing on Game Farm Road and a lot of fencing across the street; now this fence. She asked where the deer will go when everything is fenced and whether Cornell has talked about culling, not instead of putting up fences, but in conjunction with it. She thinks it's not good for the deer to be constantly trying to find where to go. Mr. Evans responded that there's a deer management committee that has evolved in the last two years. It's a multi-pronged approach. In an area like this where even a little deer browsing could be catastrophic for this small-plot research, they look at fencing. In other areas, where they're just trying to reduce the incidence of damage, they look at other management techniques, including hunting. They were exploring birth control, but that has been phased out. Ms. Fogarty would like to know more about that topic when they come back. Mr. Bates said that for perspective, he drives that road often. There are constantly deer traveling through that corridor. He sees them along the fence of the orchard trying to figure out how to get in. It is a wildlife corridor. Mr. Haefeli said the deer population is a problem, and this is just addressing a symptom. He thinks it's going to come up more and more vis-a-vis the Lyme disease issue. Ms. Ritter commented that as the previous environmental planner for the town, based on some of the things she's hearing, she wonders whether other wildlife can get through this corridor. Is this limiting other wildlife from getting through? Mr. Bosak asked whether the mesh has to be 4" x 4"; couldn't they have strands, say, 8 inches apart that would let foxes and other wildlife through? That might slightly lessen the visual impact. Ms. Brock had a question about the PDZ language. She wondered whether a fence encompassing 22 acres would be considered a small structure. Under our code, fences are structures. The PDZ language has a definition of small, but it presupposes that we're talking about a building, up to 15 feet in height and less than 2000 square feet in area. She has asked Ms. Balestra to pull up the GEIS that was done around 1995, prior to the creation of the PDZ, to see if that sheds any light into what's considered a small structure. If there's nothing in there that provides any instruction, she doesn't know whether the ZBA should do an interpretation or whether a modification to the PDZ should be sought. Just as lampposts below a certain height are permitted, fences below a certain height are Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 13 of 16 permitted as well. She wants something simple that makes it clear that the board has clear authority to grant this; otherwise, the decision of this board could be attacked and it might be hard to justify. Mr. Bosak said that once you say that this area is going to be for doing agricultural test plots, a fence to keep the deer out is baked into that purpose. Ms. Brock responded that that's not how it was written. They say very specifically that you can do additions to the existing foundation of the seed building, you can do small structures, and you can do lampposts. If we were writing it today, we would probably do it differently. When asked about the timeline, Mr. Evans said they hope to construct it in the spring. Ms. Brock said it is not unusual for the town board to amend PDZs to add uses or structures. EcoVillage has done it at least three times. LaTourelle has done it a number of times. Mr. Bosak said that for the next step, they should be prepared to explain in more detail what goes on with a research plot. He had the experience 30 years ago of doing research that necessitated him looking at grain data. He learned that the data is sometimes based on one row of plants. You get a total of a pound and a half of seed, and that's the basis for your entire report. So it doesn't take any damage at all to completely wipe out a year's worth of data. That should be made clear. He views this research activity as a public good. Ms. Brock asked, if the GEIS doesn't shed light, whether staff should go to the town board and ask them to put fences or deer in the PDZ. Ms. Collins wondered about data on the four-foot fencing. Mr. Evans responded that there's a lot of data. And Cornell has done a lot of experimenting. AGENDA ITEM Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson for 2016 PB Resolution No. 2016-008: Nomination and Election, Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2016 Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by Jon Bosak RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect Liebe Meier Swain as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2016. FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board. A vote on the motion was as follows: Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak Abstentions: Meier Swain Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 14 of 16 AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. An applicant for the vacant planning board seat, Katherine Herleman, introduced herself. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2016-009: Minutes of January 5, 2016 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of January 5, 2016, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Other business Ms. Ritter said that Chainworks is planning to attend the next planning board meeting to give a quick presentation; not to get into details, just provide orientation. The city of Ithaca is lead agency, so they're the ones who make the ultimate decision on whether the document is adequate. Adequacy is determined by looking at the scoping document, which is the contract that says what we all agreed they were going to work on and have in the EIS. So we need to look at the scope and see if it's in the document. This is a process that's done by the lead agency, but because we're so involved in the project, the city has invited the planning board to participate in the determination of adequacy. They have asked for comments to be forwarded to them by February 18th. Their board will submit adequacy comments by the 23rd. Then they wait for the applicant to submit a revised EIS, and after that, they vote on adequacy. Once it's determined to be adequate, it's released to the public, and we start the public comment period. Mr. Wilcox said we need to assess whether the document addresses each item in the scope, not how well it addresses them. Mr. Bosak asked when the board would have a chance to talk to each other to decide as a board whether the document is adequate. Ms. Ritter said that would happen at the February 16th meeting. Ms. Collins asked whether the board would simply be looking at whether an item was addressed and not at the scope or the depth. Or is it just the fact that there's something there? Ms. Brock agreed, saying that one sentence would not be enough to adequately cover an issue. Ms. Collins said she has one issue she'll want to talk about and that it might take some time. Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 15 of 16 Mr. Wilcox said that if somebody writes a sentence and says it addresses a topic, he agrees it's insufficient. But if somebody writes ten pages, and a member of this board says there's one particular item they should have addressed that they didn't, is that enough to say the document isn't sufficient? Mr. Bosak responded that it's possible if they wrote ten pages and didn't address the issue. Mr. Wilcox said he's trying to remind everyone that our job is not to make a perfect document to give to the public; our job is to help the city determine whether it's adequate to give to the public for their comment. Mr. Bosak said he doesn't know what he'll find and he'd like to leave the door open to holding another meeting, if necessary, to address the question, based on what's on the agenda for the 16th. If we have a fairly light agenda on the 16th, we ought to be able to say by the 2nd one way or the other whether we'll need an extra meeting. Ms. Collins said she came onto the board at the end of Holochuck. She doesn't understand what the board's role is; she doesn't understand at what point the board will have the cache of our influence before it goes to the public. At that point, does she go as a concerned citizen? She would like that to be explained. Ms. Ritter said this is different from Holochuck because we were the lead agency and now we aren't. But given that we have a role in site plan approval in portions of this huge project, we are very much involved. The other involved agency is the town board, and at the end, we are all supposed to prepare findings. Ms. Collins brought up timing. Are there things that can only be addressed in the environmental review process, and if we miss that opportunity, will we not be able to talk about them anymore? For example, things that aren't in compliance with our comp plan. Tliat is addressed in the environmen tal review. Once we close the environmental review, can we go back and talk about that again? If the answer is no, she wants to make sure that certain things are addressed. Ms. Ritter said the zoning that exists there now will be changed to a PDZ, and a lot of that will be handled by the town board, with the planning board giving a recommendation on that language, and hopefully, that language would include things about the new zoning. If you look in this document, you will find language of a composed planned development zone with designs that are like form-based code zoning. Ms. Brock read from the SEQR handbook regarding what a draft EIS should discuss and to what extent. She thinks what the board needs to do is look at the scope, look at whether they address it adequately, and address all the deficiencies in writing. Mr. Bosak said that he is not exactly clear at what stages our formal input will be required. It would be great to get a five-minute flowchart on when that's going to happen. Other board members agreed. Planning Board Minutes 01-19-2016 Page 16 of 16 AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Mr. Wllcox, the meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DeAugistii^ Oeptity Town Cfei