Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA Minutes 1997-08-13 MAD TOYM OF IT KArA FINALTOWN OFclwi ZONING BOARDIOF APPEALS THACA �"`�' N WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1997 The following appeals were heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 13 , 1997 : APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Scott Whitham, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a women' s softball field with related facilities at 240 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60-1 -6, -8. 2, Residence District R-30. GRANTED APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Scott Whitham, Agent, requesting a special from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18, Subparagraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct four 120-140 foot light poles on the Alumni Soccer Field on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63=1 -8.2, Residence District R=30. A variance from Section 18, Subparagraph 10 of said Ordinance is also requested , which limits the height of a structure to 30 feet. ADJOURNED TO OCTOBER' S MEETING • APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article VII, Section 33 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct a garden center/nursery with a combined floor area exceeding 10, 000 square feet at 1061 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43=1 -3. 2, Business District C. An Approval to serve food to the public as a supplemental business is also requested, along with variance requests from Sections 36 and 38 to permit the outside display and storage of goods, which is otherwise prohibited. Additionally, a variance from Section 5. 03=1 of the Town's Sign Law is also requested to permit the placement of a sign with decorative appendages, having an area of 145 square feet +/- ( 50 square foot sign limit). GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a fourth dwelling unit to an existing multiple dwelling located at 1060 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39=1 -15. 2, Business District C. Said building is nonconforming since residential uses are not permitted in business zones. ADJOURNED TO SEPTEMBER' S MEETING • FINAL :r&^ (Y MOrA Fete- Iaa 127 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS `' WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1997 PRESENT: David Stotz, Chairman ; Harry Ellsworth , Ronald Krantz, James Niefer, Andrew Frost, Director of Building and Zoning ; John Barney, Attorney for the Town ; JoAnn Cornish , Planner. OTHERS: John Keifer, Scott Whitham , Allison Keifer, Eric Krantz, Evan Monkemeyer (& wife) , Terrence Roswick, Attorney John Klucsik. David Stotz called meeting to order at 7 : 07 p. m . , and stating that all postings , publications , and notifications of the public hearings has been completed , and the same were in order. The first appeal to be heard by the board was as follows: APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Scott Whitham, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a women's softball field with related facilities at 240 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60A1 6, -8. 2, Residence District R-30. Scott Whitham , Agent for Cornell University , said the proposed project is located directly north of the Reis Tennis Center. Mr. Whitham pointed out the location on an enlarged map. Mr. Whitham said • the softball field would include some small structures for the dug outs and a storage/press box facility. There would be a score board sign for the field . Harry Ellsworth asked where the stream is located in conjunction with the softball field . Mr. Whitham pointed out the stream on an enlarged map. Mr. Whitham said some changes were made to the project with the Planning Board . When the softball field was staked out on the ground it would found that the stream was closer to the field than Cornell anticipated . There is one point of the field that would be a tighter slope, and the map shows how the topography narrows down in one area. Cornell would be rip-rapping that area to stabilize it to pull away from the stream . Cornell was going to eliminate two oak trees and two large Hickory trees , but while staking the field out on the ground it was shifted to save the trees. Cornell met on site with the Planning Board to discuss the parking issue . Cornell proposed , and the Planning Board accepted , that Cornell would build a walkway to the overflow gravel area for polo . There would make 36 additional parking spaces for events. Cornell is assuming that there would not be any problems with parking because the softball , tennis, and the polo are under all the facility in terms of planning events ahead of time . Planner JoAnn Cornish said , for the record , Assistant Town Planner George Frantz had revised the last paragraph of the Environmental Assessment Form under C1 . Mr. Frantz indicated that the 36 additional parking spaces were to be constructed , when in fact those parking spaces are in existence. There would be no construction for parking . They would use the current gravel lot. Mr. Whitham said Comell would create access to the overflow parking lot with a new walkway and • a break in the fence to the field . - L TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 ' PAGE 2 • Planner Cornish said that would be amended as well at the Planning Board meeting on August 19th when the Board considers Final Site Plan review. Chairman Stotz asked if softball is a varsity sport. Mr. Whitham responded , yes . Chairman Stotz asked what type of attendance does Cornell aspect for softball games. Mr. Whitham said there would be two 90 seat bleachers as part of this project, but that would be a rare event to have the bleachers filled to capacity. Chairman Stotz asked if there would be adequate parking on site for 180 people in attendance. Mr. Whitham responded , yes . Planner Cornish said the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance states , when there are bleachers there needs to be one space for every 5 bleachers . That is how 36 parking spaces were arrived at. Mr. Whitham said Cornell is not expecting that many people in attendance at once , but Cornell is planning in case there is a tournament on site . The required parking spaces would be there in case of tournaments . Ronald Krantz asked if there would be night lights on this field . Mr. Whitham said there are no night lights anticipated . He has been told that there would be no lights for this project. Chairman Stotz asked if Cornell decided to put night lights on this field , would they be required to come back. Attorney for the Town , John Bamey responded , yes , because this Board is approving a specific site plan where no lights are part of the plan . Mr. Whitham said there are no lights for this project, and there are no lights anticipated . James Niefer asked if the Reis Tennis Center parking lot would be paved as part of this project. Mr. Whitham responded , no , but there is another project happening at Polo where they would be doing some paving . Mr. Niefer said Reis Tennis Center is a nice looking facility, and the gravel parking lot is a detraction from it. Mr. Whitham said there was a long discussion about that during the planning of the tennis center. Chairman Stotz asked if Black Oak Townhouses are located close by the proposed softball field . • Mr. Ellsworth said the Townhouses are located a ways down the road . This happens to be his neighborhood because he lives on Honness Lane . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 3 Chairman Stotz asked if this public hearing notice was advertised to the Black Oak Townhouses . Andy Frost said he would need to look at the affidavit of service by mail . Chairman Stotz asked if Cornell had 180 people in attendance during the day, would this cause noise to that location . Mr. Whitham said it is quite a distance from the softball field . If there were 180 people in attendance yelling , people at Honness Lane would be able to hear the yelling . But that would be a very rare occasion if there was an event like that. Otherwise the field is far from those neighborhoods . The usual expectation of people in attendance would be 20 to 40 people per game . Cornell seems optimistic about having 180 people in attendance , but Cornell would like to plan in case there is a tournament. Mr. Frost said the Black Oak Townhouses are not immediate adjacent neighbors to the proposed project, so they were not notified . This public hearing was advertised in the local newspaper. It appears from the maps that Black Oak Townhouses are more than a 1 , 000 feet away. Planner Cornish asked if the orange sign was posted on the proposed site . Mr. Whitham responded , yes. Chairman Stotz said he does not think it is advisable to table this hearing because the Town had not notify a person 1 , 000 feet down the road . Mr. Frost said normally the Town would not notify them unless it is an immediate property owner. Attorney Barney said the Town is not obligated to notify the property owners, it is a decision that is generally done . Mr. Ellsworth said if these teams are successful at softball , there would be more games scheduled to play . If there are more games , then there would be more yelling heard on Honness Lane along with more traffic to the area . Chairman Stotz asked if a large number of people were in attendance for an event like that, would it be possible not to schedule the games after 5 : 00 p. m . . Mr. Whitham said he cannot answer that question . In terms of scheduling things for this facility, it would be the Athletics' Department scheduling the tennis, polo , and softball events. In terms of adequate parking , he thinks there would be enough spaces. Planner Cornish said the same question came up at the Planning Board as well , and Mr. Whitham indicated that the Athletics' Department would not want to schedule two large events at the same time . If there were NCAA tournaments held on these fields it would be exclusive to the women 's softball . Mr. Ellsworth said there would be a parking problem if Cornell does that. Planner Cornish said if there was more than one event there would be a problem with parking . • Mr. Ellsworth said basketball and hockey go end to end . By the time the hockey game is underway no one could get into the parking lot for the basketball game . He can see where this is going , TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 4 • and it depends on the success of the team which no one can project at this time . Ithaca College is different because that is a physical education school . Mr. Frost asked if people park at East Hill Plaza and cross the street. Mr. Ellsworth responded , yes . There is a lot of people that park at East Hill Plaza and take the bus to Cornell University. Mr. Whitham said this facility is not anticipated that there would be events of that kind . Mr. Ellsworth said it depends upon the success of the team . Mr. Frost said this Board could consider a time limit on the proposed project and see what happens . Mr. Ellsworth said there would already be an installed field , and Cornell would have financial damage . Mr. Whitham said it would be a rare occurrence to have 180 people in attendance at one time . The usual thing has been 20 to 40 people per game . It is a low keyed sport in that sense , but it is not expected that would change . If things did change Cornell would need to look at the whole area again . Chairman Stotz said the Board could stipulate a condition that if it is anticipated that attendance would be over 40 people that it cannot be scheduled after a certain hour. Mr. Ellsworth asked when would these events take place . During the week during the day, or what. Mr. Whitham said the games would be held during the day. Mr. Niefer asked when is the softball season . Mr. Whitham responded , spring . John Keifer, Cornell University Engineer, said the softball season is April and May. Mr. Whitham said Mr. Keifer is here to speak on the next appeal for Cornell University, but he is also the project manager for this project as well . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, Chairman Stotz closed the pubic hearing . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Niefer said he does not see where this is grossly inconsistent with other university activities with noise associated to it, and it is not so significant to effect people . He lives quite a way from Cornell University campus , but he can still hear the bands and music on the weekends. It is all part of the • college community situation . If this softball operation becomes a major item it is no more different than a bunch of children playing in a school yard . A school yard generates more noise than this would ever generate . He lives next to a school yard , and he does not have a problem with the noise from a school TOWN OF ITE ACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 5 • yard . He has lived there for 20 years . This activity for three hours for two months out of the year is not such an environmental impact on the neighborhood that this Board should not be concerned about. This is his personal feeling of the proposed project. Chairman Stotz said the only concern he has , he knows that Cornell has other athletic facilities that fringe on residential areas such as the north campus , which are usually for intramural athletics not organized athletics with a large number of participants . Cornell in the past few years , has expanded towards the orchards of the east side of campus with an impact on Belle Sherman , Honness Lane , and other residential districts . This pushes one more step towards those districts. The only concern he has, is that this Board would go on record as making a statement that the Board is concerned about that. It is not issue of saying that Cornell cannot have a softball field because occasionally 100 people may raise their voices and cheer because some hits a home run . It would serve to let Cornell be put on notice that there is a concern . There is other property that Cornell owns that is ideal for athletic facilities . Planner Cornish said there is no major environmental concerns . Chairman Stotz said an issue of wetlands was addressed in a memorandum from a Hydrologist, Phil Zarriello . Planner Cornish said Phil Zarriello is the Town's Conservation Board Chair, and also is on the Environmental Review Committee , Chairman Stotz said Mr. Zarriello's memorandum mentions that it would be advisable to rotate the ball field to the east so it would not encroach into the ravine. Planner Cornish said that was addressed . This memorandum was written before the field was moved . Mr. Whitham said the field has been manipulated to the best position Cornell can with the relationship to the stream . Planner Cornish said the Planning Board was acceptable with this location because it would also save the trees . Chairman Stotz asked if there would be mitigation efforts during construction . Mr. Whitham responded , yes . There will be siltation fences and the standard protections . Ronald Krantz asked if this Board needs to do an environmental assessment even though the Planning Board did one . Attorney Barney said it depends on what is being done. The Planning Board makes their determination with the thought in mind of what their role is , and if it is site plan approval they need to make a determination with the site plan proposed . The Zoning Board of Appeals role is to grant a special approval , so this Board needs to decide if there are any environmental impacts if a special approval is granted . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 6 MOTION by David Stotz, seconded by Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED, that this Board make a negative determination of environmental significance for Comell University Women's Softball Field on Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 60- 1 - 8 . 2 , based on the review by the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff and their report on August 5 , 1997 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION by Ronald Krantz, seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this Board grant the special approval under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance to Cornell University, to be permit a construction of a softball field with related facilities at 240 Pine Tree Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60- 1 -6, -8 .2 , Residence District R-30 , with the following condition : a . That the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals recognizes that this proposed softball field further moves towards residential areas located on Honness Lane and Belle Sherman , and it is the consensus of the Board that there is some concern about continued development of athletic facilities in this area because of noise and crowds of people . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. The second appeal to be heard by the board was as follows: APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Scott Whitham, Agent, requesting a special from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V. Section 18, Subparagraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct four 120-140 foot light poles on the Alumni Soccer Field on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63A1 8.2, Residence District R-30. A variance from Section 18, Subparagraph 10 of said Ordinance is also requested, which limits the height of a structure to 30 feet. Mr. Whitham said he would like to introduce John Keifer, University Engineer and the former Senior Electrical Engineer at Cornell University, who has been working with the consultants who are designing these lighting fixtures . Mr. Keifer said last year Cornell University built a track and soccer field on upper Alumni Field on campus. The purpose of this project is to put night time lighting on the soccer field . The project consists of four poles with light fixtures similar to the pole light and assembly on the " Light-Structure System" hand out. Cornell would like to install four of these poles around the soccer field with 75 foot candles of luminous intensity on the field . The lights fixtures are similar to the Schoellkopf Field in appearance in TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 7 the daytime. There is one big difference between this project and the project done at Schoellkopf Field , • that Cornell is taking some substantial measures to eliminate glare and still light coming out of the facility. Cornell has received complaints from people around Town for the lights at Schoellkopf Field that they have a lot of glare . This project, Cornell has hired a professional lighting consultant. Mr. Keifer passed around a photograph of Boston College's project to modify their lights for the athletic fields . Mr. Keifer said the photograph shows a line of light fixtures that do not have any light control , and there are light fixtures that have controls on them . Mr. Keifer said the photograph shows what Cornell intends to do to the soccer field . These controls would be done to the lights at Schoellkopf Field . That project would be happening sometime this fall . By the end of fall Schoellkopf Field would have these modifications done to them . He would like to talk about a group called " Dark Sky Association", which is an international group that exists to advocate lighting control . The Association is a group of astronomers who have a difficult time looking into the heavens where there is a lot of light pollution . This Association passed an ordinance in Tucson (AZ) . The understanding is that they have one of the toughest lighting ordinance in the country. It is Cornell's intent to meet that ordinance to try and be better neighbors with this project than Cornell was with the Schoellkopf Lights . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Keifer if he is saying that these lights would not have the spill over as the Schoellkopf lights. The complaints about Schoellkopf lights could be seen from West Hill . Chairman Stotz asked if these lights would be seen from West Hill , Mr. Keifer said the lights would be seen from West Hill . It is very difficult to discuss in quantitative terms for glare control . People perceive objectionable glare in different ways . He will have to speak in qualitative terms. The light controls that Cornell intends to use on the Soccer Field would intenuate the amount of glare and spill light by a factor of ten . While these lights are about the same height as the ones at Schoellkopf Field , and a result of that they would be visible pretty much from the same location that the Schoellkopf lights are visible. These lights would not look anything like the Schoellkopf lights. These lights would be much dimmer. Chairman Stotz said a lot has to do with air conditions also. There are days when there is a lot of humidity and moisture with mist in the air, it tends to reflect the light. Chairman Stotz asked if that would occur also to the same extent. Mr. Keifer responded , that is true when it gets foggy the whole area around the playing field tends to have a glow, and it could be very substantial . Another factor there is the amount of light coming out of the fixtures that goes into the air. One of the statutes of the Tucson (AZ) ordinance is that no light energy be luminated above the horizontal plain coming out of the light fixtures . This help the light from not entering the sky. Chairman Stotz asked how is that done , with lenses. Mr. Keifer said there are three different control measures that are employed to do that. One is a visor that fixes around the top of the fixture. While looking at an arched lamp, people could see the arch tube itself. On a fixture that has no glare control , a cap is placed over that as a sheild so people cannot see the arch source itself. Then on the inside bottom surface of the reflector, the standard ones do not have optical treatment. The ones that Cornell purchased have been treated to reduce glare so the reflection of the light goes to the playing field . It is the bottom part that has the potential to send the light up . Mr. Krantz said the lights of Schoellkopf Field have been a chronic irritant to much of Ithaca particularly to the West Hill area . There is nothing subjective about the objectionable glare there, TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 169 1997 PAGE 8 because if the area was surveyed there would be close to 100 percent of the people who see the lights are objecting to them . Cornell , in his opinion , has been inexcusable , unresponsive , and insensitive to the needs on West Hill . This has been going on for a long time . His opinion is shared by a lot of people particularly on West Hill . Another thing deals with the report that was supplied to the Board . There are a number of different issues here. First of all , Mr. Keifer is talking about four lights , but there is a comment where Cornell could put up to ten light poles . Secondly, the Board is dealing with an elevated area to begin with . This area he thinks used to be called " Kite Hill". It is high with big towers being built. The footage on the towers in the report mentions that the towers could go from 110 feet to 230 feet in height. Mr. Keifer talks about the light of 75 foot candles that these lights would give out, then he compares it to Rita Hildabrand Stadium which has an average of 40 feet. That doubles the lights . The Board does not know how high the poles are at Rita Hildabrand Stadium . The higher the lights go the more the glare there would be, and the more it would effect people . Mr. Keifer is comparing apples and oranges here. The report talks about a mounting height of 30 feet. Mr. Krantz said he does not understand why or how high these light poles would be. Mr. Keifer said the light poles would 120 feet tall . Mr. Niefer asked how does these light poles compare to the height of the light poles in the field directly adjacent to the soccer field . Mr. Keifer said the existing light poles are approximately 70 feet tall . Mr. Niefer said the soccer field light poles would be a lot taller than the lights at the adjacent field . Mr. Krantz said Sheet L03 states "A - poles - 140 and 220 feet ' and "B - poles - 170 and 230 feet." Mr. Keifer said the Planning Board set a limit of 120 feet for the light poles at their meetings. Mr. Krantz also mentioned that there was something written in the documents about multiple poles. During the Planning Board meeting , a gentleman in the audience suggested that there were different ways to light the field that would require more poles , but would have better glare and spill light performance . In the interest of not preventing Cornell from pursuing that, the words were added to the motion there could be more poles. Cornell subsequently looked into other lighting means and found it was not appropriate in this case, so the designs stand as shown on the site plan and will consist of four poles . Planner Cornish said the thought was , if there were more poles they may not need to be 120 high . The gentleman that spoke at the last meeting was talking about lights from a different company, Softlight, and the Planning Board did not want to prevent Cornell from pursuing other lights for their needs . The Planning Board thought that ten light poles would be in the range of what Cornell would need if they wanted adequate lights for the soccer field . Mr. Krantz said "the proposed light poles would be located within an area dominated by large scale academic building , research building , and an athletic facility, most of which are four or more stories in height", is a quote from the information supplied to the Board . Mr. Krantz said Cornell is talking about 120 feet poles . Mr. Krantz asked how high is a four story building . Chairman Stotz said the soccer field is blocked on all sides except the westerly exposure . There is a memorandum from the Conservation Board to the Planning Board from Mr. Zarriello (Chair of the Conservation Board) , stating that he agrees these lights would create a visual impact, but it is believed that Alumni Fields are sufficiently far from residential areas that this impact would be minimal . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 9 • Mr. Niefer said the issue of these light poles are 40 to 45 feet taller than the existing lights next door is worrisome to him . Mr. Niefer asked what is the candle power for the field next door. Mr. Keifer responded , in the 30' s . Mr. Niefer asked how much candle power would it be for the soccer field . Mr. Keifer responded , it would be 75 foot candles . This is actually a reduction from the Schoellkopf Field Lights at 100 foot candles . Cornell significantly scaled the foot candles back from the existing lights. Chairman Stotz asked how high are the light poles at Schoellkopf Field . Mr. Keifer responded , 120 feet tall . Mr. Keifer pointed to a drawing with two different size circles around the soccer field . Mr. Keifer said the outer circle shows the spillage of lights at a 1 , 000 foot radius. Glare is a different issue, and foot candles cannot be measured for the glare. Mr. Keifer said he also agrees with Mr. Krantz's comment about Schoellkopf Field lights. He thinks it took too long for Cornell to initiate a program to put light controls on Schoellkopf Field . Cornell would be installing the materials to the Schoellkopf Lights over the next month or so . It is the materials from Musco . Mr. Krantz said the report also states that this is not just a soccer field that there is a track that would be lit. The track would be in use most of the time because people would be there on a regular basis . . Mr. Ellsworth said the track is a NCAA certified track. Mr. Krantz said the soccer field is for women and men to use . Chairman Stotz asked what are the plans for when the lighting would be for this field . Mr. Keifer said the lighting system is not designed to light the track. The track would receive some spill light from the system . The track and field events playing areas are located east to the track would not be lit at all by these lights . It would not be feasible for Cornell to conduct track meets after dark because the field events would not be lit. It is certainly not Cornell's intent to light the track or the event areas. The soccer field would be the only part to be lit by these lights . In discussions with athletics' department representatives it is their intent to use this field approximately 15 night games a year. Mr. Whitham said there would be approximately 5 to 6 games for the men , approximately 5 to 6 games for the women , and may be a couple other games . Mr. Ellsworth asked if that would cover special events . Mr. Whitham responded , yes . Mr. Krantz asked if they would be practicing soccer on this field . Mr. Keifer responded , no. Chairman Stotz asked if the field would be used when events are scheduled . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED = SEPTEMBER 16. 1997 PAGE 10 . Mr. Keifer responded , yes. Chairman Stotz asked if the lights would be used in the evening for students to have a lit area to practice soccer or use the track. Mr. Keifer said the soccer field is not used except for varsity competition . It is a very expensive playing surface , and the intent is to limit the use . Chairman Stotz asked if the other lights on Alumni Field are used for people to be out there in the evenings. Mr. Keifer said there are intramural sports and many activities there . Chairman Stotz asked if the proposed lights would be used for those purposes . Mr. Keifer responded , no. Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . Eric Krantz, Sheffield Road , said he holds a masters degree from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Optics , and he is a doctoral student in optical engineering at the moment. He is familiar with what Mr. Keifer mentioned earlier. Mr. Krantz said he does not have himself backed up with map , graphs , and charts that have been presented to the Board . He does have some photographs though . He has found in his work that actions in demonstrations speak a lot louder than words sometimes . Mr. Krantz passed around two photographs of the West Hill area on Sheffield Road which is the boundary for the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Krantz said this is as far as way people could get from the lights that are existence at Schoellkopf Field . The thing that was mentioned earlier about the glare and how is it quantified , it could be quantified as everyone has had high beams flicked into their face driving down the road . This is like having lights flicked into their face as people sit in their bedrooms or living rooms on West Hill . Chairman Stotz asked if these photographs were taken last night. Mr. Krantz responded , yes . Mr. Krantz said the conditions were fairly clear last night with a little mist, and the photograph was taken with a very poor camera. Mr. Krantz said one thing that alarms him about this proposal is the 75 foot candles. Mr. Keifer talked about the existing lighting at the Alumni Field being approximately 30 foot candles or so . That is adequate to play any sports, but when talking about 75 foot candles that does not mean much to many people , but what it means broadcast quality for television . That alarms him . That is a standard for NTSC or other types of broad cast quality. Also when Mr. Keifer talks about Cornell's intent not to create track lighting , he also visited the site yesterday and he does not know how many members of the Board did , but he found that the track basically forms the boundary of the playing area of the soccer field . There is no out of bounds boundary. The position of those lights can be tilted to luminate the track very easily. Therefore , as Mr. Keifer mentioned , which was a shock, if this field is really NCAA certified there is nothing to prevent them from tilting the lights and luminate the whole field . If the field is certified the center of the soccer field could also be used for shot put, javelin throw, or whatever events track and field have. So what Cornell has is a major television broad castable , outdoor sporting complex. The Board has seen the pictures of the lights he took from • West Hill last night. Cornell is talking about adding at least two more banks . In the photograph six dots can be seen from Schoellkopf lights , which the poles are 50 to 60 feet tall not 80 feet tall like Mr. Keifer mentioned . The new light poles would be doubled in height from the existing poles . Mr. Keifer TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 11 . mentioned that glare is not controllable as far as the residents on West Hill , and that is true really. What Cornell talks about with the great spill lighting techniques applies to level as Mr. Keifer mentioned above the horizontal . That means all light going up is not going to be seen . That is just fine and dandy for the Mount Pleasant Observatory at Cornell University, which is a little higher than the lights . For the residents of West Hill , however, who are located directly across at the same level it does not do them any good , and that is the complaint. It gives Cornell the potential to have television broadcast quality set up for major games whenever they want to do it. Mr. Krantz said he used to play soccer on the Ithaca High School team , and he could appreciate them wanting to luminate a soccer field , but also from his experience and vocation as an optical engineer, there are better techniques to use that would satisfy the West Hill residents . He suggests that if Cornell really wants to act on good faith here , they should first modify the Schoellkopf lights first. Mr. Krantz said that everyone is invited to come to Sheffield Road at anytime during the night to see the lights for themselves, and he would strongly recommend it. He would like to see Cornell make a good faith arrangement to correct some of the Schoellkopf lighting before they add two other big bright dots , and perhaps up to ten as it was mentioned . Who knows what they can do there. Mr. Krantz said there are other ways to construct this other than the 120 foot lighting poles . Also the cost is a concern as far as why Cornell went with the tall poles rather than with a bank of short ones. It is probably cheaper. That is his professional opinion . He thinks that Cornell should satisfy the West Hill residents complaints before proceeding in this manner. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Krantz if residents on West Hill find this lighting to be irritable or objectionable in some sense . Mr. Krantz responded , yes . It looks like two high beams . • Chairman Stotz asked if it looks aesthetically objectionable . Mr. Krantz said for all the residents that have a direct view out their windows of the hill , it is like two high beams looking at them at all times . That is very objectionable. Certainly anyone here would object to someone shining their high beams at them as they drive by in a car. It is really similar to that. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Krantz if his objection would be the use of those lights at any time . Mr. Krantz said the objection is the way the lights are arranged . If there was some possibility for Cornell to come up with an alternate plan to lower the length of the poles that would cut down the glare to the West Hill residents. The six little dots in the photographs are not nearly noticeable as the two bright dots . The six little dots are each half the size of the two bright dots , and a lot in intensity as well . That is the only way to cut down the glare, so his objection is not that Cornell completely disband this. He would like Cornell to come up with an alternative plan . It may not be possible. It may not be cost effective to implement a plan that luminates the field to broadcast quality lighting and satisfy what Cornell has intended , which he does not know. As it is scheduled now with the large tall poles and the banks they would be putting in , it would copy what is seen in the photographs of Schoellkopf lights. He thinks that it is completely irresponsible and unacceptable . He thinks there are other options that will not be as cost effective for Cornell , but would satisfy the Board and the West Hill residents . Attorney Barney asked Mr. Krantz if he thinks after listening to Cornell tonight that the towers that would be installed would be as bright as the existing lights . • Mr. Krantz responded , yes . That is 100 percent true . Mr. Krantz asked Mr. Keifer if that is true . Mr. Keifer responded , no . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 12 • lights . Mr. Krantz asked Mr. Keifer if he denies that the new lights would not be as bright as the existing Mr. Keifer said the new lights would not be as bright as the existing lights. Mr. Frost asked Mr. Krantz if he has seen the Boston College picture of the lights . Mr. Krantz said he could show him the picture that is fine, but it depends on how it is implemented . That picture could be taken on the difference of the camera angle and everything . Mr. Frost said the Board should be cautious of Mr. Krantz's implication of representing the West Hill residents . Mr. Krantz said he is not speaking for all the West Hill residents . He does not think there was adequate representation given in the amount of time basically. No one was informed , and it is the summer holiday season. Mr. Frost said there was a notice in the Ithaca Journal . Mr. Krantz said he did not see it. Mr. Frost said the Town is required to advertise a notice in the Ithaca Journal . He is also a resident of West Hill , and he is not so sure that he would go so far to say that all West Hill resident object to this. • Mr. Krantz said fair enough . He mentioned those that have direct view to this , and certainly some residents are shaded with pine trees and never see these lights . Mr. Frost said when the stadium is filled , he could actually see the color of people's clothing from his resident. Mr. Ellsworth said when he travels Route 96 coming into Town at night, he can tell when there is an event at Schoellkopf Field . Mr. Krantz asked Mr. Keifer if he mentioned that these lights would not cut down the glare to West Hill. Mr. Keifer responded , no. Mr. Krantz said he is sure that it was recorded that the new lighting , as far as the baffling and other things , would still present a glare problem to West Hill people. It is on tape anyway. The Boston College photograph illustrates an angular thing . It is tough to tell from a photograph that these lights could just be angled down also. He really does not know the specifics of the system . If people are on the same level of the lights , and these lights are not pointed to West Hill they are pointed down , it is difficult to eliminate this type of glare . Mr. Krantz said he would suggest, if the Board be responsible in this matter, that Mr. Keifer demonstrate the new lighting conditions at Schoellkopf Field . If they are demonstrated to reduce the glare , then he would say that is another step forward . Cornell is shoving everything here and there and saying they are going to do this and that, and before anyone sees this it would be a reasonable step to go . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 169 1997 PAGE 13 Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing . Chairman Stotz said his feeling is that there is the objection of just seeing the lights . There are some people who would object if they just see the lights . When Mr. Keifer was talking about glare he was talking about a qualitative issue that some people object to more so than others . If the Board decides that they do not want to approve this appeal nearly because they can see the lights that is one issue in his mind . He does not find it objectionable to see the light. The degree of glare , if it was comparable, coming from Schoellkopf Field now be an issue. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Keifer to clarify, that he thought these lights to be installed will result in reduced glare even to West Hill because of the way that they block the lamp element. Mr. Keifer said he believes that to be true. He does not think it is a fair comparison to show a photograph of the existing Schoellkopf Lights. It is Cornell's intent to reduce the glare and the spill light by a factor of ten compared to what is seen coming from Schoellkopf Field . Relative to foot candle levels , it is his understanding that it is the 100 foot candle levels that were for tournament televised play, and in fact Cornell has cut that back to 75 foot candles . Cornell does not anticipate doing televised broadcasting . Mr. Keifer said the concept that Cornell would move the field events into the middle of the soccer field and throw the hammer into the new soccer field would not happen . The new track and soccer field cost more than $250 , 000 . Cornell does not plan to tear it up by throwing things into it. It is not Cornell University' s intent to have track and field events at night. That is not part of the project. Mr. Frost asked if the lights at Schoellkopf, putting the glare aside , are functioning adequately. The current lights at Schoellkopf Field that are being replaced are functionally adequately other than glare . Cornell is replacing the lights to mitigate the glare . Mr. Keifer responded , yes. The lights at Schoellkopf Field are working just fine . Cornell is keeping the lights , they would just be adding glare control measures to the existing lights . Mr. Frost said he thought Mr. Keifer mentioned the lights would be replaced at Schoellkopf Field with the lights that would be used at the soccer field . Chairman Stotz said he is having a problem with the qualitative issue here. Everyone objects to the Schoellkopf lights now. Cornell is saying that these lights would reduce the glare by a factor of ten . Chairman Stotz said he does not know what that means . If the lights are being reduced by a factor of ten and there is still a glare noticeable from West Hill , some people are going to object. Mr. Keifer said the only quantitative measure he could offer, which comes from Musco, where they talk about glare associated with automobile head lights . There is a luminous energy measurement unit, Kandala . What Musco's goal is to have the glare below 12 , 000 candles at 1 , 000 feet from the facility, and the point that they make is that apparently the Department of Transportation standards require car low beam headlights to be less shining in the eyes of the driver coming towards them . Mr. Keifer said he would be happy to share that information with Mr. Krantz. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Keifer if he means that the light would be equivalent to a bunch of car headlights shining from East Hill to West Hill . Mr. Keifer said he does not think so , and there was a lot of numbers that did not mean a lot to him 41 because the existing lights are not like car headlights they are not that bright. That is a quantitative measure that the manufacturer provide to people who understand such things . Again , it is a difficult topic TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 14 • because there are no quantitative commonly accepted measures for a glare that annoys people . People react differently to that. Mr. Ellsworth said there are different heights that effect this visibility. Mr. Keifer has mentioned the spillage. The new lens cuts down on the glare , but there is a height difference that is going to be significant here. Mr. Frost said the high school football field and their lights are half the distance that Schoellkopf lights are from his house. The high school lights are down in the valley. He is approximately 300 feet above it. He cannot see the lights especially with leaves on the trees , but when those lights are on he can actually see shadows at his house. Schoellkopf lights do not bother him as much as the high school lights bother him . Mr. Keifer said he would like to point out relative to pole height, which he has discussed with the lighting consultant because he knows people are sensitive to pole height. When people see higher poles they equate bigger problems. The response was that higher poles actually can be better from a glare standpoint because the higher the lights are the more the fixtures could be tilted down towards the field of play. If the Board could visualize a short pole with a shallow aiming angle , the fixture would need to angled up further to point on the field where they need the lighting . He cautions the Board to react to pole height as taller is worse . Mr. Ellsworth said the pole height is one factor, the number of lights on each pole is another factor. The number of lights on the pole makes the poles look messy with 71 lights . • Mr. Keifer said the Planning Board limits the each light pole to 36 luminars per pole . Mr. Niefer asked if the Schoellkopf Lights are located in the Town of Ithaca . Mr. Frost responded , no, they are in the City of Ithaca . Mr. Whitham said while going through this process with the Planning Board , they all looked at some objective factors on how to look at these lights . The Planning Board had the same concerns . There was a number of concerns since the Planning Board meeting , especially the West Hill citizens and the Dark Sky Association . Both the Planning Staff and Cornell did as much research as they could looking for the best standard for this type of lighting . They found the Tucson (AZ) ordinance . Cornell looked at what was being proposed to match the best standard , and the Planning Board looked at this project. If this is in deed the best standard and these are the advocates for standards like this saying this is in deed it. Cornell is matching that, they felt they were approaching this in the best way as the Planning Board did . Chairman Stotz said Cornell needs to understand in finding for a special approval that this Board needs to make some sort of determination about the effect on the neighborhood . It is a critical issue for the Board . Apparently this has some effect on the neighborhood of West Hill , Mr. Whitham said he and Assistant Town Planner George Frantz spent a lot of time driving around West Hill seeing where these lights could be seen from West Hill . As Mr. Frantz mentioned at the Planning Board , he is the president of the West Hill Civic Association , and he was very concerned about • what these lights could do as a staff member. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 15 Planner Cornish said she was present at those Planning Board meetings . She will say that the • Tucson (AZ) ordinance was the yard stick by which the Planning Board made some comparisons because that seemed to be from the Dark Sky Association as well as the acceptable standard for the light ordinances . From Cornell's own admission they have matched that standard . It is a very difficult issue to deal with , and she has dealt with it in other areas such as the Cass Park lights . She sat on a committee for one year trying to resolve that nightmare . She does understand the sensitivities of residents in this community towards lights . However, it is difficult to judge objection . That is what the Planning Board finally used as a yard stick to measure this issue. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Chairman Stotz asked Ms . Cornish if there are any other concerns she would like to comment on for the environmental assessment. Planner Cornish responded , no , other than the fact that the Planning Board dealt with the site plan as it was presented with the four poles . The reason the Planning Board mentioned the ten poles was to give Cornell some leeway in which to explore other options for lighting . MOTION by Chairman Stotz: RESOLVED , that this Board make a negative determination of environmental significance in regards to Cornell University for special approval for the placement of lighting on the Alumni Soccer Field , in accordance with the recommendation of the Planning Staff and their report dated July 8, 1997 , revised July 19 , 1997 . • Chairman Stotz said there being no second to the above motion , the motion will not move forward . Attorney Barney said the moral of the motion is that this Board make a finding of positive environmental significance , which then brings the process to a halt until an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared , submitted , accepted , and approved . That is what the significance of these environmental resolutions are, so by declining to make a motion that there are no environmental significance the Board should be prepared to make a motion that there are environmental significance such that an Environmental Impact Statement cost and expense should be prepared before any further action is taken . Mr. Ellsworth asked Mr. Keifer if the modifications to Schoellkopf Field will be starting almost immediately. Mr. Keifer responded , yes . Mr. Ellsworth said he thinks is might be appropriate under these circumstances for Cornell to go ahead with the Schoellkopf light project to demonstrate what they can do prior to proceeding with the Alumni lights project. Chairman Stotz asked if a condition like that can be placed on a motion finding a positive environmental impact. tAttorney Barney said this Board is either making a determination that there is an impact or there is not. TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 16 Mr. Krantz asked if this Board could make a statement that they respectfully and submit that • Cornell University return to the Zoning Board of Appeals after the Schoellkopf lights are retrofitted . Attorney Barney said that could be done with Cornell's consent. If Cornell is willing to agree to an adjournment for that period of time to allow that to happen . Mr. Ellsworth said there have been some opinions given tonight to this small group compared to everyone that lives on West Hill , that Cornell has ignored the Schoellkopf lighting problems for a long time , showed bad faith , and that this is a movement of good faith and a demonstration of the difference . Mr. Ellsworth said he thinks the Schoellkopf lights should move forward first, because there are differences with foot candles and height. Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Keifer if it is in his power to speak for Cornell in terms of tabling this issue, and if so , would Cornell be willing to table this issue until the Schoellkopf lights are retrofitted and demonstrated . Mr. Keifer said he believes he can speak for Cornell . He thinks it is an acceptable thing to do . He thinks it is time to do something about the Schoellkopf lights and it way past due . He is not particularly surprised that there are fairly strong emotions around that issue. It makes sense to him and it should make sense to Cornell to do what the Board is discussing retrofitting the lights at Schoellkopf field first. Mr. Ellsworth said if he was Cornell he would photograph the lights at Schoellkopf Field before and after retrofitting the lights in the same spot each time. • Mr. Keifer asked if Cornell retrofits the lights at Schoellkopf Field , how would it be made public to this Board that it is time to come back. Mr. Frost said to contact him . Chairman Stotz said this matter would be tabled to the October Zoning Board of Appeals meeting , but with the stipulation that Cornell might be able to come back in September. The third appeal to be heard by the board was as follows: APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a fourth dwelling unit to an existing multiple dwelling located at 1060 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39AA5. 2, Business District C. Said building is nonconforming since residential uses are not permitted in business zones. Attorney John Klucsik, Representative for Evan Monkemeyer, asked the Zoning Board of Appeals to adjourn the matter of the fourth dwelling for an unspecified time. Their intention would be to come back before the Board at the next regular meeting pending the address of several issues that have been raised that require some attention . They would like to take care of those issues before formally addressing the Board . Chairman Stotz asked Attorney Klucsik if he is asking to have this` matter adjoumed , withdrawn , • or would this appeal change substantially in nature . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 17 Attorney Kluscik said this matter would not substantially change in nature, and they are simply • asking for an adjournment of 30 days . Attorney Barney said he just learned from Mr. Frost that the variance that was requested from the State is apparently being granted , which would take care a lot of the code issues that were a problem . Mr. Frost said he informed Mrs . Monkemeyer this afternoon that the information is in the mail . Attorney Kluscik said they were advised earlier today that Mr. Monkemeyer may receive favorable treatment from the State. However, not having that in hand at the moment plus other issues that Mr. Frost raised previously, they want to take care of these issues before addressing the Board . Mr. Monkemeyer still prefers a 30 day adjournment. Mr. Frost said Mr. Monkemeyer made a building permit application to do the work. Mr. Frost asked if he plans to do the work and then come to the Board . Attorney Kluscik said their intentions were to take care of all the building code issues that had been raised previously. Mr. Frost said he cannot give Mr. Monkemeyer a permit if the Board had not approved the apartment. Attorney Kluscik said the permit is to make the physical changes in the unit that are proposed . Mr. Frost said he cannot give a permit until this Board approves the apartment. The only other significant issue was the State , but they are processing the paperwork to approve the variance . Attorney Kluscik said there have been previous actions involving the Town in respect to this property. During the prosecution of those actions some other code issues had come to light. Through a previous agreement between the Town and Mr. Monkemeyer, he agreed to address those issues . The building permit application that Mr. Frost has pending before him is in furtherance of that understanding , and Mr. Monkemeyer intends to make those changes without prejudges to any decision on the fourth unit that this Board might later take action of. They would seek from Mr. Frost the granting of the building permit to make the changes for the fourth unit. After a brief deliberation with Mr. Monkemeyer, Attorney Kluscik stated that they would like to have this issue adjourned to the September meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals . The Zoning Board of Appeals decided to go along with Mr. Monkemeyer and Attorney Kluscik's suggestion of adjourning this matter to September's meeting . The last appeal to be heard by the board was as follows: APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article VII, Section 33 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct a garden center/nursery with a combined floor area exceeding 10, 000 square feet at 1061 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1 -3. 2, Business District C. An • Approval to serve food to the public as a supplemental business is also requested , along with variance requests from Sections 36 and 38 to permit the outside display and storage of goods, which is otherwise prohibited . Additionally, a variance from Section 5. 03A of the TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 18 • Town's Sign Law is also requested to permit the placement of a sign with decorative appendages, having an area of 145 square feet +/- (50 square foot sign limit), Mr. Frost said this notice was written and advertised before Mr. Monkemeyer went to the Planning Board , The Planning Board had some actions which resulted in changes to the sign . The sign may not be addressed tonight. The food was addressed by the Planning Board also . Chairman Stotz said this appeals deals with special approval to construct a garden center of 10, 000 square feet with outdoor displays and storage of goods . Terrence Roswick, Cornerstone Site Planners, said that is correct. They reduced the size of the sign . Per the Planning Board , the food service aspect has been removed from the proposal . In the interim , what Mr. Frost said is true , that the mailing was sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals members prior to the Planning Board meeting . Mr. Frost said the public hearing notice was done days before the mailing , and once the notice is to the paper he cannot change it. Mr. Roswick supplied the Board the latest site plan with the recommendations from the Planning Board , Mr. Roswick said Mr. Monkemeyer is expecting final approval from the Planning Board on August 19th subject to Zoning Board of Appeals approvals. This project has been under review with the Planning Board for several months. Mr. Roswick showed the Zoning Board of Appeals an aerial photograph of the proposed site that was taken in 1994. Mr. Roswick pointed out the site in question , • and the intersection of Danby Road and East King Road in conjunction to the proposed project. Mr. Roswick said there is an existing hedge row that borders on Danby Road and East King Road that would be retained . Mr. Roswick showed the Board a colored version of the proposed garden center/nursery, and pointed out the locations of the main building and greenhouses to the Board. Mr. Roswick said the nursery/garden center would be selling plant materials , landscape materials, flowers , shrubs , and things that are typically found in a garden center. Mr. Roswick said according to code it does not allow outdoors storage and displays of plant materials . To have a garden center, which is an allowable use , but does j not allow outdoor storage and displays , presents complications that prohibits the success of this garden center. All of the outdoor displays would be located within a fenced in area , which are tucked behind the hedge rows. Mr. Roswick pointed out an existing driveway off of Danby Road that would be used for the entrance/exit to the garden center. He also pointed out the parking areas and turn around loop for large trucks to use . Mr. Roswick said the main entrance to the garden center would be onto a large retail structure . There would be two to three exits into an enclosed display area , which would have all the garden plant materials . The greenhouses would be used to store and grow some of the products that would be for sale . There would be a few outdoor register stations for people to enter the building for their selection , and exit through the register stations. The whole garden center would be self contained in one area with the existing spruce trees . Mr. Roswick said the sign the Planning Board referring to is located right next to the entrance driveway between the main road and the hedge row. Mr. Frost asked what is the new calculations of the sign . Mr. Roswick said Mr. Frost calculated the large circle which was the original intention of the sign that was within the 50 square feet. Mr. Frost interpreted the code to include the appendages , which is a large trellis feature that would have ivy growing on it. • Mr. Frost asked if that sign has been reduced . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 19 Mr. Roswick responded , yes . The entire height of the sign would be eight feet nine inches , and • the width has been reduced to seven feet. Mr. Frost calculated the square and the triangle by adding those differences together. The square is seven feet by five feet, and the triangle is just shy of 15 square feet. Looking at composite of the sign would be just shy of 50 square feet. Mr. Frost said that would put the sign into compliance . Mr. Roswick said that was also the opinion of the Planning Board . Mr. Frost said the sign law has changed . In the past he would need to do one measurement, but now he can look at the triangle and the rectangle to get a total area . Mr. Krantz asked if there would be adequate visibility for traffic between the hedge row and the sign coming out of the driveway. Mr. Roswick responded , yes . The hedge row is setback approximately 50 feet, and the sign would be setback 30 feet. Mr. Ellsworth said people coming north would be breaking up over the hill just before the driveway to this site. Mr. Roswick said there is a full three-colored traffic light at the intersection . Chairman Stotz asked Mr. Roswick if he could point out the outdoor displays and storage areas . • Mr. Roswick pointed out the outdoor storage and display areas. Chairman Stotz asked what is the difference between display and storage . I Mr. Roswick said displays would be along the road and the front of the building to show people what the garden center has. i Chairman Stotz asked if there would be shrubs , trees , and flowers displayed for traffic to see . Mr. Roswick responded , yes . The person who would be managing the garden center and Mr. Monkemeyer has done essential research throughout the northeast in regards to garden centers . Mr. Roswick showed the Zoning Board of Appeals a photograph of an existing garden center in the northeast that they would like to do to this garden center. Chairman Stotz asked if people would be able to buy from the display areas . Mr. Roswick responded , yes . There are three storage trailers that would be closed to the patrons , but the entire garden center would be open to the public. Chairman Stotz asked if the storage trailers would be on wheels , and what would they look like . i Mr. Roswick said the Planning Board granted a three year time limit on the storage trailers . The • storage trailers would have a trellis feature over them . Chairman Stotz asked how many square feet would the garden center be . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 20 • Mr. Roswick said the plan would be approximately 10 , 000 square feet in total . The greenhouses are going to be accessible to the public, but not only would they be storing some of the materials for sale the Planning Board interpreted this as being retail and added the greenhouses to the square footage . This would put it three percent over what is required . Chairman Stotz asked if the garden center would be opened in the winter time . Mr. Roswick responded , no . The garden center would be opened until Christmas time after the sale of Christmas trees , and then open up in the early spring for flowers . Mr. Frost said he would like to go back to the discussion of the sign . What has happened , the sign shows a peak on top of the sign which is a trellis. In the past the Town's Sign Ordinance required him to take the largest rectangle inscribing the sign . The Town has now modified things , but what he did was take the rectangle adding it to the area of the triangle , which Attorney Barney tells him that he cannot do because that would be two measurements combined . He would either have to put one rectangle and insert one triangle around it. It appears that the measurement is still too large . Planner Cornish said whether the sign is too large or not, she would caution the Board from getting the sign to small to comply. Simply because it is the only sign for this retail center on a busy highway. Chairman Stotz said that also raises the question should this Board make that exception for any sign that is on a highway. • Mr. Roswick said this is an extenuating circumstances to this proposal because there is a large hedge row around the garden center. Mr. Monkemeyer really sees this as being an asset, and the community has expressed a lot of interest in keeping that. He agreed to leave the hedge row, but there needs to be some type of substance for people to know the retail center is located behind the hedge row. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the sign could be moved to the comer of the intersection . Mr. Roswick said it would be preferable to have the sign at the entrance road . Mr. Frost said this public hearing was advertised for this Board to discuss the sign . Mr. Frost asked if this was withdrawn from the Planning Board . Planner Cornish responded , yes . Mr. Frost asked if the Zoning Board of Appeals discuss this matter since the Planning Board has not discussed this yet. Mr. Roswick said the Planning Board discussed this matter based upon interpretation that they could calculate it. Mr. Frost said he was not informed of the reduction of the sign when the public hearing was advertised . • Attorney Kluscik said the answer to that question with the way the sign design has been modified in respond to the Planning Board commentary, there is no issue to present before the Zoning Board of TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 21 • Appeals . It is their intention that the sign is under the threshold for which a variance is required . Under the threshold , there is no variance required , therefore , no action by this Board would be required . Mr. Frost asked if that means the sign would be further reduced . Attorney Kluscik responded , yes . The intentions at the moment is to stay below the threshold at which a variance would not be required . Mr. Frost said under what has been made clear there could only be one measurement, not two measurements . Attorney Barney said a free standing sign used to be a rectangle, now it is either a rectangle, triangle , or a circle that fully encompasses the entire sign . Looking at the site plan , the circle would give the smallest gross area , but the Board does not know what that is . Attorney Kluscik asked if the peak was removed . Attorney Barney said if the peak was removed there would not be a problem . Chairman Stotz asked if the sign is installed and it does not comply with any measurements that are determined , then the sign would have to be taken down or change it. Mr. Frost said the sign would need to be reduced further. Mr. Roswick asked if the peak was removed , the sign would in compliance . Mr. Frost said in effort to serve Mr. Monkemeyer better, and that this has been already advertised this Board could discuss it before the Planning Board . Planner Cornish said in preparation for the Planning Board , the details of the sign and a proposed resolution were included in their packets . If this Board decides a variance is in fact needed the Planning Board could discuss it at their next meeting , and they could make a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for this issue to be resolved in September. Attorney Kluscik said Mr. Monkemeyer' s intention would be to stay below the threshold . If at some time in the future , the signs prove to be commercially impracticable they would come back to the Board for the required variance . Attorney Barney said this has to go to the Planning Board before the Zoning Board of Appeals could grant a variance . This Board needs to have an advisory opinion from the Planning Board on the sign size before granting the variance. Mr. Frost said this Board would not be discussing the sign . Chairman Stotz opened the public hearing . With no one present to speak, Chairman Stotz closed the public hearing . • Mr. Niefer asked if the Planning Board resolved the issue of the portable toilets . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 22 • Planner Cornish responded , yes . The Planning Board removed the portable toilets from the proposal . Chairman Stotz said there was a letter dated August 13, 1997 , from Devorsetz, Stinziano , Gilberti , Heintz, & Smith , P . C. , addressed to Attorney Barney in regards to the special approval for the Russo Garden Center. Chairman Stotz passed the letter around for the Zoning Board of Appeals members to read . ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Mr. Niefer asked if there were any letters from adjoining neighbors regarding this public notice . Chairman Stotz responded , no . Planner Cornish said there were no responses to this public notice for the Planning Board either. Chairman Stotz said the environmental assessment raises a number of issues, such as handling of fertilizers , pesticides , and other chemicals , an increase of noise levels, impact on traffic patterns, and the disposal of solid waste. There were some comments about the screening between the nursery center and the Montessori School . Chairman Stotz asked if anyone had any comments . Planner Cornish said the Planning Board and Planning Staff reviewed this proposal very carefully and looked at each item individually for consideration . It was found that there were no significant impacts • expected . This is an allowed use in this area , which is Business District "C" . There are other businesses in the area as well as several different types of residential areas . This area is certainly a very mixed use area . This would be an appropriate use for this space . There were no major environmental concerns . The grading and drainage plans were discussed with the Town Engineer (Daniel Walker) , and he was comfortable with what has been presented here . Chairman Stotz asked if the Montessori School made any comments at all about this proposal . Planner Cornish said the Montessori School was at an earlier meeting , but the Planning Board has been reviewing the Montessori School project also. At one meeting Andrea Coby spoke about a connection between the nursery and the school to work into some of the school's criteria. However, the Planning Board was concerned that the vegetated screen between the garden center and the school be enhanced some what from what was originally proposed , and the applicant has done that. The Planning Staff was happy with that, and the Planning Board would review this again at August 19th meeting . Chairman Stotz asked where does this property border on the east side. Mr. Roswick pointed out on enlarged map where the property boundaries are. MOTION made by Ronald Krantz, seconded by Harry Ellsworth : RESOLVED, that this Board make a negative determination of environmental significance for the property at 1061 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43- 1 -3 . 2 , Business District "C", based on the review by the Town of Ithaca staff and their report of August 13 , 1997 . A vote on the motion resulted as follows : TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 23 • AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED, that this Board grant the special approval of Evan Monkemeyer at 1061 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 43- 1 -3 .2 , Residence District "C, to be permitted to construct a garden nursery/center with a combined floor area not to exceed 11 , 000 square feet inclusive of the greenhouses that this proposal complies with Article XIV, Section 77 , Paragraph 7 , Sub- paragraphs a-h . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. NAYS - None. The motion was carried unanimously. MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by James Niefer: RESOLVED, that this Board grant Evan Monkemeyer at 1061 Danby Road , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3 .2 , the variance requests from Section 36 and 38 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted outside displays and storage of goods due to the nature and products associated with the garden center subject to the following conditions: a . That the displays be limited to the areas shown as display areas on the site plan ; and b. That the garden center be limited to the products that are associated with a nursery; and C' That this Board make a finding that outdoor displays is a customary accessory use for a nursery and is usually needed in order to make a nursery a viable operation . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. Attorney Kluscik asked if it were possible to have the resolution as approved recounted . Attorney Barney said in about a week. Attorney Kluscik said they are concerned about how the area for displays is defined , and asked if the resolution could be clearer for the understanding of displays . TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 24 • Attorney Barney said the site plan shows display areas written and the areas surrounding the greenhouses on the site plan itself. The intention is to limit the outside displays to those areas that are dominated as display areas on the site plan . Attorney Kluscik asked if the motion would reflect the authorization of display of garden materials in all the areas that are dominated as display areas on the site plan before the Board tonight. Attorney Barney responded , yes . Mr. Roswick said in front of the retail center there is a large terrace entrance that Mr. Monkemeyer would like to put some displays along the front of the main entrance . That is not specifically marked as such on the site plan . Chairman Stotz said the motion stands as it is labeled on the site plan so that would preclude any displays in that area . Attorney Kluscik said they would like that area to be designated as a display area also. This would be within the enclosed fenced area and it would be part of the display area. Attorney Barney asked if that would be south of the long building . Attorney Kluscik responded , yes , that would be between the long building and the greenhouses. • Chairman Stotz asked if that included the front of the long building . Attorney Kluscik responded , yes . Chairman Stotz said that it would include everything within the changed area . Mr. Niefer said most nurseries like to have displays where people walk in to the garden center. Chairman Stotz said as far as the motion is concerned , the display areas are restricted what is designed on the site plans . MOTION made by Harry Ellsworth , seconded by Ronald Krantz: RESOLVED, that this Board amend the previous motion to include the display area in front of the long main building to the designated parking area of the retail center. A vote on the motion resulted as follows : AYES - Stotz, Ellsworth , Krantz, Niefer. NAYS - None . The motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS . • Mr. Frost said there have been no responses for new Zoning Board of Appeals members. _ TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS - AUGUST 13, 1997 APPROVED - SEPTEMBER 16, 1997 PAGE 25 • Mr. Frost asked if the Board would mind changing the September, October, and November meeting to Thursday nights instead of Wednesday nights due to a conflict. The Zoning Board of Appeals members agreed to the change as Mr. Frost suggested . Chairman Stotz said Ms . Cornish would be leaving her employment with the Town of Ithaca on August 20 to pursue a career with the City of Ithaca . The Zoning Board of Appeals wished Ms . Cornish the best of luck. Chairman Stotz closed the meeting at 9:20 p . m . Deborah A . Kelley, Keyboard Specialist/Minutesecorder David Stotz, hai an • TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13, 1997 • 7. 00 P.M. By direction of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca on Wednesday, August 13 , 1997, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, (FIRST Floor, REAR Entrance, WEST Side), Ithaca, N.Y., COMMENCING AT 7 :00 P.M. , on the following matters: APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Scott Whitham, Agent, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to construct a women ' s softball field with related facilities at 240 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60- 1 -6, -8 .2, Residence District R-30 . APPEAL of Cornell University, Appellant, Scott Whitham, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article V, Section 18, Subparagraph 3 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct four 120- 140 foot light poles on the Alumni Soccer Field on the Cornell University Campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 - 1 -8 .2, Residence District R-30. A variance from Section 18, Subparagraph 10 of said Ordinance is also requested, which limits the height of a structure to 30 feet. APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer, Appellant, requesting a special approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article VII, Section 33 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to construct a garden center/nursery with a combined floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet at 1061 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3 .2, Business District C . An approval to serve food to the public as a supplemental business is also requested, along with variance requests from Sections 36 and 38 to permit the outside display and storage of goods, which is otherwise prohibited. Additionally, a variance from Section 5 .03- 1 of the Town ' s Sign Law is also requested to permit the placement of a sign with decorative appendages, having an area of 145 square feet + (50 square foot sign limit). APPEAL of Evan Monkemeyer, Appellant, requesting authorization from the Zoning Board of Appeals under Article XII, • Section 54 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, to be permitted to add a fourth dwelling unit to an existing multiple dwelling located at 1060 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39- 1 - 15 .2, Business District C. Said building is nonconforming since residential uses are not permitted in business zones. Said Zoning Board of Appeals will at said time, 7 :00 p.m ., and said place, hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual or hearing impairments or other special needs, as appropriate, will be provided with assistance, as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearing. Andrew S. Frost Director of Building and Zoning 273- 1783 Dated: August 5, 1997 Publish : August 8, 1997 • �b • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Dani L. Holford, being duly sworn , depose and say that I am the Town of Ithaca Building and Zoning Department Secretary, 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 Zoning Board of Appeals in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York on Wednesday, August 13, 1997, commencing at 7: 00 P. M., as per attached. Location of sign board used for posting: Bulletin board, front entrance of Town Hall. Date of posting : August 5, 1997 Date of publication : August 8, 1997 Dani L. Holford, Building and 2pning Department Secretary, Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS. : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 8th day of August, 1997. 1C BEI 't F. POOLE NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK # 4646 427