Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA History Combined (89) Zoning Board of Appeals History as of 43.-1-3.23 on Danby Road Tax Parcels involved, with address if known: No current address Danby Road 43.-1-3.23 with subdivision from 43.-1-3.2 and then from 43.-1-3.22. History: 2012 – Area/Height Variance – Granted 2007 – Area Variance for Collegetown Crossing Development - Granted 1997 – Area/Height Variance and Sign Variance - Granted TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD ' OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Monday, May 21, 2012 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca 7 : 00 P. M . Appeal of Ithaca College, owner, Rick Couture, applicant, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 221, Section 221-4A(7) " Prohibited Signs", Sections 221-6A( 1) and 221-6A(2) " Regulated Signs", and Sections 221-8A(2), 221-8A(6), and 221-8BCDE "Sign Illumination" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to install a new scoreboard at Carp Wood Field, located on the Ithaca College Campus, 130 Flora Brown Dr, Tax Parcel No. 41 . - 1- 30. 2, Medium Density Residential . Appeal of Richard Durst, owner, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-34B and Section 270-34C "Size and Area of Lot" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to change the orientation of the lot from Vera Circle to Max's Drive located at Vera Circle, Tax Parcel No. 28 .- 1-3 . 62, Agricultural District. Appeal of Valentina Yashchenko, owner, Gennady Yashchenko, agent, requesting a variance from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-54 " Permitted Principal Uses" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on the lot until a home is constructed located at 120 Drew Rd, Tax Parcel No . 28 .- 1-34.30, Low Density Residential . Appeal of College Crossings, LLC, owner, Evan Monkemeyer, agent, requesting the extension of variances from the requirements of Section 270 416 " Height Limitations", Section 270- 117A(2)(3) "Yard Regulations", Section 270422C "Additional Special Requirements", Section 270- 127C " Principal Uses", and Section 270- 128 "Maximum Building Size" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a 19,828 +/- sq ft commercial building for the College Crossings development located at 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel No . 43 .- 1-3 . 23, Neighborhood Commercial . The proposed building exceeds the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the maximum height limit from the lowest exterior grade. The proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach into the 50-foot required buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides. Assistance will be provided for individuals with special needs, upon request. Requests should be made not less than 48 hours prior to the public hearings. Bruce W. Bates Director of Code Enforcement 607-273 4783 Dated : May 9, 2012 Published : May 11, 2012 e ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-026 Area Variances 1061 DanbyRd Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.23 May 21, 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Bill King. Resolved, that this Board grants the appeal of College Crossings, LLC, owner, Evan Monkemeyer, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270-128, Section 270-116, Section 270-122C, Section 270-127C, and Section 270-117A(2)(3) "Yard Regulations" to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, approximately a 19,828 sq ft building that will accommodate retail, commercial, and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities and to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property. The proposed development is located on the northeast comer of Danby Road and King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.23, Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposed building, at 40 feet tall will exceed the largest permitted height, which is 36 feet. The proposal includes three (3) drive-through lanes where only two are permitted. In addition, the proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive-through canopy and support on the north side will encroach on the 50-foot buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides, with the following: Conditions: 1. That the total interior square footage of the building not exceed 20,000-square feet, 2. That the height not exceed 40.5 feet, 3. That the encroachment into the buffers required by the Town Code be no greater than what is indicated on the plans submitted to this Board at its November 15, 2010 meeting, 4. That the entire project be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans submitted to this Board at its November 15, 2010 meeting, 5. That no single tenant be allowed to occupy more than 10,000 square feet of the building, and 6. That the north and east side setbacks be no less than 1 foot less than what is indicated on the plan submitted by the applicant to this board on March 21, 2011. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-026 Page 2 of 3 Findings for variances from Chapter 270, Section 270-128, Section 270-116, Section 270-1220, Section 270-1270: That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. That while the benefit to be achieved by the applicant can be done by other means possible, namely, building two or three separate buildings, that the one that the applicant proposed is also reasonable and is a better fit for the site that the applicant has, and 2. That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the total square, footage of the project would be allowed, just not in one single building, and 3. That the requests are not substantial, the height being just four and a half feet above what is allowed and the total square footage being permitted on the site in separate buildings, and 4. That there will be no adverse physical and environmental effects for the reasons stated in the negative determination of environmental significance, and 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created, this is the portion of the applicant's property that is in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and they are required to fit the development within those constraints, and 6. For these reasons, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. Findings for variances from Chapter 270, Section 270-117A(2)(3): That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1. That the benefit cannot be achieved by the applicant by any other means feasible given the applicant's desire to have a central single building for the commercial use surrounded by the parking and driveway navigation around the perimeter of the site, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property to the north is also neighborhood commercial zone and the property to the east, while low density residential zone, is also owned by the applicant and therefore will only be impacting the applicant's own property. ZB RESOLUTION NO. 2012-026 Page 3 of 3 3. That while the requested setback variances are substantial, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form, 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created given the applicant's recent subdivision of this lot, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin, King, and Rosen. NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. —^ ^ n? P''' ' Tompkins County U " DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 -— Edward C. Marx, AICP Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning Fax (607) 274-5578 April 3, 2013 Mr. Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement Town of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to §239 -I, -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Use and Area Variances for Proposed College Crossings Development Project located on the northeast corner of Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.23, Neighborhood Commercial Zone, College Crossings, LLC, Owner/Appellant; Evan Monkmeyer, Agent. Dear Mr. Bates: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it may have inter community, or county-wide impacts as described below. We recommend disapproval of the proposal. Because of this determination, approval for this proposal will require the vote of a supermajority (meaning a majority plus one) of all members of the decision-making body. Reasons for Recommending Disapproval • The proposed use runs counter the purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial Zone which is to "provide areas or centers for shopping and service-oriented uses that are easily accessible to the neighborhoods which they serve, which are not intended to draw customers from considerable distances, or which have low-volume traffic and no significant impacts so as to be minimally intrusive upon residential neighborhoods." In order to achieve this purpose drive through restaurants were specifically excluded from this district. As such we recommend disapproving the variance request. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, X.. Edward C. Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning IncCusion tHrougfi (Diversity Page 1 of 1 Bruce Bates From: Tom Parsons [parsons@cityofithaca.org] Sent: Thursday, April 04,2013 3:24 PM To: Bruce Bates; Susan Ritter Co: lthacaEstatesRealty@att.net Subject: College Crossing Development Attachments: Tom Parsons.vcf Hi Sue and Bruce I reviewed a site plan drawing that Evan Monkmeyer dropped off to my office regarding the College Crossing Development. The fire department access to the building show on the drawing is acceptable for our needs. I would request that the Fire Department Connection to the Fire Sprinkler System be installed on the Danby Road side of the building. Please let me know if you require more information or comment. Best Regards Tom Tom Parsons Fire Chief Ithaca Fire Department parsons @ cityofithaca.org Office: 607-277-7354 Fax: 607-272-2793 Cell: 607-227-3400 This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain highly sensitive and confidential information. It is intended only for the individual(s) named. ^ you received this e-mail in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, do not disseminate, copy or otherwise use this e-maU or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete the e-mail from your system. 4/5/2013 TOWN OF ITHACA 215 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 ■V/ ■ ^ MAR 0 4 2013 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 PLANNING 273-1747 CODE ENFORCENT & ZONING 273-1783PUBLIC WORKS (Engineering, Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273-1656 FAX (607) 273-1704 Zoning Board of Appeals Application Form:Submit this Application ONLY after: (1) applying for a building/sign permit for which you received a determinatmienial from Code Enforcement Staff or (2) referral from the Planning Board based upon a site plan or subdivision review, ZBA Appearance Fee: $100 Please check all that apply: . Area Variance . Use Variance _ _ Sign Variance _ Sprinkler Variance Special Approval For Office Use Only Property is located within, or adjacent to: County Ag District _i__-UNA, K/ CEA Forest Home Historic District ;. State Park/another municipality For Office Use^nly Date Received 3? t M Cash or Check No. Zoning District _ Applicable Section(s) of Town Code:OC]tp " 1 "T-S - T>fLo< I 2o|-2- The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form requesting an appearance to be allowed to at \OG>[. "?sr LAi-jE- 4- ^ , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ^ ^ ^ Z "3 as shown on the attached supporting documents. A description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows (attach any additional sheets as necessary): PoK').ri:y, bSHT A - TKf^r^r:;(A LAxig ^ AMv j£LiCd3L\AteST-3pCSQa A V^g^4-yktOc.-g: LK5<c fb^ To QD^sraxk-CXeC:^ , By fi ling this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town Staff to enter my property for any inspection(s) in connection with my application. Print Name Here: Signature of Owner/AppellantTt Signature of Appellant/Agera:Date: Home/Cell Telephone Number: Wnrk Tslpphnop NnmW Att. Hey Z.A>.-^.7r,o Email Address NOTE: A Granted Variance expires 18 months from the date of its filing. Construction work associated with any variance(s) must commence within 18 months of filing. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised. Revised 11/9/2010 USE VARIANCPrRTTPRTA - Appkcant C€>OL^(i?6r ^ U-Q^ Appeal Concents Properti] at tke following addbress ^"0(^1 ^ y Tax Map NumbeR ~" TEST: No nM variance vriU be granted vriibout a sbovrinfi bq tbe applicant tbat appkcaMe zonin6 wfinlattons and res^onsbave caused nimecessarq baidsbip. Ike following tests must be met for eack and everq use allowed bg zonind on iJie property, indudin^ uses ollowBdi 1)^ special use pennit: l^e Applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, as skownbq competent financial evidence. Ike lack ol return must be ^^:Su)skmtiaL Qw No Proo£ ^<^4>^g:cr 2.00S* g^>K>gr ^tKa>M>A-r yt jNKA' « 2.0QPt|siO GkA«a^<giA -To (^s<{ - \lr^ gyce^T vilueofmooerta., 1 xecent *T«cs;l>dls t * Conyey^lpn coste j(|og gpeago^ttediuse)^ ^^r(s3^S5 :Tg> iCiA'^ J t-^PfrPTV Te^M^TS - , r ^5^<:lX-3^ TBt^AKiTC AA/M 2. Tbe alleged kardsbip relating to tke propertq is unique. (Ike bardsbip mag not ap^^l^ ^district or neigbborkood): No ItL itg.to Proob fraoT A ^^<5cg 'T€^IS<LA»^T 6o>X.a^'^ "i- XT Mee^5 T^AkSTS "TO Mjgrerr TKg 1^<S3ula~u^Ajje»^^ akttXi-^TKE (g,^€?g^.4^ NaAjgjLMjLM PfceLBAa^ gjg<SiL«uLix:gAjve»jrr av -m€~ e>A»K3K > . . V . V/ ' .' PiwftPli axea..,prop#i!ty,i^dJ e:^ THB Oo-^je£r<is3^ i ^ '^kK><ASc:¥:KJ5D ^CSU-»a:.ft.£1Lk£:iorr ^ ^ CGV3STs^ts>ijiJt-«»»^ cajo OcaKAMErocie" - cn2>aLti^ TK<:^ A4«D V ^ (Sfeco 2{^ '' ^^Wm^SA^FonmNApi3lio<mtlJSEVARIAl^!aran[MCfottn.<loc ttax_cc TKer ^^feJOCse^eT ^ HnO^ ^ C2=i»s^TTtocire:0 (03^TK-iJ>AX~ TKXS TJ^MAKSTj $f^o.X<c!C.-r X"S ^^ONA,--'^AS^<-£" • 3. Hie request^ use variance, if Ranted, will not alter tke essential ckaracter of tke nei^kkorkood: Yes No^ «r ¨ T TCTO A Tnna JUS lQCJ.ma ^ ^ /y^cos £)€:r^Q^M_ V /Of CAe^ J^A AvVr X4k^ j:S_JCL_£2Li—=Sy_—LHS.--JL2!±3_jL._tiS^Si 23 - n -ig£g/Y/Q5</Vg CxS€/ r^oo3Q xAx)i5vdEiA<! y -zs /Wi^xx/erA /^erA^^ 4. Tke alleged, dilkcult^ kas keen sell^creaied: Not/ —•A—7%l^s rCACM 7Ur <^7^fc£^ Aar^rm ii5 A— Mg ?e>«aAf- TT^g- V TO^r . •W7^;^^€5c.7t3fc€MO /f(orek. SKKVfoi!^,5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No^ /^2XA->^ Reasons:•hixe^l-. ^/^/?oasa clzjg- /^AkN /<ar>r /AUAT <rao!/ A f^y- ~nEQ^[^&5/kC-: A OlSF—^ ^ ,^. -GbQi^SeS^ ao<o-?a^ ^ctHTS ajjviioc^- , Txtts /Lo/^yiiSxrstoo ^ o5i-Revised 11/9/2010 /V-O06"i^ Tfe 2to/0-?:fc5S. -SO AziiO •-/?9<s l\j(orms\ZBA FonnsNAppliconi USE VARIANCE CRITERIA Ioni].<loc • :;--bOdN3 3aooi'A(NEW YORKSTATEROUTE 96Bm oHNii iiwn 3N0Z 000 000000 00000 0 0000!! I IfR3 = -8^ I S SIS i"[I l?| p^ s f, M S» ^ NMi?i h' S ?l|pHIP II!8? n(7 iiioCT»> > — PROJECT ID NUMBER PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION 617.20 APPENDIX 0 STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM for UNLISTED ACTIONS Only (To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) SEQR 1. APPLICANT / SPONStyt Air 2. PROJECT NAME 3.PR0JECT LOCATION: ^, 1 . _ j(Ddp I OAsjSi ®Y ' 1 Municipality Tbu:^f4 County Co. 4. PRECISE LOCATION: Street Addess and Road Intersections, Prominent landmarks etc - or provide mao vo<o 1 ^^4^, XWAcA ^ ^ 5. IS PROPOSED ACTION: | | New | | Expansion Modification / alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: r::^evo K3:y.e D-^>6^- AsKrUCio lb AllouO A TFSito^<^H 4-A(s:^€: >t- So^TK 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED" Initially acres Ultimately acres a. WILL PROPOpD ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER RESTRICTIONS?□ Yes Sno If no. describe briefly: "THeOCJ^-iS^lA lAff^ -A 0^*0.00(0 KJOT fetUxjnxe-O Qa^K4 PHA.vUj.AaV Z6>A 9. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE jN VICINITY OF PROJECT? (Choose as many as apply.) V Residential Industrial Commercial [^Agriculture [^ Park / Forest / Open Space Other (describe) 10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (Federal, State or Local)r^Yes I I No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: Op 11 S ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?Yes [j^No If yes, list agency name and permit / approval: IJjAS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/ APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?"^res Dno -ZJ&A CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Applicant / Sponsor Name ^ Date; 2-1 2J& Signature If the action is a Costal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment College Crossings -4/15/13 PART II - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT A. Does Actioii exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR, Part 617.4? YES NO _K- If yes, coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. B. Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions In 6 NYCRR, Part 617.6 YES NO _X_ If no, a negative declaration may be superseded by another Involved agency. If any. C. Could proposed action result In any adverse effects associated with the following: Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality, noise levels, existing traffic pattern, solid waste production disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? There will be no significant impacts to existing air quality, noise levels, or solid waste production or disposal. The project involves modifying the College Crossings building and reconfiguring the parking lot layout to include a Dunkin' Donuts restaurant with a drive-thru on the south side of the site. The applicant has submitted a traffic analysis that shows a range of 20-32 new peak AM and PM vehicular trips for the drive-thru use, based on trip generation data at other Dunkin Donuts locations in the Ithaca and Syracuse areas. The traffic analysis indicates that there is sufficient stacking space to accommodate 7 cars queued for the drive-thru. The drive-thru element appears to be located such that it will not create significant traffic circulation issues on the site or at the site entrances during peak hours. The applicant has also provided revised plans that show a paved area on the northwest side of the building that was originally approved as open space but labeled as potential "future parking." The Town of Ithaca Public Works staff has reviewed these revised plans and has determined that all increases in impervious surface, including the paving of the "future parking" area, was accounted for in the stormwater facilities for the project As such, the proposed modifications will not impact water quality or quantity, or increase the potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems. C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources? Community or Neighborhood character? None Anticipated. C3. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish, or wildlife species, significant habitats, threatened or endangered species? None anticipated. C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change In use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? The proposal to add a drive-thru for a restaurant is NOT permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The added drive-thru use may increase the intensity of the use of land, but it will not be enough to create significant traffic or other environmental impacts. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be Induced by the proposed action? None anticipated. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not Identified In C1-C5? None anticipated. C7. Other Impacts (Including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy): None anticipated. D. Will the project have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA)? YES NO X If yes, explain briefly; E. Is there, or is there likely to be controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? YES NO X ifyes. explain briefly: PART 111 - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE fTo be completed by the Town of Ithacal Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. _X_ Check here if you have determined, based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on Attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination. College Crossings -4/15/13 Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Name of Lead Agency Kirk Siyal. Chairperson Name & title of Responsible Officer In Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Preparer's Signature(If different from Responsible Officer) Signature of Contributing Preparer DATE: ITHACA ESTATES REALTY LLC Residential, Commercial and Investment Properties 123 KING ROAD EAST ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850-9478 Date: February 28, 2013 Mr. Bruce Bates Town of Ithaca, Building Department 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 (607) 273-9300 / FAX (607) 277-8197 E-Mail: lthacaEstatesRealty@att.net ww/w.lthacaEstatesRealty.com J!MAR C12013 Tr CO Re: College Crossings Drive Through Lane Proposal for new Tenant Dear Mr. Bates, Per my discussion with the Town Planner, Sue Ritter, I am submitting my proposal for approval to the Town Building Department for a new restaurant style tenant that wants a "Drive Through" Lane and pickup window on the south end exterior of the new College Crossings building. Please see my proposal enclosed. I will need your formal response in writing so that I may petition the Board of Zoning Appeals, if necessary. I await your reply. Sincerely yours, Evan N. Monkemeyer j College Crossings, LLC "The Intersection of College and Community" TOWN OF ITHACA 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 WWW. town. Ithaca, ny. us CODE ENFORCEMENT - BRUCE W. BATES, DIRECTOR Phone (607) 273-1783 Fax (607) 273-1704 March 7, 2013 Evan Monkemeyer College Crossings, LLC 123 King Rd East Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Evan: I have reviewed your request for an additional Drive-through lane/drive up window for your development at College Crossings, to be located at the comer of State Hwy 96 and King Rd East. While restaurants are a permitted use in this Neighborhood Commercial Zone, drive up lanes or windows associated with restaurants are not permitted. This is per Section 270-123, Drive-through operations, Commercial Zones Generally. Therefore I have to deny your request. You have the right to seek a Use Variance before the Zoning Board of Appeals should you choose to on the basis of my determination. You may use this letter as the formal denial letter required to file an application. Also be advised that should you wish to pursue an appeai you would also need to have the Zoning Board amend their May 21, 2012 Resolution No. 2012-026, condition 4, which states that the entire project be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans submitted to the Board at its November 15, 2010 meeting. Furthermore, this addition to your project will also need to be presented and approved by the Town Planning Board for an amendment to your final site plan. Should you have any further questions, feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, '/7 Bruce W. Bates Director, Code Enforcement and Zoning Department Co Kirk Sigel Susan Ritter TOWN OF ITHACA 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA, N.Y. 14850 WWW. town. ithaca. ny. us CODE ENFORCEMENT - BRUCE W. BATES, DIRECTOR Phone (607) 273-1783 Fax (607) 273-1704 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Edward 0. Marx, Commissioner of Planning & Community Sustainability Tompkins County Planning Department Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Ithaca March 28,2013 Use Variance for College Crossings Development Pursuant to the requirements of Sections 239-1, 239-m, and 239-n of General Municipal Law, The Town of Ithaca requests your review of the following proposal: Project: Description: College Crossings Development 1061 Danby Rd This project involves consideration of a Use Variance approval from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for property located at 1061 Danby Rd, Tax Parcel no. 43.-1-3.23. The proposed project is to construct a drive-through lane and window for a restaurant. The project falls within a Neighborhood Commercial Zone which does not permit a drive-through. A variance from Section 270-123 "Drive-through operations" is required for this project. The action referenced above scheduled for the Zoning Board of Appeals consideration on April 15, 2013. The materials describing the proposal are attached. If you need further information, please call me at 273-1783 or email me at bbates@town.ithaca.nv.us. Attachments A S S OCIATES www.SrfA.net Transportation Engineering & Planning Cormltdnis March 1 1,2013 Mr. Edward Keplinger, RA ASLA Keplinger Freeman Associates, LLC 6320 Fly Road, Suite 201 East Syracuse, New York 13057 RE: Dunkin Donuts at College Crossing Development, Town of Ithaca, NY Trip Generation and Drive-Thru Queuing Assessment Dear Mr. Keplinger, We have performed a trip generation assessment and drive-thru queuing study related to the proposed Dunkin Donuts at College Crossing Development in the Town of Ithaca, NY, as referenced above. Three peaks were analyzed as part of the study - weekday AM, midday lunchtime, and PM peak hours. The study includes total traffic volumes generated by Dunkin Donuts entering the site, as well as those vehicles entering the drive-thru and the maximum queuing associated with the drive-thru operation. The proposed location of the Dunkin Donuts is in the south side of the College Crossings building. According to the Layout Plan dated March 6, 2013, there will be available drive- thru stacking for seven (7) vehicles without blocking any drive aisles. Site Traffic Trip generation is an estimate of the number of trips generated by a specific building or land use. These trips represent the volume of traffic entering and exiting the driveways. Trip Generation. 9th Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), is used as a reference for this information. The trip rate for the peak hour of the generator may or may not coincide in time or volume with the trip rate for the peak hour of adjacent street traffic. Volumes generated during the peak hour of adjacent street traffic, in this case, the weekday AM, midday lunchtime and PM peaks represent a more critical volume when analyzing the capacity of the system: those intervals will provide the basis of this analysis. The volume of traffic generated by a site is dependent on numerous factors, including and not limited to the intended land use, size of the development, context relative to the existing transportation network, and location of competing uses (e.g. other coffee/donut shops). Trip generation can be defined as an estimate of the number of trips generated by a specific building or land use. These trips represent the volume of new traffic added to the roadways due to the proposed development. Anticipated traffic generated during the PM Re; Proposed College Crossing Development, Town of Ithaca Trip Generation and Drive-Thru Queuing Assessment March 11,2013 peak hour was derived using ITE trip generation rates. The Institute of Transportation Engineers suggests that local trip generation data should be utilized, if available. AM and midday lunchtime peak hour trip generation has been based on data previously collected at five coffee/donut sites in the Syracuse and Central New York region. Additionally inherent in the trip generation estimate for the proposed development, is the "pass-by" traffic component of traffic entering and exiting the site. Service-oriented developments (such as shopping centers, discount stores, restaurants, banks, service stations, and coffee shops) often locate adjacent to busy streets in order to attract the motorists already passing the site on the adjacent street. These sites attract a portion of their trips from traffic passing the site. Trips generated by a service-type use can be broken down into two categories: pass-by trips and primary trips. The "pass-by" traffic refers to the amount of existing traffic already on the roadway adjacent to the site (in this case Route 96B and King Road) that, as it "passes by" the site, will enter the site driveways to patronize the restaurant. That portion of the generated traffic attracted to the site would pass on the adjacent street system whether or not the site is developed and thus produces no new traffic at study area intersections other than the site driveways. ITE does not have pass-by data for the Coffee/Donut shop land use, thus, pass-by rates for Fast-Food Restaurant with Drive-Thru were studied as a starting point to determine how well they correlate with expected pass-by conditions at the proposed site. A pass-by trip rate of 70%, 40%, and 50% has been applied to the AM, midday, and PM peak hours, respectively. Pass-by trips are expected to be quite heavy during the morning peak due to the site's location and proximity to major employers such as the Ithaca College. Table 1 below indicates the anticipated trips generated by the proposed site. TABLE I PROJECTED DRIVEWAY VOLUMES LAND USE AM MD PM Enter Exit Enter Exit Dunkin Donuts 107 107 51 51 41 41 70%(40%)[50%] Pass-bys -75 -75 -20 -20 -2!-21 Total New Trips 32 32".-31 31 20 20 Tables II and III summarize the type (parked vs drive-thru) and quantity of trips generated by the proposed Dunkin Donuts during the AM and midday peak hour, respectively. Trips during the PM peak hour are considerably lower than at other times of the day. Therefore a break-down of the types of trips anticipated during the PM peak hour is not included. ISRF I I A S 5 0 C1 A 7 E S W « W.SKPA.NKT;. 4 CwHiiiwinr-^ Page 2 of 4 Re; Proposed College Crossing Development, Town of Ithaca Trip Generation and Drive-Thru Queuing Assessment March II. 2013 TABLE II DUNKIN DONUTS TRIP GENERATION AM PEAK HOUR DUNKIN DONUTS TRIP GENERATION - AM PEAK HOUR 1 Description Parked Drive Thru Total Enter 1 1 Dunkin Donuts Restaurant 37 70 107 1 TABLE III DUNKIN DONUTS TRIP GENERATION MIDDAY PEAK HOUR DUNKIN DONUTS TRIP GENERATION - MIDDAY PEAK HOUR 1 Description Parked Drive Thru Total Enter 1 1 Dunkin Donuts Restaurant 18 33 51 1 Drive-thru Queuing A drive-thru queuing analysis was conducted to determine the anticipated queue length and adequacy of the proposed on-site stacking space using the drive-thru. Average service times and queues at coffee/donut shop drive-thru facilities were documented at five (5) sites in the Syracuse and Central New York region. An average service rate of approximately 34 seconds (excluding the waiting time in a storage area immediately in advance of the service positions after placing an order at the order window) was observed during the AM peak hour. A formula was developed based upon the average service rates and observed queuing to estimate queue lengths at coffee and donut shops given the projected arrival rate at the drive-thru. This formula assumes that both arrival and service rates are random. This is based on observations that vehicle arrivals are random, and that service times in the drive- thru vary based on type and number of items ordered. For example, service time for ordering a coffee is less than that of a customer who orders coffee and a breakfast sandwich or donuts. The peak projected arrival rate at the drive-thru, the expected number of vehicles that will use the drive-thru, is 70 vehicles per hour during the AM peak. Using the average service rate of 34 seconds per vehicle, arrival rate of 70 vehicles per hour, and formula described above, the service rate for the drive-thru is 106 vehicles per hour. During the MD peak Page 3 of 4 |A.a«oeiA.Tii9 Re: Proposed College Crossing Development, Town of Ithaca Trip Generation and Drive-Thru Queuing Assessment March 11,2013 hour, 33 vehicles per hour are projected. The same service rate from the AM peak hour was used to calculate the queuing during the MD peak hour. This service rate in the drive- thru is based on service provided by two persons as is typical at coffee shops. Table iV summarizes the results of the proposed drive-thru lane analysis. PEAK HOUR TABLE DRIVE-THRU IV QUEUING RESULTS Peak Hour Parameter Results AM Arrival Rate 70 veh/hr Service Rate 106 veh/hr 95 % Confidence Queue Length 7 vehicles Midday Lunchtime Arrival Rate 33 veh/hr Service Rate 106 veh/hr 95 % Confidence Queue Length 2 vehicles The results of the drive-thru queuing analysis indicate maximum queue lengths of seven (7) vehicles during the AM peak hour and two (2) vehicles during the lunchtime peak hour. Queues during the PM peak hour can be expected to be less than during the lunchtime peak given the lower trip generation projected during the PM peak hour. Based on an analysis of the current Layout Plan, the drive-thru provides storage for approximately seven (7) passenger vehicles. The analyses indicate that there is sufficient stacking space on-site to accommodate the projected drive-thru demands during the AM and midday peak hours. If the queuing were to extend beyond seven vehicles, there would be minor impacts to traffic circulating in the area of the site immediately adjacent the drive- thru entrance. However, no impacts are anticipated at either of the site driveways on Route 96B or King Road. Please call our office if you have any questions concerning these comments. Very truly yours, SRp & ^sociiates „ Amy C. Dake, P.E., PTQE Senior Traffic Engineer S:\Pro)ects\2013\33014 Collie Crosslngs\Report\College Crossings Letter 03.1 U 3.docx WWV.SAIWW.KBT. Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT March 11,2013 LETTER TO MR. EDWARD KEPLINGER, RA ASLA KEPLINGER FREEMAN ASSOCIATES, LLC TRIP GENERATION AND QUEUING ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED COLLEGE CROSSING DEVELOPMENT ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK SRF ASSOCIATES 3495 UUinton Place Building E, Suite I 10 Rochester, NY 14623 SRF W W W.SRFA^NBT Tric^Bttgimetins&Hwmit^Cot^kmas Trip Generation for Proposed Dunkin Donuts, Town of ithaca, NY (AiM Peak Hour) Coffee/Donut Shops Regional Study Drive-thru Trips S/fe Drive-thru Trips Auburn 86 Cortiand 51 East Syracuse 36 Ithaca 95 Oswego 80 Drive-thru rate based on total entering traffic: 65% Estimated Total AM Trip Generation: 107 vehicles Trip Generation (MD Peak Hour) Coffee/Donut Shops Regional Study Drive-thru Trips Site Drive-thru Trips Auburn 31 Cortiand J9 East Syracuse Used for ithaca Trip Generation ithaca 12 Oswego 26 Drive-thru rate based on total entering traffic: 65% Estimated Total Midday Trip Generation: 51 vehicles Trip Generation (PM Peak Hour) ITE Rates ITE Trip Ratio of AM/PM Estimated Trips: 38% Estimated AM Trips: 107 vehicles * Trip Rate Estimated Total PM Trip Generation: 41 vehicles Queue Theory Dunkin Donuts Drive-Thru AM Peak Hour The formula assumes both arrival and service distributions are random lASSOClATfiS WWW.SRPA.NET Tref0c &fgini»tins «S Ffcmnmji Cemeukmts Arrivate Rate (Per Hour) Service Rate (Per Hour) WE UNDER Average queue in the system = Average Time In System = Average Waiting Time only = 98% confident that there will be fewer than «• rtfsm £• I. m.confident that there will be fewe (waiting and service) icies in the oueue vehicles in the queue Queue Theory Dunkin Donuts Drive-Thru MD Peak Hour The formula assumes both arrival and service distributions are random ISRF |l3Hmi^ ^ S O.Cl ATHSInhmmmm^ w w w.shpA.nkt' Tm^^Ensiwfiing Fla/ming Cmsu^mtx Arrivate Rate (Per Hour) Service Rate (Per Hour) 33 s ■■;?(lwaYS aRKival rate > SErWlCE RATE UKiC mfi ! THIS SCENARIO Average queue in the system = Average Time in System = Average Waiting Time oniy = 0.5 Veh (waiting and service) 158.5 Sec 49.4 Sec 98% confident that there will be fewer than vehicles in the queue dalposD.PcsAnc.C1cSICC:1.CwflLCVUtATflismActsF.TWTCV7I32D31111P1Q4t[3C3432330’AD[3131422-3776[(yIKIPLINGIIAaASSOCIATESWCZ#Iff1111201IWIEJINIlI173IINAIA31431143llIC—34174_464433*-LAYOUTCONSTRUCTiONNOTES7P63730ITO.esaPAICWLIC(fl.UE3t’4ESATIG40*01.ITnLftjCZ4flLN43L3401P32aUsa1414173.31041104aA,TEDSlitTRAIlnr,atTaILUUPAT.LSI•.•A43na.PAmUOUtU60PCTU100431.W41C——4441611SitUUlAlack‘I3CCS-LtWF.PLAUTSCI.00*730Afl—POUCIN004,30an4Pfl4UTTIACtca.aA.ASM4U4flCSTLACSC4fl344*10*Sa.T,aflp.I...a*3S5175170513)4•4PANT30LUatr045147611WIL(flP3*01W.570CI*AThiSne0*t*OIMW’tTOWItCOTiPAD5caTIpADpcUSFSEXr00151754’Itt54175P6MbLICEr.rU4701.420343LICk5iflt•405ST043514Av4LST01)444503e12407104L‘STAtSISLLOI14371t&74011Tat00.0*5AASNL14P1c43200STflWfl•Il:1525UP410*0ITO.SAA14433040IA&COtt)5T*acno.o4.rpceL.7tT’a4433flAG.scIeLot,*mLoaNWIN—nt,ac434AVGLASNAow7000PELIUWIESaG104n4Cl*M•Cl0SIGNSCHEDULEI0I•t\-———II—IS—II—n*.tI—••—I•—•———————..——UII---zra--—--—--—-—-Z_ii-•1€ELLIS-Hti/nAt_____U-‘•bk•—s-“nUlLAIi-lIF42034333a_nfl—odI•__IU1:-—çINw’ST_____--Iii¶‘I-‘—eL10IXLU•PROPOSEDBUILDING-jffihrimi—r_c•_LU____tJ__FFEIO7600—4_—___:e—1—I-t__InsUx108PROPOSEpjsTA0c4G-1_PARKINGSPACESLi—AS*—===I‘.‘....\\slI-L*)O5*PS3I.—-----I-I-C:-:‘t®)I—‘I,-—•——140IItpa/l‘•nnn,I44;__L_3“K-a—Ill..ft5tI-aCTTFIIZ—.1ZT431-a-ENUYOUTPUN304360SCALEINFEETNEIan..ll4310510iiflbC*-CrUt/1tA—JO7*’*1.car00ICE5170ItSC4010130’trw?ScaanaJo0*1lI_1..4’,10.410•.—37-42044rItI0•0-543)435*7ta’S.Elca544344J010ill4)0SI,lot..1443104FflA-TICt-WWT.El—anI40SO43’40SIeOS-I•I.40*TIUT4010,$flIall13T14005137.1420174*103141411*10*17ALLalU.4IVCt304*4lc0ITITUs143TDallI173001.74415*30435041INapt110.116141‘I=:TIC0041360703346*17311WY100171300177TUEtIE640PIO41TLTIGTFTTIEAIDUTICT1171143417SSOEF66aS30130113flI)l3=_01*14STatotoLoSTCCL5031013400OATh15*46rIMLAS37143LAYOUTPI.ANU‘JGS—1119.2012SO.aflNRX#LADONWUINAB-5_A-flNFAONUWIBME-RDSOSIFINALDRAWl Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final Chairperson Sigel commented that to some extent it was unfortunate that the way the zoning ordinance is written that it does not allow a lot of flexibility when it comes to building a home as far as having a shed or garage built first. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing and invited the public to address the board . There being no one interested in speaking, he closed the public hearing . Chairperson Sigel moved to adjourn the appeal until such time the applicant asks to be put on the agenda and has provided evidence that he meets the four use variance criteria . Mr. Bates recommended that Chairperson Sigel change the motion to a definite time because otherwise the violation on the property remains until Mr. Yashchenko decides to come back before the board . Attorney Brock suggested that the motion be amended to include the language "but in any case no later than July 6, 2012". Mr. Mountin seconded . Mr. Krantz voted against the motion; all others in favor. . Motion carried . ZO RESOLUTION 2012-024„ Use Variance. Valentina Yashcheaka 120 Drew Rd. Tax. Parcel No. 28. 41 34 MOTION made by Kirk Sig% Seconded by Dave Mountin. RESOL VED, that this board adjourns the appeal of Mr. Yashchenko, requesting a variance from the requirements Chapter 270, Section 270-54 "Permitted Principle Uses"of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to use two sheds as the primary building on a lot until a home is constructed, located at 120 Drew Rd, Tax Parcel No. 28. -134.30, Low Density Residential Zone until such time as the applicant requests to be put on the Zoning Board agenda and has submitted evidence to support the four use variance criteria, but in any case no later than July 612012 ,, which is the submission deadline for the August meeting. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Sigel, Mountin, King and Rosen. NAYS: Krantz. Motion was carried unanimously. Mr. Krantz stated that he felt that he was on a tribunal that was grossly unfair. He thought it was absurd and he objected . He cannot understand how you can build a building and not have room to store the materials, especially if it is innocuous and in the back of the parcel . ARRgall of College Crossings, LLC, owner, Evan Monkemeyer, agent, requesting the extension of variances from the requirements of Section 270=116 "Height Limitations", Section 270=117A(2)(3) "Yard Regulations", Section 270= 122C "Additional Special Requirements", Section 270427C "Principal Uses", and Section 270= 128 " Maximum Building Size" of the Town of Ithaca Code to be permitted to construct a 19,828 + / = sq ft commercial building for the College Crossings development located at 1061 IDanby Rd, Tax Parcel No. 43.- 1-3. 23, Neighborhood Page 13 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final Commercial . The proposed building exceeds the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the maximum height limit from the lowest exterior grade. The proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach into the 50-foot required buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides. Evan Monkemeyer appeared before the board . Chairperson Sigel asked if the request was entirely identical to the one granted 18 months ago. Mr. Monkemeyer believed that it was and stated that it was the same proposal that dates back to the first plan in 2007 . The revised plan was created in 2010 to meet the changing of the needs of the market place. He scaled back the project after the crash of 2008 and created a single rectangular style building instead of t-shape style building . Mr. Bates added that Mr. Monkemeyer previously received variances on two separation occasions; the application before the board is to renew. all variances for the project. Mr. Monkemeyer went on to give a quick update on the status of the project. He has a bank committed to becoming a tenant and financing the project. The bank has required that 12,000 square feet be pre-leased before they will release funds to start construction on the project. He currently has a local bakery and fitness center interested in leasing; this brings the total to 8, 500 square feet of space lease. Mr. Monkemeyer has been working over the past several months to bring a restaurant into the space. He explained that this was difficult because the national chains are not interested because of the location and the local restaurants are shied away because of the initial costs up front. Mr. Monkemeyer went on to say that he is in the process of talking with Susan Ritter about taking the second floor of the structure and changing it from an office space use into residential use, which would create a mixed use development. The second floor has approximately 4500 square feet and that would put him in the "magic number" range for the prelease requirement by the bank. Ms. Ritter was looking into it and would be getting back to Mr. Monkemeyer. He was confident that once the project was started and the building was up, the open spaces would be easier to fill . Attorney Brock reiterated that the residential, mixed use idea was not part of the proposal before the board . She explained that the board was still approving the project as it was presented to the board 18 months ago when it received approval . Chairperson Sigel asked if the second approval for the project modified the first project approval . Ms. Whitmore clarified that the 2011 variances were for rear and side yard setbacks; the 2010 variances were for area variances and special approval required for the overall project. Mr. Rosen wondered why special approval was needed . Mr. Monkemeyer explained that the size of the building exceeds the maximum allowed and the approval was to allow a larger building than permitted by Code. Mr. Rosen recapped that the variances have expired and the building has not been built. Chairperson Sigel explained that construction has to be started on a project within 18 months of approval or the variance expires. Mr. Rosen was surprised by the number of variances needed Page 14 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final for the project, especially given that they were starting with an empty canvass. He didn't understand why the project could not be built within the rules. Chairperson Sigel explained that the project was largely shaped by the Planning Board . He didn't quite remember the details, but he recalled that in order to be more compliant with the neighborhood commercial zone, Mr. Monkemeyer would have had to build more buildings. Mr. Monkemeyer further explained that he would have had to build three separate buildings in order to have the same amount of square footage. He added that 1/3 of an acre is dedicated to stormwater management of the site. The parking areas also needed to be maximized to meet the requirements of the Codes, which is why the parking is wrapped around the building . The Code also considers parking lots as structures so there are certain setbacks that have to be met. Chairperson Sigel agreed that on the face of the project it seemed to be a lot of variances that appear substantial, but the project did receive a fair amount of Planning Board scrutiny and he believed that the Planning Board felt that it was a beneficial change even thought it wasn't allowed by Code because it would reduce the amount of impervious surface on the property. Mr. Rosen commented that the lot seemed almost covered by building and pavement as it is; he did not see how much more it could have been covered . Mr. Monkemeyer directed the board's attention to their packet and explained that it contained a drawing of the building when it was first proposed as being all on one level . He then showed the current plan . Mr. Rosen did not understand why the zoning code was so impractical that in order to build a building the owner needs to get all these variances. He commented that it seemed the Code was faulty. Mr. Dixon stated that the Code was not perfect, which was why there's a Zoning Board of Appeals. The Code cannot answer every circumstance that may come up. Mr. Rosen stated that he was surprised, but will accept the explanation and that this is the way it should be . Chairperson Sigel thought that Mr. Rosen made a good point. He said that he did not scrutinize the project again because the proposal is identical to what it was. He remembered that when he did scrutinize it, it seemed that what the Planning Board had done was reasonable and they had their motivations for seeking this type of building design . Chairperson Sigel believed that the amount of interior square footage of the project would be allowed in separate buildings. Mr. Monkemeyer thought that was correct. Chairperson Sigel went on to say that the Planning Board was faced with having Mr. Monkemeyer achieve the office and retail space legally by building three separate buildings. The Planning Board thought that it would be better for the site to put all the square footage in one building, but that really wasn't allowed in the neighborhood commercial zone. Ms. Fogarty commented that there is an entrance/exit on King Rd E where there's a school zones she didn't feel that was practical . Mr. Monkemeyer reviewed the exits with the board and stated that the curb cut onto the Danby Road received approval from the State and the curb cut onto King Rd E received approval from the County. Page 15 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final Chairperson Sigel thought there was a fair distance between the entrance/exit to the Montessori School . Mr. Bates added that one of the variances for the project was for the setback requirements between the neighborhood commercial zone and the residential zone, which the school is located in . He thought that the Planning Board's intent was to design a project that was commercial in nature to fit the site. Mr. Bates reiterated that Mr. Monkemeyer needed approvals from the State and County for his curb cuts. Mr. Monkemeyer stated that both have been presented with the plans and have made comments regarding design ; he just needs to file his permits . Chairperson Sigel turned the board's attention to the second variance that was granted for the . project in March 2011 for rear and side yard setbacks. He asked Attorney Brock if she thought it was reasonable to re-move the exact text from the two separate variances and keep them as separate two separate motions. Attorney Brock thought that the two motions could be moved as one resolution so that all variances are considered together so that the findings that are being made are for all of them as opposed to breaking them apart. She felt that it would be easy for someone to say that the impact was being minimized by keeping the motions separate. Chairperson Sigel asked if the board had any other comments or questions. Mr. Rosen commented that he liked the pond in the front of the building . He asked if there was a bridge over the pond . Mr. Monkemeyer .explained that there are two sections stormwater—the four bay, which is a smaller pond and in this design there is a rock cluster between the sections. The water has to pass through the rocks to dislodge impurities. Mr. Rosen stated that he didn't mean to malign Mr. Monkemeyer's building . Mr. Monkemeyer understood and said that he thought that some of the planning initiative was to prevent some of the big box stores from coming into the neighborhood zones so they created the smaller size building requirements. Mr. Rosen commented that they cut themselves in the foot because it is too small . Mr. Monkemeyer added that the hotel couldn't exist without a variance for square footage. Chairperson Sigel thought that was a good point; he said that the commercial zones in the Town are not large zones. The Town Board tried to create a zoning ordinance to cover a few fairly different zones and it is hard to write something that fits everything . Mr. Rosen understood and said that it is like setting a low bar and adjusting it as needed . Mr. Krantz stated that the project is located at a busy intersection and he felt that the State should approve a crosswalk, however, the State won't put one in and the Town, can't put one in . He reiterated that it's a . busy intersection and that it is going to have a lot of action with a lot of people. Mr. Rosen confirmed that there is a traffic light at the intersection . Mr. Monkemeyer commented that it is expensive to put crosswalks in that meet today's codes. He has suggested in the past that the Town conduct their own independent study and create a special assessment district for each commercial zone so that the design and construction of the crosswalk could be passed on to the property owners directly affected . Page 16 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final . Mr. Krantz stated that it was felt that the Town could not require a crosswalk on a State route. Mr. Monkemeyer responded that if there was a plan and a financing mechanism the State might go along with it. He thought that the State probably did not want to get stuck with something they didn't want to pay for. Chairperson Sigel stated that he was looking at the two previous resolutions and the findings were different. He asked if it was reasonable to combine the two resolutions, but keep the findings separate. He thought it would be easier to keep the findings for the setbacks separate from the other findings. Attorney Brock agreed . SEQR Attorney Brock explained that for the original set of variances the Zoning Board did not conduct SEQR review because the Planning Board had done a coordinated review for the site plan and special permit that they issued, which covered the subsequent actions by other agencies including the ZBA. Then when the project received subdivision approval, the Planning Board conducted another SEQR review because subdivision was not considered during the project's original approval, but it was not a coordinated review. The Zoning Board then conducted SEQR review for the subdivision variances. Attorney Brock stated that the board could decide whether or not it was necessary to reopen SEQR review. Chairperson Sigel moved to find that the coordinated review conducted by the Planning Board in the fall of 2010 and this board's negative declaration of environmental significance conducted for the March 2011 variance is still applicable given that the application has not changed, and therefore, the SEQR determinations will not be reopened . Mr. Rosen seconded . Motion carried unanimously. Z9 RESMUTION 2012-025: Environments/ Assessment 1061 Danby Rd Tax Pane/ No. 43. -Y -3.23 MOTION made by Kir* Sigel, seconded by Rob Rosen. Reso,(y� that this board finds that the coordinated review conducted by the Planning Board in the fall of 2010 and this boards negative declaration of environmental significance conducted for the March 2011 variance is still applicable given that the application has not changed, and therefore, the SEQR determinations will not be reopened. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES* Sigel, Krantz, Mountin, King, and Rosen. NAYS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Sigel opened the public hearing . There being no one present to speak, he closed the public hearing . Page 17 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final Chairperson Sigel moved to grant the appeal of Evan Monkemeyer to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, approximately a 19, 828 sq ft building that will accommodate retail, commercial, and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities and to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property with all the previous conditions and findings made from the 2010 and 2011 board approvals. Mr. King seconded . Carried unanimously. ZR RESOLUYTON 2012 U Area Variances, JO& Darby Rd, Tax Pais/ No. 43. - Y - 12 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel, seconded by Bill King. Rewlyed that this Board grants the appeal of College Crossings, LLC, owner, Evan Monkemeyer, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 128, Section 270-116, Section 270-1220, Section 27a127C, and Section 270-117A(2)(3) "Yard Regulations" to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, approximately a 19,828 sq ft building that will accommodate retail, commercial, and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stonnwater facilities and to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property. The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road and King Road Eas4 Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 43. - 1-3.23, Neighborhood Commercial. The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposed building, at 40 feet tall will exceed the largest permitted height; which is 36 feet. The proposal includes three (3) drive-through lanes where only two are permitted. In addition, the proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive- through canopy and support on the north side will encroach on the 50 foot buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides, with the following: Conditions: 1. That the total interior square footage of the building not exceed 20, 000-square feet, 2. That the height not exceed 40.5 feet; 3. That the encroachment into the buffers required by the Town Code be no greater than what is indicated on the plans submitted to this Board at its November 15, 2010 meeting, 4. That the entire project be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans submitted to this Board at its November 15, 2010 meeting, 5. 777at no single tenant be allowed to occupy more than 10, 000 square feet of the building, and 6. That the north and east side setbacks be no less than 1 foot less than what is indicated on the plan submitted by the applicant to this board on March 21, 20116 Page 18 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final Findings for variances from Chapter 270, Section 270-128, Section 270-116, Section 270-122C, Section 270-127C. That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically.• 10 That while the benefit to be achieved by the applicant can be done by other means possible, namely, building two or three separate buildings, that the one that the applicant proposed is also reasonable and is a better fit for the site that the applicant has, and 20 That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the total square footage of the project would be allowed, just not in one single building, and 3. That the requests are not substantial, the height being just four and a half feet above what is allowed and the total square footage being permitted on the site in separate buildings, and 40 That there will be no adverse physical and environmental effects for the reasons stated in the negative determination of environmental significance, and 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created, this is the portion of the applicant's property that is in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and they are required to fit the development within those constraints, and 6. For these reasons, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. Findings for variances from Chapter 270, Section 270-117A(2)(3). That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, specifically.• i. That the benefit cannot be achieved by the applicant by any other means feasible given the applicants desire to have a central single building for the commercial use surrounded by the parking and driveway navigation around the perimeter of the site, 2. That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property to the north is also neighborhood commercial zone and the property to the east, while low density residential zone, is also owned by the applicant and therefore will only be impacting the applicants own property, 3. That while the requested setback variances are substantial, nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects for the reasons stated in the Part 11 Environmental Assessment Fonn, Page 19 of 20 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of May 21, 2012 Final 5. That while the alleged difficulty is self-created given the applicants recent subdivision of this lot, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Sigel, Krantz, Mountin, King, and Rosen. NA YS: None. Motion was carried unanimously. Other Business There was no other business discussed by the board . Adjournment With no further business, Chairperson Sigel adjourned the May 21, 2012 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at 9 : 03 p. m . Kirk Sigel, Chairperson Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk Page 20 of 20 ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-025 ` '` "}M Environmental Assessment 1061 Danby Rd Tax Parcel No. 43.-1 -3.23 May 219 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Rob Rosen . Resolved , that this board finds that the coordinated review conducted by the Planning Board in the fall of 2010 and this board's negative declaration of environmental significance conducted for the March 2011 variance is still applicable given that the application has not changed, and therefore, the SEQR determinations will not be reopened . A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES : Sigel , Krantz, Mountin , King , and Rosen . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA. I , Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca, New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21st day of May, 2012 . f F !A Deputy Tow6tlerk Town of Ithaca F , m v ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB RESOLUTION 2012-026 Area Variances 1061 Danby Rd Tax Parcel No. 43.-1 -3.23 May 21 , 2012 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by Bill King . Resolved , that this Board grants the appeal of College Crossings , LLC , owner, Evan Monkemeyer, Agent, requesting variances from the requirements of Chapter 270, Section 270- 128 , Section 270- 116 , Section 270- 122C , Section 270- 127C , and Section 270- 117A(2)(3) "Yard Regulations" to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, approximately a 19, 828 sq ft building that will accommodate retail, commercial , and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping , sidewalks, and stormwater facilities and to allow insufficient side yard and rear yard setbacks on the north and east of the property. The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road and King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43. - 1 -3 .23 , Neighborhood Commercial . The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The proposed building, at 40 feet tall will exceed the largest permitted height, which is 36 feet. The proposal includes three (3) drive-through lanes where only two are permitted . In addition , the proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive-through canopy and support on the north side will encroach on the 50-foot buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides, with the following, Conditions, 1 . That the total interior square footage of the building not exceed 20 ,000-square feet, 20 That the height not exceed 40.5 feet, 3. That the encroachment into the buffers required by the Town Code be no greater than what is indicated on the plans submitted to this Board at its November 15 , 2010 meeting, 40 That the entire project be constructed as indicated on the applicant's plans submitted to this Board at its November 15 , 2010 meeting , 5 . That no single tenant be allowed to occupy more than 10, 000 square feet of the building, and 6 . That the north and east side setbacks be no less than 1 foot less than what is indicated on the plan submitted by the applicant to this board on March 21 , 2011 . ZB RESOLUTION NO, 2012-026 Page 2 of 3 Findings for variances from Chapter 270 , Section 270- 128 , Section 270- 116 , Section 270- 122C , Section 270- 127C : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community, specifically: 1 . That while the benefit to be achieved by the applicant can be done by other means possible , namely, building two or three separate buildings , that the one that the applicant proposed is also reasonable and is a better fit for the site that the applicant has , and 24 That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the total square footage of the project would be allowed , just not in one single building , and 3 . That the requests are not substantial , the height being just four and a half feet above what is allowed and the total square footage being permitted on the site in separate buildings, and 4. That there will be no adverse physical and environmental effects for the reasons stated in the negative determination of environmental significance, and 5 . The alleged difficulty is not self-created , this is the portion of the applicant's property that is in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and they are required to fit the development within those constraints, and 6. For these reasons, the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. Findings for variances from Chapter 270, Section 270- 117A(2) (3) : That the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community, ,-specifically: 1 . That the benefit cannot be achieved by the applicant by any other means feasible given the applicant's desire to have a central single building for the commercial use surrounded by the parking and driveway navigation around the perimeter of the site , 28 That there will not be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties given that the property to the north is also neighborhood commercial zone and the property to the east, while low density residential zone , is also owned by the applicant and therefore will only be impacting the applicant's own property, 00 ZB RESOLUTION NO. 201M26 Page 3of3 3 . That while the requested setback variances are substantial , nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community, 4. That the request will not have adverse physical or environmental affects for the reasons stated in the Part II Environmental Assessment Form , 5 . That while the alleged difficulty is self-created given the applicant's recent subdivision of this lot, that nevertheless the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the health , safety, and welfare of the community. A vote on the motion resulted as follows . AYES . Sigel , Krantz, Mountin , King, and Rosen . NAYS : None . Motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS: TOWN OF ITHACA. I , Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York, do hereby certify that the resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meeting on the 21st day of May, 2012 . Deputy TdiieClerk Town of Ithaca ,Tompkins n ty ® 2 2092 CiOUn ' .,.f nr. rx MAY DEPARTMENT OFD PL N � G -T-vW,� --- - J N llriirit; Cp I I ti CODE ENFG�iiCEMENI 11121 EastCurStr�eet 4thaca,�l�erw$,Y�ork j14850 Edward C. Marx, AICP � � '" Commissioner of Planning # t Telephone (607 274-5560 and Public Works — Fax (607) 274-5578 April 27, 2012 r Mr. Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement w Ton of Ithaca 215 N. Tioga Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re . Review Pursuant to §239 -1 , -m and -n of the New York State General Municipal Law Action : Variance of dimension regulations and Special Permit, College Crossings, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41-1-3 .2, Neighborhood Commercial Use, Evan Monkemeyer, College Crossings, LLC, Owner/Applicant. Dear Mr. Bates : This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to §239 -1 , -m and —n of the New York State General Municipal Law. The Department has reviewed the proposal, as submitted, and has determined that it has no negative inter-community, or county-wide impacts with regards to the variances requested . As was stated in our October 25 , 2010 letter regarding the area variance for this project, we are reiterating .the following concern. We understand that the Planning Board has already approved the Site Plan, which has changed substantially since we previously reviewed it in 2007 . A Site Plan which has been changed significantly should be resubmitted for our review under General Municipal Law. Specifically we would recommend that this project be designed to create a more pedestrian-oriented environment appropriate for a Neighborhood Commercial use . This would include additional walkway connections and a shift of the building to the southwest corner of the lot in an effort to place related parking to the side and rear of the building and away from the view of Danby Road and East King Road. As it stands the revised plan is more of a suburban style automobile-oriented development than was the original plan. Furthermore, we have recommended that the Town require adjacent project proposals to include a formal pedestrian sidewalk along E.. King Road and 96B to improve access to this Neighborhood Commercial area. The Town should require that this project, and others in the area, include the infrastructure that formalizes these important pedestrian connections . We look forward to the opportunity to review the Site Plan. Sincerely, - Edward C . Marx, AICP Commissioner of Planning & Community Sustainability - IncCusion through Diversity TOWN OF ITHACA VI 215 N . Tioga Street, ITHACA, N . Y. 1485 TOWN CLERK 273-1721 PLANNING 273-1747 CODE ENFORCENT & ZONING 273-1783A 122012 , PUBLIC WORKS (Engineering, Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273!1656.1 FAX (607) 273- 1704 i 7LOnRng Bogard ®f A eaN Ai �Hcafl®>m Submit this Application ONLY after: ( 1 ) applying for a building/sign permit for which you received a determination /denial from Code Enforcement Staff or (2) referral from the Planning Board based upon a site plan or subdivision review. ZBA Appearance Fee : $100 For Office Use Only For Office se Only Property is located within, or adjacent to: Ple a check all that apply: Date Received District Area Variance ty g Cash or Check No. Use Variance UNA , Zoning 'District Sign Variance , CEA Applicable Section(s)`of Town Code: Sprinkler Variance Forest Home Historic District , A . /:v y:;4s Special A pp roval State Park/another muiiclpa ty y� The UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form requesting an appearance to be allowed to uA oNse 8 (c x�eC E i..t._z- at C Q & k l j�{ , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. as shown on the attached supporting documents. A description of the practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows (attach any additional sheets as necessary): WAN1Q.( e 6uzQNzt�� �� �Cs��(J-► �� f!T T9-I �C,A.i-port, k� L� CZS ` A.I By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or Town Staff to enter my property for any inspection(s) in connection with my application. e-OAJIII j1 It Print Name Here : c'Dwc E Signature of Owner/Appellant: r Date : t Z Signature of of Appellant/Agent: Date: Home/Cell Telephone Number(ILT� 2-� 3 �� 3 � Work Telephone Number : C(o5; Email Address C' O(s.CC e UPS S ATT , 6LeT NOTE: A Granted Variance expires 18 months from the date of its filing. Construction work associated with any variance(s) must commence within 18 months of filing. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised. Revised 11/9/2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARI[ NCE CRITERIA FORM - (to be completed by Applicant) Applicant: CaLS,C�- C' f'�SS s��Cx5 � LLe Address of Property Requiring the Variance: ( ow AA�Cftl� . Tax Map No. : 14� — ( — 3 . 23 TEST: No area variance will be granted without consideration by the Board of the following factors: 1 . Whether undesirable change vyould be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties : Yes No. Reasons : 2 . Whether bent sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance : Yes No Reasons : 3 . Whether the requested variance is substantial : Yes No t/ Reasons : 4. Would the variance have an a verse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? : Yes No Reasons : 51 Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created : Yes No V Reasons : Revised 11 /9/2010 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, NY ONLY PART 1 - PROJECT INFORMATION To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor) 1 . Applicant/Sponsor 2. Project Name 3. Precise location (street address, road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc. or provide map:) ioC9l j4i& `& ' RJQ M -(+4cok Tax Parcel Number: — 4. Is proposed action : / NEW? v EXPANSION? MODIFICATION/ALTERATION? 5. Describe project briefly: (Include project purpose, present land use, current and future construction plans, and other relevant items): - r y jzJ 57"& ) Attach separate sheets if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project.) 6. Amount of land affected:, O Initial) 0-5 rs .�SAcreV 6-10 rs Acres >10 rs) Acres 7. How is land zoned presently? 8. Will proposedf ction comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions? _ YES NO V If no, describe conflict briefly: � 3 ::�E 'ATt 30,V, 9. Will proposed action lead to a request for new: Public Road? YES NO Public Water? YES 40 NO _�L Public Sewer? YES NO 10. What is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project? Residential Commercial Industrial Agriculture . Park/Forest/Open Space Other Please Describe: �l 11 . Does proposed action involve a permit pproval, or funding, now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal, State, Local?) YES NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval/funding: 12. Does any aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval? YES V NO If yes, list agency name and permit/approval. Also, state whether it ill require modification. g�Z l I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE : Applicant/Sponsor Name (Print or Type): ��- ��� � �� is ct U"C Signature and Date: �4 ( Z" 2co I Revised 11 /9/2010 Print Page 1 of 1 � n From : College Crossings, LLC (collegecrossings @att.net) �?w� «'; To : CCoatsWhitmore @Town.Ithaca.NY.US ; Date : Sat, April 14, 2012 10 : 36 :35 AM ��R 2012 Cc : _ Subject: College Crossings BZA Letter CODE ENFOFiC1L iiENT Hi Carrie, This Email is to satisfy the Town's Requirement for a ZBA extension of Planning Board approved plan - College Crossings, LLC . Dear ZBA Board, Please review and approve an extension of my approved plan - College Crossings for a continuing set of variances from the Current Zoning Code of the Town of Ithaca. I need more time to successfully market and lease retail and commercial spaces in these difficult economic times. At the prior meeting, I requested a time period of three years, but was only granted an 18 month time period. If planning board approvals are good for three years, it only makes sense to grant variances for the same period of time for the same project. My planning board approval time period is up in about 18 months . Thank ou for your considering my request of an extension. Since , Ev o em er E an N. onk eyes Co slings, LLC (800) 216-9301 Ext 300 (607) 277-8197 (fax) " The intersection of College and Community " www.CollegeCrossings.com DISCLAIMER: This email contains information which may be confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this email please notify us immediately by returning the email to the originator. Information sent by email should not be considered private and is at risk of loss and / or unauthorized modification. College Crossings, LLC does not recommend sending confidential information through email. http://us .mg203 .mail .yahoo .com/dc/launch?.partner=sbc& . gx= 1 & .rand=2hu5el5jd6cn9 4/ 14/2012 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2007 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 Monday, April 30, 2007, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P .M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent, Agent, requesting modification of a previously granted sprinkler variance from Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code for an omission of a sprinkler system for the 27 ' 8" x 21 ' 8" Tutelo Park comfort station located at 151 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -4=6 . 1 , Low Density Residential Zone. The original approval included a finding that the comfort station be "substantially concrete," as indicated on the original plans . The building, as built, contains wooden roof trusses and a wooden roof deck. APPEAL of Ronald B . Knewstub, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII, Chapter 270-59, Chapter 270-60(E), and Chapter 270-219 . 2(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 36 ' x 52 ' ( 1 , 872s . f.) pole barn in conjunction with the operation of a home occupation located at 180 Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 33 -2-3 . 1 , Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed barn exceeds the 500s. f. maximum floor area allowed for a home occupation. The proposed 16-foot tall building also exceeds the 15 -foot maximum height allowed for accessory buildings in the Low Density Residential Zone, and will be located in the side yard, where accessory buildings are restricted to the rear yard. APPEAL of Evan N. Monkemeyer, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIV, Chapter 270- 128 , Article XIII, Chapter 270- 116, and Article XIII, Chapter 270- 122(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, a 19,644+/- gross interior square foot building that will accommodate retail, commercial, and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities . The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (N-YS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 - 1 -3 .2 , Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones . The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone (7, 500s. f. by right and 10, 000s. f. with Planning Board Special Permit) . The proposed building, at 40+/- feet tall from the lowest exterior grade, will also exceed the maximum height limit of 36 feet from the lowest exterior grade. Additionally, the proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach into the 50-foot required buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides . 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. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 607-273 - 1747 Dated: April 19, 2007 Published: April 23 , 2007 TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS MONDAY, APRIL 16. 2007 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 Monday, April 16, 2007, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Tioga Street Entrance, Ithaca, NY, COMMENCING AT 7 : 00 P .M . , on the following matters : APPEAL of the Town of Ithaca, Appellant, Fred Noteboom, Highway Superintendent, Agent, requesting modification of a previously granted sprinkler variance from Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code for an omission of a sprinkler system for the 27 ' 8" x 21 ' 8 " Tutelo. Park comfort station located at 151 Bostwick Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 31 -4-6 . 1 , Low Density Residential Zone. The original approval included a finding that the comfort station be "substantially concrete," as indicated on the original plans . The building, ' as built, contains wooden roof trusses and a wooden roof deck. APPEAL of Ronald B . Knewstub, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article VIII , Chapter 270- 59, Chapter 270-60(E), and Chapter 270-219 .2(A) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct a 36 ' x 52 ' ( 1 , 872s.f.) pole barn in conjunction with the operation of a home occupation located at 180 . Calkins Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -2-3 . 1 , Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed barn exceeds the 500s . f. maximum floor area allowed for a home occupation. The proposed 16-foot tall building also exceeds the 15 7foot maximum height allowed for accessory buildings in the Low Density Residential Zone, and will be located in the side yard, where accessory buildings are restricted to the rear yard . APPEAL of Evan N . Monkemeyer, Appellant, requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIV, Chapter 270- 128 , Article XIII , Chapter 270- 116, and Article XIII , Chapter 270- 122(C) of the Town of Ithaca Code, to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, a 19,644+/- gross interior square foot building that will accommodate retail , commercial, and/or office tenants, associated parking, landscaping, sidewalks, and stormwater facilities . The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 - 1 -3 .2 , Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone (7 ,500s.f. by right and 10,000s . f. with Planning Board Special Permit) . The proposed building, at 40+/- feet tall from the lowest exterior grade, will also exceed the maximum height limit of 36 feet from the lowest exterior grade. Additionally, the proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach into the 50-foot required buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides . 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 publ c�hearing. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 607-273 - 1747 Dated: April 6, 2007 Published: April 9, 2007 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO : Zoning Board of Appeals FROM : Christine Balestra, Plannee (' Jon Kanter, Director of Planning DATE : April 9, 2007 RE : College Crossing Development — Area Variances Enclosed please find materials relating to the proposed College Crossings Development located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and East King Road intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 - 1 -3 . 2 , Neighborhood Commercial (NC) Zone. The proposal is for a 19,644 +/- gross interior square foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail, commercial and office space. The project will also include between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant occupancy), landscaping, lighting, storm water facilities and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments . The Planning Board granted , Preliminary Site Plan and Special Permit approval for the development at their April 3rd Planning Board meeting. Enclosed with the application materials is the resolution from that meeting. The Planning Board resolution contains many conditions of approval that need to be met prior to Final Site Plan Approval . In particular, the resolution includes a recommendation to the ZBA that any variance granted allowing the building size to exceed 10,000 square feet be conditioned upon limiting the occupancy of any individual business in the building to no more than 10,000 square feet of floor space. This is to . . . . There are three main variances to consider for this proposal : a size variance for the building, a height variance for the building, and a variance to allow portions of the development to encroach on a required buffer: All variances are area variances, so please refer to the area variance criteria when you deliberate . on the appeal . Below is an explanation of the requested variances : Building size variance : The proposed 19,644 +/- interior square foot single commercial building exceeds the maximum size of an individual building (not total building area) permitted in the NC Zone. Section 270- 128 Town of Ithaca Code (NC zone) limits individual buildings to 7, 500 square feet permitted by right, and up to 10,000 square feet by Planning Board special permit. A variance by the ZBA is required to allow the building to exceed 10,000 square feet. Heip,ht variance: Section 270- 116 of the Town of Ithaca Code includes a height limit in . Commercial Zones of 38 feet from the lowest interior grade or 36 feet from the lowest exterior grade. The proposed building is approximately 40 +/- feet in height from the finished floor level to the highest peak of the roof, as scaled on Sheet A3 . 3 Exterior Elevations (the elevations are not labeled with dimensions) . Buffer variance : The appellant needs variances from Section 270- 122 . 0 of the Town of Ithaca Code to encroach into a 50-foot required buffer separation between the NC zone and adjacent residential zones . Specifically, the Code requires a buffer in which "no structure shall be placed closer than 50 feet to any residence zone . . . " Multiple Residence (MR) and High Density Residential (HDR) Zones abut the NC- zoned site on the north. A Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone abuts the NC-zoned site on the east . ill The access driveway on the north side of the site is situated within 22-23 feet of the NC/MR/HDR Zone boundaries, and the northern support of the drive-through canopy is situated within 45 -46 feet of that Zone boundary, thus encroaching on the required buffer on the north side. The access drive on the east side of the site is situated within 15 feet of the NC/LDR Zone boundary, thus encroaching on the required buffer on the east side. [Please note that the appellant ' s narrative refers to "parking location" as encroaching into the required buffer, when in fact only the driveways and bank drive thru canopy encroach into the buffer. ] Regarding the request for . either a variance or an interpretation of the term "structure" as it relates to driveways, the access drives are considered and are intended to be "structures" by Town Code (Section 270-5 ) , which defines a structure as : "anything that is constructed or erected on the ground or upon another structure or building. Structure also includes anything that is constructed or erected underground and projects up to the ground surface or above, or anything that is constructed or erected wholly underground other than utility lines, septic and water systems, or other similar types of underground construction wholly ancillary to a principal building or structure on the premises. Structure includes constructed parking spaces. The term structure includes a building. " Therefore, the appellant requires the variances from the buffer requirement noted in the paragraph above. The Planning Board supported the concept and design of the proposed building because the Board felt the, proposed building is consistent with the intent of the NC zone, even though it exceeds the maximum size and height limits of the zone. The Planning Board had no concerns regarding the encroachments into the buffer areas because adequate screening will be provided on the north and east sides of the proposed development (where the buffer variances are being requested) . SEAR determination : The Zoning Board will not make an environmental determination for this project. The Planning Board acted as lead agency in a Type I Coordinated SEQR review of the proposal . Therefore, the Planning Board . made an environmental determination at the April 3 `d meeting. The appellant submitted a detailed traffic impact study, parking and landscaping plans, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including a drainage analysis, storm water management plan, and sediment and erosion control plan as part of the Planning Board review . Based on an evaluation of the materials provided by the applicant, the Planning Board issued a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for the project. Enclosed is a copy of the SEQR analysis and negative determination for your information and to assist in your review of the proposed variances. Please call me at 273 - 1747 or email me at cbalestra@town.ithaca.ny.us with any questions regarding this proposal . Att. cc : Evan Monkmeyer, Owner/Applicant James M . Kerrigan, Attorney Scott L. Freeman, R. L. A . , Keplinger Freeman Associates Amy Bloss, Dal Pos Architects 2 ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . 27 The vote on the motion was as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Levine , Matthews , Mountin NAYS : None The MOTION was carried . APPEAL Evan N Monkemeyer, Appellant requesting . variances from the requirements of Article XIV Chapter 270- 128 Article XIII Chapter 270- 116 and Article XIII , Chapter 270- 122 ( C ) of the Town of Ithaca Code , to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development a 19 , 644+/- gross interior square foot building that will accommodate retail commercial and/or office tenants , associated parking landscaping sidewalks and stormwater facilities . The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road ( NYS Route 96B ) and King Road East intersection Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43- 1 -3 . 2 , Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones . The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone ( 7 500s .f. by right and 10 , OOOs .f. with Planning Board Special Permit) . The proposed building , at 40 +/- feet tall from the lowest exterior grade will also exceed the maximum height limit of 36 feet from the lowest exterior grade . Additionally, the proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach into the 50-foot required buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adiacent Residential Zones on those sides . Evan Monkemeyer, 123 East King Road I am right in the neighborhood . This property is part of my heritage , my parents farm is located at this location . It' s a corner, a focal point for South Hill , it' s the last undeveloped corner of the 5 corners at that intersection . It' s contiguous with the Ithaca College campus and I think the variances that we are requesting tonight are . keeping within the ordinance and this project will be a great asset and a landmark for the South Hill community. John Bartelotti , 101 North Clinton Street, Syracuse We're asking for 3 variances , as you stated in your letter, one for height , one for area and one for a buffer zone . And I think for us , for me to articulate this and kind of take you down the path of how we got where we are , if I can give you a few minutes of background on why we' re doing this and how we feel , when we get done demonstrating this tonight , that this will actually benefit the project and enhance what we are trying to do here . ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . 28 We first looked at the site and said , by right , we can build 75 , 000 square foot building and we could do multiple ones , and then we looked at what we are trying to achieve and we said . . . The first thing we are trying to achieve here is a successful little neighborhood center that provides services , as the ordinance indicates , services for shopping and other services there that would not bring any major impact on traffic and would distribute some of. that type of services to the surrounding neighborhoods , mitigating the traffic down into the City and intercepting some . of that . So , brother and I , we looked at , and we do a lot of retail , by the way, in my firm , and the success with any project, in retail , is really generated on the type of tenant mixes that you put together, and if this was going to be a single type , tenant, convenience store or something like that, they stand on their own , . you have a quick stop , but what. we are really trying to create here is something that gets synergy between small tenants and small tenant like like tenants and complimentary tenants so that if you want to go down and get a dinner and maybe grab an ice cream or coffee , and there may be a card shop there , there may be a bagel shop , you can grab , or there is a little gift shop or candle shop , and that' s the type of tenants that we are trying to create in here . Also , a bank . . . So we are looking for retail , small business and some offices in there . But the real success of that is to have a real diverse mix of those . So we took a look at the site and said here ' s our constraints . . .we can do it with three buildings , we laid it out , we got done , and it really wasn 't that attractive , when we got done . . . Because there was three separate buildings , links together, options for links , options for level changes , but the site is also a pretty steep incline coming from the southeast . corner, at the highest point near the Montessori School , down to the northwest corner where the one entrance is . Several buildings separated become a challenge for handicap accessibility and a lot of other things , and also , the parking constraints . It became one big cluster field in the center and not what we thought was inviting there . So we said alright , then we can build 7 , 500 times 3 with the possibility of going up to 10 , 000 with special permit use , so it' s between 2 , 200 and 30 , 000square feet of retail is what we can do in there without a variance . Based on that _ . . Chairman Sigel — Let me interrupt you there . . . Were you able to lay out three 7 , 500 square foot buildings and meet all of the parking and setback requirements? Mr. Bartelotti — Not very efficiently. We started ( inaudible ) the grade challenges became an issue for the stormwater management and issues like that and that' s why we ended up saying , how can we then do that. Those were the challenges . So , we started looking at combining those and said okay, if, as of right , we can do that much square footage , then we didn 't think it was an unreasonable amount to . work with and we thought , from our experience and the type of tenants that we are ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . 29 trying to do , that' s about what we ' re going to need for critical mass , to make a center like this successful and it be able to sustain itself. From that , we said , okay, how do we create a building that enhances all of these activities . And we came up with , and I think some of you may have already heard this at the preliminary site plan reviews , we said we want to create a building where when you approach the building , you don 't look at the dumpsters , you don 't look at the service areas , there' s a pretty building from every face that you look at and we have two sides , East King Road and Route 96 which are major street frontages there , and to the direct east we have the Montessori School . So we were trying to be cognizant of that and off to the north is the Hillock property which my client also owns . So we chose that as kind of the back door to the facility, knowing that we would. be respectful for all the surrounding adjacencies . Based on that , we created an elevation , as you can see on the far easel , which really is pretty symmetrical all around the building . And at the end of the building. is the spot where we are hoping to have a bank and would have a drive through teller there . So responding to the . intent of the neighborhood community is to create a center that provides these services . And by combining these three buildings to one building , we see no undesirable condition created to this lot , it actually enhances it because now we will create much more green spaces and plaza areas all around the building that are accessible , that are undercover, that have overhangs that people can .actually migrate around the building and throughout the building creating and environment where , as we say, instead of traveling across parking spaces from one to the next We didn 't see any substantial difference , really, in the square footage , and all the other attributes starting stacking up , we think in support and are positive in the conditions that are created . In addition , we ' ve , by combining hat , we were able to cluster the services that are stuck to the north , up here , so deliveries and trash and recycling will all be screened up in this area here , keeping it pretty much away from the rest of the site , so that from any of the streets you would be able to hide that and screen that . We now have distributed parking , as you see . We distributed parking along the . front here , the side and the back and create green spaces , plazas all along the building and we' ve also inked a walkway all the way up to the college . to the north . So we will, bring pedestrian traffic all the way . down through here and we have also been cognizant of the traffic, to try to create , get the farthest away from the intersection here , is our site access . One is here and one is here . And the Montessori School is up in here . So with that , we combined them in this nature . . .the aesthtic appeal that we' ve created gave us the ability to create something that' s much more residential like . A timberframe with a craftsman ' s flair which we are going to further develop . Most of the building is well below the height limitation , just the very center, this piece here is ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . . 30 about 4 = feet above and that was generated based upon ( inaudible ){the microphone is being held too closely by the speaker„ therefore , portions are inaudible} . . . to get it out around the plaza , so we can cover the people as they walk around the perimeter. . . we also looked at the elevation . Here ' s a dashed line that shows the height limitation that is set by the zoning ordinance and it' s really just this one little peak here . . . from any sightline . . . .the Montessori School is , the grade , I think , is approximately 35 feet above our grade , so they are well above any sightline there . To the north you 've got the Hayloft building which is heavily screened with the trees , so you don 't see anything there . So we don 't see any impact in sightline that was really being impaired by that and based on the amount of snow that you get up here and the amount of pitch we ' re trying to keep on the building , we'd like to try to maintain that height . Last and final was the buffer zone . Let me go back to the site plan here for a minute . By creating all of this , what I just described , it was challenging , in this corner here , to try to do it with some aesthetic , pleasing structure , maintaining the correct mix of tenants that we'd like to put in here and keeping in too , what we believe is what the neighborhood and commercial neighborhood zone was trying to achieve . So we . . . the parking guideline here and we understand now, we questioned at the time , and the structure is a structure and the pavement is not pavement but is considered a structure , is what we ' ve been told , through the definition through the zoning ordinance . . . . . . between that structure and the edge of pavement , we have just the canopy of to the north is a couple of feet into that 50 foot buffer. We have about 23-24 feet from the edge of pavement to our property, However, " . .we also own the property next door, and if you add the buffer zone . . . . . . . . separating the distant structure from the existing structure here . So we felt , with all that in view of us or this property here , this buffer zone in here . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . this is a zoning line in here . This is a 40 acre site , we aren 't really violating what the intent of what that buffer was for. Chairman Sigel — Was this parcel recently. subdivided ? Mr. Bartolotti — No . Mr. Kanter — Evan has not subdivided . It is not. Mr. Bartolotti — It is not , that' s correct. It' s a 40 + acre site . Chairman Sigel — So the dash line that you are showing there to the east . . . Mr. Bartolotti — This is a zoning line going through here . Up here is residential and this is the neighborhood commercial . Chairman Sigel — Alright . Dick Matthews — Where does the line start that it' s residential ? ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . 31 Mr. Bartolotti — Here . Dick Matthews — Right , and now go east . . . where' s the bottom of it? Mr. Bartolotti — The bottom of it is here . Dick Matthews —That' s East King Road . The property goes up a hill , where is the bottom of that property line . Mr. Bartolotti The property is here and it goes up . . . .the Montessori School is here . . . Harry Ellsworth — The northern entrance is how far from that intersection ? Of 96 and East King . Mr. Bartolotti — It' s about 300 feet . And this is 400 or something , about 450 feet from our building to the Montessori School is over 400 feet . Harry Ellsworth — Theorectically, to the right , as I ' m looking at that plan , there is residential growth potential , correct . Mr. Bartolotti — That is residential zone , correct . Dick Matthews — Down to East King Road ? Mr. Bartolotti — Everything from here to here . is residential , yes . Harry Ellsworth — Jonothan , what' s the speed limit there? [50mph] Yeah and you ' re . not going to have a pull off lane along the edge of 96 right? Mr. Bartolotti — No we ' re not. Harry Ellsworth — It' s all downhill from half a mile to the south . . : Mr. Bartolotti — And we went through that during preliminary and I think we got very favorable results from our traffic analysis and DOT was . . . Dick Matthews — Where ' s the entrance on East King ? Mr. Bartolotti — Right here . There is a truck turn right here , opposite that . Dick Matthews — Do you have any studies about the customer base and where most of the traffic will come from ? ZBA 4-30-07, Pg . 32 Mr. Bartolotti — We think we are trying to draw from the surrounding areas here and back up here . There is a lot of commuter traffic that goes through here related to the City, but this is , and also right here , we've got a large residential area here , several miles up the road , which is a great intersection spot , so instead of taking the trek down to city, here' s the next little hub for them to stop in at. Dick Matthews — So it will increase traffic past the Montessori School , Mr. Bartolotti — Well , I think the traffic is going by the Montessori School already . . . . . into the city and some we are hoping to stop them from going farther and they will stop here . That is what this commercial center is supposed to achieve . To try to put some satellite services in here . We are not drawing from a distance here , people won 't go here from the city , it' s the surrounding circle from here is what the convenience is . Chairman Sigel — Any more questions or comments? Jim Kerrigan , 1021 West Seneca Street, Ithaca There are only two concerns that I would like to address in view of the possibility of coming back , which i know that the Board would just as soon not hear from us again if it' s not necessary. One of them has to do with the request from the Planning Board , when they approved this , that there be , and the first that we have heard of this was when we were at the last public meeting on this at the Planning Board , when the suggestion , at the end of that meeting was made that the tenancy of the project be limited so that no one tenant be more than 10 , 000 square feet. We don 't think that that' s a likely possibility, we think that there will be multiple tenants smaller than that . We , as we discussed it , we thought about the possibility of asking you not to include that at this time . It seemed to us , however, at this stage , that that would raise more legitimate questions on your part than we ' re prepared to answer. It would seem to me that if I were a zoning board and there ' s a vast difference between approving a 20 , 000 . . . 19 , 655 square foot , one-tenant project , big boxish type of application that would raise a great many additional concerns on your part , which would be legitimate concerns . We don 't think it' s likely, so what we are suggesting and asking is that if in fact you do condition your approval as conditioned by the Planning Board , that no 1 tenant be more than 10 , 000 square feet, that at least it be done :on the basis so that if a specific tenant, one tenant comes in that might wish to exceed that , that that tenant or the developer might be able to come back . That such a limitation would be done with leave to make a further application . If it were a national big-box chain wanting to come in there , the questions raised already about traffic might be very, very different , if it were some sort of destination project rather than what we ' re looking at which is s neighborhood convenience project. So that' s the only request that we have at that time . So if one tenant were to come in and were to be a project of which the Toen Planning Board and the Town Zoning Board might look favorably . upon, with a particular mix of one tenant services , that it would at least be able to be ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . 33 considered and we would not have to put such a tenant in a situation of coming back to this Board and having this Board legitimately say, no , we did that , it' s done , you should have done it way back when . The second question is perhaps an oversight on our behalf and it addresses the question of liquor. Some of the same analysis may apply. From day one of this project , we had hoped that there would be a neighborhood restaurant here , . and while we thought, in conjunction with this application , that it might be appropriate to seek that approval now in the absence of a specific tenant and the specific method of operation , that it would be best to withhold that application until a specific tenant , seeking a liquor license for a restaurant would be able to answer legitimate questions as to what the use would be . I think that there would be a very different reaction to this Board if it were a neighborhood of college town or post football game sports bar being proposed as opposed to a family restaurant that might serve an occasional Manhattan or an occasional glass of wine . We can 't answer those . questions at this point, so again , I will only request in regard to two potential future issues is that we .at least get credit for not coming in prematurely at this stage , and if it becomes appropriate or necessary, to come back to either this Board or the Planning Board or the Town at some future time with regard to those two issues , that at least there has not been a determination now that 'you should have asked for it at the April 2007 . . . We don 't have the answers right now, I would suggest that it would probably be appropriate , until the right tenant comes along , to turn down a college bar, . catering to college students after football games , until lam or 3 am if they change those laws at that point , and ' we just don 't have that information , so , that is the only request that I would hope , that these minutes would at least say that, any determination that you might make , would grant us leave if and when . circumstances call , to come back to you on those two issues , so that we are not foreclosed by asking for what we are asking for now. Chairman Sigel — With regard to the 10 , 000 square foot requirement, when I saw that I thought it was a good suggestion by the Planning Board , but, and I am perfectly happy to state in a motion that this Board has no prejudice against a future request to exceed that , though that' s really not necessary . Any future Board always has the right to grant a variance , varying the decision of the previous Board . Mr. Kerrigan — I understand . But at least we are not coming back and there be a suggestion that we are trying to sneak in the backdoor what we couldn 't get through the front door is what I am trying to accomplish . Chairman Sigel - No , I mean . . . Dick Matthews — At this time they are asking for 19 , 000 square feet right? Chairman Sigel — Total yeah , but the issue is that the Planning Board suggested that we condition our approval on there being no one ( 1 ) tenant greater than 10 , 000 square feet in the building . ZBA 4-30-07 Pg , 34 Dick Matthews — Is he . asking for, . . Chairman Sigel — And he ' s just asking that we not , essential , prejudice a future board against that . Dick Matthews — So our problem tonight , or the issue before. us tonight is the 19 , 000 square feet and the buffer zone and the height of the building . Ms . Brock — But you can also add the condition . Dick Matthews — I confuse easy, so I have to clear myself up , I am getting old and forgetful . Ms . Brock — But you can also add the condition that no on tenancy occupy more than 10 , 000 square feet . Mr. Kerrigan — A little bit of a question mark on that paragraph is all . Chairman Sigel — Now you mention liquor, is , I haven 't , I have to admit I have not read the neighborhood commercial zone law that many times . Is . there . . . Mr. Kerrigan — It includes a restaurant. As I recall , the discussions from day one have included discussion of a restaurant and in this era , a restaurant without a liquor license may or may not be appropriate . I can think of ones that may not , but I can think of ones that the Town would like to see that are entirely appropriate to this use . Chairman Sigel — So , has someone stated an opinion that the fact that a restaurant is allowed means that a restaurant serving liquor is not allowed ? Mr. Kerrigan — I wouldn 't think that we would get to that and I am just trying to defer that. One of those worries that people in my profession worry about. Like . . Chairman Sigel — Unless there is a specific interpretation issue before us , I am not comfortable stating anything having to do with liquor, one way or the other because that could be construed as . . . Mr. Kerrigan — Approval , and that' s not what I am thinking today. Chairman Sigel — Or even denial , or just something to do with the code that we are not dealing with . Ms . Brock — Kirk , to my knowledge , that issue hasn 't been brought before the Planning Board either. I don 't there have been any discussions between applicant and the Town on that issue . ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . 35 Mr. Kanter — Are there issues with the issuance of a liquor license in proximity of the school? Mr. Kerrigan — There may be .. We haven 't looked at them . We decided that this was not the time to do so without knowing . . . I can see , liquor license applications that people would be entirely supportive of. I have raised a couple of examples of liquor license type applications that people night not be entirely supportive of, that' s all . Mr. Kanter — and I think also , in terms of use , a restaurant , presumably with , you know, the adjunct of serving liquor under a liquor license is something that the zoning probably contemplates but a bar, without being classified as a restaurant , probably would not be a permitted use in that zone . Chairman Sigel — Well , at that time we might be asked to make that determination . Any comments or questions at this point? Let' s open the public hearing . Chairman Sigel opens the public hearing at 8:47p. m. Lisa Smith , Business Administrator of the Elizabeth Ann Montessori School I just want to remind the Board , and we have been here before reminding you of the same thing , to be thoughtful and conscious of that buffer. We have 197 students registered for school next year and it . . . I expect it to be in that realm for the future . So , 200 students , and they are ages 3 through 14 and our traffic . . . our issue is safety, and it really is as simple as that . We are concerned with that buffer and we don 't own any of the land right up to our school to buffer it ourselves . Chairman Sigel closes the public hearing at 8:48 p. m. Dick Matthews — To confirm in my own mind , the concern of the Montessori School , the buffer is separated by that residential block right there on the bottom of that chart. Chairman Sigel — Right , owned by Mr. Monkemeyer. Dick Matthews - Right , he can build houses there , but he can 't extend that [correct] and that is how wide? Unknown — I think it' s about 450 feet from the zoning line . From the commercial zoning line to the property line of the school . Dick Matthews — Olay . So there' s 450 feet yet that is a buffer, actually, from the Montessori people but that could be occupied by private homes . Okay, thank you very much . ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . 36 Mr. Kanter — Is it okay if I ask you to describe that portion of the landscaping plan that addresses that eastern boundary . . . that might help , because there was actually a pretty detailed worked out landscaping plan that includes a buffer, which , for the most part , is actually to the east of the zoning line . So it' s still on Mr. Monkemeyer' s property but . . . it is part of the approved site plan , yes . Chairman Sigel — Okay, existing in the residential zone . Dick Matthews — Can only be residential. Mr. Bartolotti — These trees . . . a filtered zone here . . . 30-odd feet here . ., . so these trees will be screening this building . So we have . created 1 , 2 , 3 sets of tree lines which , from all views , from looking this way, you can 't really get a clear shot , view of the building . Harry Ellsworth — Are those existing trees , right there . Mr. Bartolotti — Yes . Our parcel goes all the way back to this . Chairman Sigel — Was there a specific distance specified by the Planning Board that this planting buffer zone extends into the residential zone . Mr. Bartolotti — What they asked us to do , and we kind of agree , that we would show . them some 3dimensional views once we got past this point, as to what that would actually look like . David Mountin — There are pines , really tall pines , 3040 footers , along East King . Will some of those stay or are all of _those going . Mr. Bartolotti — These are existing these are existing these are existing . So we are going to be pulling out where we need to get parking and we are trying to relocate as many of those as we can . Dick Matthews It' s going to be open . Mr. Bartolotti — Yes , until we get some new in there . But we are going to be adding a lot more trees than we are taking down . Mr. Kanter - And you had copies of the Planning Board resolution for preliminary site plan approval and condition ( u ) under site plan requires submission of prospective drawings or view simulation showing the view from the Montessori area through the proposed landscaping toward the proposed commercial building . Because the Planning Board had that same concern and wanted to make sure. that the view from the Montessori School would be appropriately buffered . Chairman Sigel — Okay, but they didn 't . . . ZBA 4-30=07 Pd . 37 Mr. Kanter — There is , actually, a landscaping plan sheet that the applicant did not bring and I don 't think that you got it as part of site plan . Harry Ellsworth — That' s part of site plan approval . That has nothing to do with us . Mr. Kanter — Yeah , although we do have . . . we have the large sheets here , if anyone wants to take a look at it but it did actually show a landscaped area to the east of that zoning line that I believe included some modification of the topography so there is some berming , some intermittent trees , shrubs and tall grasses in there . So , that was definitely a concern that the Planning Board has as well . Mr. Bartolotti — There will be plantings along that line here., instead . of ( inaudible ) . . . . so that wherever you go , you have a view, you can see though here , ( inaudible ) which is much nicer than just a hedgeline . We also wanted to create visual impact to the sight , soften it up , and that' s what . . . ( inaudible ) . Chairman Sigel — Do you have any signage other than what will be on the building itself? Mr. Bartolotti — There is one sign that . . . right here . Chairman Sigel — Okay. Any other questions? It seems well designed to me . Dick Matthews — My concern is outside , probably, the zone of our consideration . It' s just the increased traffic coming past that Montessori , School and there' s nothing here that I can discuss . Chairman Sigel - Well I think what the applicant said , based in theory, is true . That a neighborhood commercial zone like this is intended . to capture local . traffic that presumably would have gone further. At least in some cases would have gone by here . . This is a major corner. People who live in the Chase Farm area and those other developments , if they want to go to the City, they have to get there some how, and 96 is a pretty direct way, so they are all coming by here . Dick Matthews — There' s not much you can do about it . Montessori situated their school there and they split the campus and the children have to walk across the road . . . They did that . . . . I wouldn 't have done that . . . I can 't do anything about it . I want to see a business there and that' s all there is to it . There ' s nothing wrong with that . Mr. . Bartolotti - I think the time that we would be coming back through there , the school will be closed so that is an issue where ( inaudible ) the other issue is that the traffic is going by there to go to the City. We haven 't really increased that. So when you look at the flow patterns , it is not going to increase traffic during the times that the school is in session . ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . 38 Mr. Kanter — And there was a traffic impact analysis . The negative impact declaration statement . that you had in your packet indicated a number of topics that the Planning Board did review and there was a full . traffic impact study. It actually did look, to some degree , at the impact on the crosswalk at the Montessori School and. the relative increase in traffic was fairly minor, at that point . Most of it was at the 96B direction . Chairman Sigel — If there are no further questions or comments , I will move to ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB Resolution No. 2007 — 018 College Crossings Development Area Variances Tax Parcel 41 - 1 -3 . 2 April 30 , 2007 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by David Mountin . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeals of Evan Monkemeyer requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIV , Chapter 270- 128 , Article XIII , Chapters 270- 116 and 270- 122( C ) to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development , approximately a 19 , 644+/- gross interior building that will accommodate retail, commercial , and/or office tenants , associated parking , landscaping , sidewalks , and stormwater facilities . The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road and King Road East , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43- 1 -3 . 2 , Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones . The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone . The proposed building , at 40 feet tall will exceed the largest permited height which is 36 feet . In addition , that a proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach on the 50-foot buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides . With the following specific CONDITIONS : 1 . That the total interior square footage of the building not exceed 20 , 000- square feet , and 2 . That the height not exceed 40 . 5 feet , and 3 . That the encroachment into the buffers required by the Town Code be no greater than what is indicated on the plans submitted to this Board , and ZBA 4-30-07 Pg . 39 4 . That the entire project be constructed as indicated on the applicants plans submitted to this Board , and 5 . That no single tenant be allowed to occupy more than 10 , 000 square feet of the building . That this motion has the following : FINDINGS : 1 . That while the benefit to be achieved by the applicant can be done by other means possible , namely, building two or three separate buildings , that the one that the applicant proposed is also reasonable and is a better fit for the site that the applicant has , and 2 . That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the total square footage of the project would be allowed , just not in one single building , and 3 . That the requests are not substantial , the height being just four and a half feet above what is allowed in the total square footage being permitted on the site in separate buildings , and 4 . That there will be no adverse physical and environmental effects for the reasons stated in the negatived eterm i nation of environmental significance , and 5 . The alleged difficulty is not self-created , this is the portion of the applicants property that is in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and they are required to fit the development within those constraints , and 6 . For these reasons , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community. The vote on the motion was as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Levine , Matthews , Mountin NAYS : None The MOTION was carried . Chairman Sigel adjourned the meeting at 9 : 45 p . m . Approved by: 1 Chairman Kirk Sigel FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB Resolution No . 2007 — 018 College Crossings Development Area Variances Tax Parcel 431 - 1 -3 . 2 April 30 , 2007 MOTION made by Kirk Sigel , seconded by David Mountin . RESOLVED that this Board grants the appeals of Evan Monkemeyer requesting variances from the requirements of Article XIV, Chapter 270- 128 , Article XIII , Chapters 270- 116 and 270- 122 (C ) to be permitted to construct the College Crossings Development, approximately a 19 , 644 +/- gross square foot interior building that will accommodate retail , commercial , and/or office tenants , associated parking , landscaping , sidewalks , and stormwater facilities . The proposed development is located on the northeast corner of Danby Road and King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43- 1 -3 . 2 , Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones . The proposed commercial building will exceed the maximum permitted size of an individual building in a Neighborhood Commercial Zone . The proposed building , at 40 feet tall will exceed the largest permitted height which is 36 feet. In addition , that a proposed access driveways on the north and east sides of the site and a portion of the bank drive-thru canopy and support on the north side will encroach on the 50-foot buffer between the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and adjacent Residential Zones on those sides . With the following specific CONDITIONS : 1 . That the total interior square footage of the building not exceed 20 , 000 square feet, and 2 . That the height not exceed 40 . 5 feet, and 3 . That the encroachment into the buffers required by the Town Code be no greater than what is indicated on the plans submitted to this Board , and 4 . That the entire project be constructed as indicated on the applicant' s plans submitted to this Board , and 5 . That no single tenant be allowed to occupy more than 10 , 000 square feet of the building . ZB 2007 — 018 Page 2 That this motion has the following : FINDINGS : 1 . That while the benefit to be achieved by the applicant can be done by other means possible , namely, building two or three separate buildings , that the one that the applicant proposed is also reasonable and is a better fit for the site that the applicant has , and 2 . That an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will not take place given that this is an allowed use in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and the total square footage of the project would be allowed , just not in one single building , and 3 . That the requests are not substantial , the height being just four and a half feet above what is allowed and the total square footage being permitted on the site in separate buildings , and 4 . That there will be no adverse physical and environmental effects for the reasons stated in the negative determination of environmental significance , and 5 . The alleged difficulty is not self-created , this is the portion of the applicant's property that is in the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and they are required to fit the development within those constraints , and 6 . For these reasons , the benefit to the applicant does outweigh any detriment to the community . The vote on the motion was as follows : AYES : Sigel , Ellsworth , Levine , Matthews , Mountin NAYS : None The MOTION was carried . STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA: I , Paulette Neilsen , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy of the same adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca at a r ul Fetion Me 30th day of April 2007 . Deputy Town Clerk Town of Ithaca r s' COLLEGE CROSSING5STATEMENT TO THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS The applicant seeks up to three variances from the Board, one relating to the size of the building , another to the location of parking and a third regarding building height. . The neighborhood convenience project is on a site zoned for the proposed use . ti BUILDING SIZE The total size of the building on the larger than 4 acre site is permitted under the ordinance although building within the constraints of the ordinance would require the construction of the same footage in a number of different buildings . During the year that this project has been pending and discussed with the Planning Board both efficiencies of construction and energy use as well as planning suggestions have lead to suggestions that construction of the permitted footage within one structure would be the best solution from an aesthetic perspective, from a financial view point, from tenant usage , and from the needs for interior traffic patterns . We believe the planning board has encouraged development of the one structure solution rather than the construction of several permitted smziler structures . PARKING LOCATION For what ever reason, including oversight on the part of the developer ' s team, the possible requirement of the ordinance that parking be located no closer than 50 feet from a zoning boundary line was overlooked both by the developer and by Town Planning officials until last week. The proposed northerly driveway is approximately 21 feet of the separate tax parceled lot to the north. Significant energy, planning and expense has been devoted to developing parking which does not present a massive parking lot to the view from Rte 96 ; to providing a more attractive street scape than pavement associated with parking lots adjoining the highway; to the planning for an undergrci ind solution to the storm water run off requirements of the Town, as well as to laying out appropriate traffic patterns at this intersection . The lot to the north is owned by a related legal entity, also owned by Mr. Monkemeyer, and it is suggested that it does not fall within the ambit of a need to protect adjoining unrelated land owners from parking lots too close to the lot boundaries . Ft 2 170 _ 4 lo . The Ordinance requires that any "structure" be more than 50 feet from an adjoining residential zone . 270- 122 C ; the 10 foot screening zone is provided . To our surprise in the last day or two " structure" may now be claimed to include driveways . The Driveway entrance exit to 96 b has a 20 feet buffer zone from the residential zone north of the development and the bank kiosks are over 40 feet from the zone change to the multifamily residence to the north. On the East, again the driveway is approximately 6 feet from the zoning boundary to low density residential, although the next property owner to the east, the School is about 450 feet from the " structure" if driveways are structures . The applicant requests either a variance nor the distance , or in the alternative an interpretation that driveways are not "structures " within the meaning of the ordinance . BUILDING HEIGHT . The building is drawn at 40 feet, the ordinance maximum height is 36 feet; the lot is steeply sloped to the west . The difference in elevation between the boundary of the next east parcel and the state highway boundary is over 40 feet. Respectfully Submitted A� 3 Evan Monkemeyer FILE DATE ADOPTED RESOLUTION : PB Resolution No. 1007 - 035 College Crossings Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit Tax Parcel No. 434-3 .2 Corner of Danby Rd. & King Road East Town of Ithaca Planning Board, April 3, 2007 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS : 1 . This action is Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed College Crossings Development located on the northeast corner of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 434 - 3 .2 , Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones. The proposal is for a +/- 19,644 gross interior square foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail , commercial , and office space. The project will also include between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant occupancy) , landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments . Evan N . Monkemeyer, Owner/Applicant, Scott L. Freeman, Keplinger Freeman Associates and James M . Kerrigan, Attorney, Agents, and 2 . This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in coordinating the environmental review, has on April 3 , 2007, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application materials, and 3 . The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 3 , 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including College Crossings Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by RZ Engineering, PLLC, dated 1 /2/06 ; Traffic Impact Study for the proposed College Crossings, prepared by SRF . Associates, dated December 2006 ; and a set of site plan and architectural drawings, entitled, "College Crossings — Preliminary Site Plan Review", prepared by Dal Pos Architects, LLC, Keplinger Freeman Associates, and RZ Engineering, PLLC, all enclosed with Cover Sheet AO. 1 , dated 3/ 19/07 , which includes L-0 through L-9 (revised 3/5/07), PL- 1 and MP- 1 (revised 3/5/07), and A2 . 1 , A2 .2 , A2 . 3 and A3 . 3 (no date, date stamped received 3/20/07), and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED : 1 . That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed College Crossings development, located at the corner of Danby 'Road and King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43 - 1 -3 .2, Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones, to consist of a +/- 19,644 gross interior square foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail, commercial , and 0 office space, between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant occupancy), landscaping, lighting, stormwater facilities, sidewalks, and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments, as described in the College Crossings Draft Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) , prepared by RZ Engineering, PLLC, dated 1 /2/06 ; Traffic Impact Study for the proposed College Crossings, prepared by SRF Associates, dated December 2006 ; and a set of site plan and architectural drawings, entitled, "College Crossings - Preliminary Site Plan Review", prepared by Dal Pos Architects, LLC, Keplinger Freeman Associates, and RZ Engineering, PLLC, all enclosed with Cover Sheet AO . 1 , dated 3 / 19/07 , which includes L-0 through L-9 (revised 3/5/07), PL- 1 and MP- 1 (revised 3/5/07), and A2 . 1 , A2 .2, A2 .3 and A3 .3 (no date, date stamped received 3/20/07), subject to the following conditions to be accomplished prior to Final Site Plan Approval , unless otherwise noted : a. Obtaining any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, and b . Submission of evidence that the Ithaca City Fire Department has approved the adequacy of access to the site and building for fire and emergency service equipment, and c. Revision of the Layout Plan (L3 ) to show the location of proposed fire or other emergency zones, and the location of any fire hydrants on or accessible to the site, and d. Revision of. the Layout Plan (L3) to include at . least one off-street loading space or designated area with adequate area for truck parking and turnaround, as required in Section 270- 122 .A of the Town of Ithaca Code, and e. Revision of the Layout. Plan (L3 ) to include a sidewalk along the King Road East frontage of the project site and along the site access driveways; said sidewalk to line up with proposed future pedestrian, and submission of construction details of said sidewalks, to line up with . a proposed future pedestrian crosswalk(s) at the Route 96B/King Road East intersection, and submission of construction details of said sidewalks, and : f. Submission of plans showing the details of the proposed walkway from King Road East on the project site to the College Circle Apartments, including grading, base and surface materials, .dimensions, lighting, landscaping, trash receptacles., and other elements, and g. Submission of evidence of an easement or other agreement necessary to allow the construction and connection of the walkway for public use on the College Circle Apartments property, and h. Construction, maintenance and repairs of the above-referenced walkway shall be the responsibility of the applicant (Ithaca Estates Realty ' LLC) or subsequent owner. Submission 'of a draft maintenance agreement relating to the walkway shall be submitted to the Planning Board for review and approval , along with documentation that such walkway will be available for public use, and 2 i . Revision of the Layout Plan (L3 ) to include at least one bicycle rack, and, j . Revision of the lighting plan and lighting details to replace any proposed unshielded light fixtures with fully-shielded light fixtures so that no light rays are emitted by the installed fixture at angles above the horizontal plane, to minimize excessive glare and light trespass and to include lighting details for the Bank ATM, and k. Submission of all sign details, including illumination, to conform to all relevant sections of Chapter 221 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding "Signs", including that the total area of the freestanding sign shall not exceed 50 square -feet, and 1 . Submission of documentation from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) that the proposed stormwater management system, including the subsurface piped storage and the above-ground treatment, either complies with the . accepted water quality treatment practices in the NYS stormwater manual, or that the stormwater system has undergone the Regional SWPPP review and has received the necessary approval from DEC, and m. Submission of an operation and maintenance plan for the stormwater facilities, for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, and n. Submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of any building permit, and o . Revision of relevant site plans to include reference to a proposed pedestrian crosswalk(s) at the Route 9613/King Road East intersection, subject to the location and design requirements and specifications of the New York State Department of Transportation (DOT), and p. Submission of engineering details and construction specifications of all proposed structures, roads/driveways, water/sewer facilities, stormwater facilities and pond, and other improvements, including, but not limited to, specifications for water . . lines, including locations and descriptions of mains, valves, hydrants, appurtenances, etc. , and profiles and specifications for sanitary sewers and storm drainage facilities, including locations and descriptions of pipes, manholes, and other facilities, and q . Submission of all final site plan drawings, revised as required above, each having the name and seal of each registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared any of the site plan materials, including the topographic and boundary survey, drainage plans, etc. , and r. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies, or documentation that no such approvals are required prior to final site plan approval, and submission of documentation of all 3 necessary approvals from county, state, and/or federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy, and s . Submission of detailed building elevations, including colored renderings, illustrating the specific colors and materials of the building, and labeled with accurate dimensions of the building and submission of samples of building materials to be used, as well as submission of perspective drawings on Sheet AP 1 . 1 that were presented to the Planning Board at the April 3 , 2007 meeting, and t. Revision of sheet L3 to include details of the proposed fountain and stormwater pond, and u: Submission of perspective drawings or ,view simulation showing the view from the Montessori School area through the proposed landscaping toward the proposed commercial building, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 11 That the Planning Board hereby authorizes a reduction of required parking spaces by 20%, from the 150 parking required to the 120 parking spaces proposed, pursuant to Section 270-227 .A (2), finding that : a. The reduction in the number of parking spaces will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, . will leave adequate parking for all reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and b . Conditioned upon the revision of Layout Plan (L3 ) . to include the full 120 parking spaces shown, and C, The Planning Board hereby waives the additional conditions listed in Section 270- 227 .A (3 ) (a) through (e), and 2 . That the Planning Board hereby authorizes the placement of parking in the front or side yards of the project site, pursuant to Section 270-227 .13 (2) and (3 ), finding that: a. The particular use, nature, or location of the proposed project or building, requires that parking be in one of such yards ; b . It is not practicable to limit parking to areas outside the required yards; C, Parking in such yards does not significantly adversely ` affect adjacent properties or the character of the neighborhood; and d . No such parking will occur in any buffer areas, and 4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit for the College Crossings development to include a building larger than 7, 500 square feet (Section 270- 128 of the Town of Ithaca Code), subject to the granting of the necessary variance by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the building to exceed 10,000 square feet, and authorizing a bank with two drive-through lanes (Section 270- 127 of the Town of Ithaca Code), determining that : a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code and the specific purposes, are being promoted, and b , the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, and such use will fill a neighborhood or community need, and C, the proposed use and the location and design of proposed structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, and d, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, and e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination, or other public nuisance, than the operation of any permitted use in the zone in which the use is located, and f, community infrastructure and services are of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, and . g1 the proposed use, facility design, and site layout comply with all of the provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations of the Town, and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses is safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and i . the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and j . the lot area and access are sufficient for . the proposed use, and 5 k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices, and existing drainage ways are not altered ' in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and 1 , to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and 2 . That the Planning Board recommends to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals that any variance regarding the square footage of the building, limit the square footage occupied by any one tenancy to no more than 10,000 square feet. I A vote on the motion was as follows : AYES : Conneman, Hoffinann, Howe, Talty, and Wilcox NAYS : None Abstentions : None Absent : Thayer The motion was carried unanimously. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) SS : TOWN OF ITHACA, I , Paulette Neilsen , Deputy Town Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , New York , do hereby certify that the attached resolution is an exact copy he s me adopted by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca at a regular meetingAnXhe of Apri 2007 eputy own tferV Town of Ithaca 6 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AREA VARUN CIE CIIBI['1('IEIi81<A - (comj feted b-v A»jpHcannD Applicant: Gov,KEG , �S ��- Address of Property Concerning Appeal: ( b (s I `T��-vim �- �"C•1�1�ac.� Tax Map No.. 43 TEST : No area variance will be granted without a consideration by the Board of the following factors: 1 . Whether undesirable change w d be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties : Yes No Reasons : ZS 4E L _ E0 C T, ibc-AT00 AT Tn4 E F eJ E�rSr txz '4� N taus , ei'' 2. Whether ben it sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alternative to the variance: Yes No _/ Reasons : 1-44E TbT�c. NtQPd�QFQD A Uc>T TRZ .S 5T-Z.E z.T zr�S t.7c)v TO TOTAL S &yV0. 9t-E 5EFA t .4TH: C3v�tc +SAS E (� t.J� iTE � � A VA C r A6 CCQ t3a�Av.�sE OF = O(zr �E0 3 . Whether the requested variance is substantial : Yes No 5 PA.�c P_ Qv�33.t. Xuj.L,zPLE- was -cis S � �t Reasons : �a L 5 tir-E fi:)o ",C fie - = ovalcy — IU i-5 '—' E �1.�.E Tv►� L l� di �J OBE 1�v.T.t�.T.� H2.¢. F Sc.pE�� l•,,d ►J1J T�� b�TKA� 1`c�uLT� � ��.�.�.� 5 (H5 CttE 0t. \)*54Q of ORF4� 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? : Yes No _ Reasons : TAC A".2%% is AS e)!Qc c%Z� ZO tic.iJ P+J 11mk S 5:r�TE ;, Ti4 E 2 Tw�-1ttS 5 . Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created: Yes No _ Reasons :-" Lg% Tt•IS.S e3v..t..ekps�S L& O E t%43 S?Ace )tD U2 Revised 11/14/05 MAR 2 O 2007 + � w 1 ..� TOE M OF I T eiACA FiN ;3IT' EERING e 12-12-79 (3/99)-9c SEQR State Environmental Quality Review NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Project Number 0602570 Date : April 4 , 2007 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 ( State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law, The Town of Ithaca Planning Board as lead agency , has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant environmental , impact and a Draft Impact Statement will not be prepared . Name of Action : College Crossings SEQR Status : Type. 1 ✓❑ Unlisted ❑ Conditioned Negative Declaration : ❑ Yes ✓❑ No Description of Action : The proposed actions include Site Plan Approval , Special Permit , and Variances for the proposed College Crossings Development located on the northeast corner of Danby Road ( NYS Route 96B ) and King Road East intersection , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 43- 1 -3 .2 , Neighborhood Commercial and Low Density Residential Zones . The proposal is for a +/- 19 , 644 gross interior square foot building to accommodate up to eleven tenants for new retail , commercial , and office space . The project will also include between 105 and 120 +/- parking spaces (depending on tenant occupancy) , landscaping , lighting , stormwater facilities , sidewalks , and a new walkway connection to the College Circle Apartments . Evan N . Monkemeyer, Owner/Applicant, Scott L . Freeman , Keplinger Freeman Associates and James M . Kerrigan , Attorney , Agents . The proposed project is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act , 6 NYCRR Part 617 , and Town of Code , Chapter 148 — Environmental Quality Review , because the proposed action involves the construction of more than 100 parking spaces (Town of Ithaca Code , Section 148-5 ) . Location : ( Include street address and the name of the municipality/county . A location map of appropriate scale is also recommended . ) Northeast corner of NYS Route 96B and King Road East, Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , NY r 0 SEQR Negative Declaration Page 2 of 2 Reasons Supporting This Determination : ( See 617 .7(a )-(c) for requirements of this determination ; see 617. 7(d ) for Conditioned Negative Declaration ) please see attached If Conditioned Negative Declaration , provide on attachment the specific mitigation measures imposed , and identify comment period ( not less than 30 days from date of pubication In the ENB ) For Further Information : Contact Person : Jonathan Kanter, AICP , Director of Planning Address: 215 N . Tioga Street, Ithaca , NY 14850 Telephone Number: 607-273- 1747 For Type 1 Actions and Conditioned Negative Declarations , a Copy of this Notice is sent to : Chief Executive Officer , Town / E;titq / Yillege of Ithaca Other involved agencies ( If any) see attached Applicant ( If any) Environmental Notice Bulletin , Room 538 , 50 Wolf Road , Albany NY, 12233- 1750 (Type One Actions only) College Crossings April 4 , 2007 Northeast Corner of NYS Route 96B and King Road East, Ithaca, NY Attachment to Negative Declaration Form Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Reasons . Supporting This Determination : Based on review of the project at the Town of Ithaca Planning Board meeting on April 3 , 2007, a . negative determination of environmental significance has been made for the College Crossings Development by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, in accordance with. the requirements of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and Chapter 148 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca regarding Environmental Quality Review . Given the proposed details of the site plan, the site location and the character of surrounding uses, the existing character of the site, and the proposed uses and activities associated with the proposal, no significant adverse environmental impacts have been identified . The Planning Board, at the above-referenced meeting, reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant; Part 11 of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff; Draft . Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by RZ Engineering, PLLC, dated 1 /2/06 ; Traffic Impact Study for the proposed College Crossings; prepared by SRF Associates, dated December 2006 ; and a set of site plan and architectural drawings, entitled, "College Crossings — Preliminary Site Plan Review", prepared by Dal Pos Architects, LLC, Keplinger Freeman Associates, and RZ Engineering, PLLC, all enclosed with Cover Sheet AO . 1 , dated 3/19/07 , which includes L-0 through L-9 (revised 3 /5/07) , PL- 1 and MP- 1 (revised 3 /5/07), and A2 . 1 , A227 A2 . 3 and A3 . 3 (no date, date stamped received 3/20/07) , and other application materials prepared and submitted by the applicant. In particular, the following specific conclusions were reached by the Planning Board : 10 Surface or Groundwater Quality or Quantity : The applicant has prepared a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP , prepared by RZ Engineering, PLLC, dated 1 /2/06) to meet the requirements of the State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) under the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) and the Town of Ithaca. This SPDES permit system is part of the Federally-mandated program to control storm water runoff, and covers construction activities that disturb one or more acres of land . The SWPPP addresses runoff both during and after construction. It includes an on-site runoff collection system consisting of catch basins, a storm sewer collection system and a "Micro Pool Extended Detention Pond" to manage water quality volume and water quality treatment . It is designed to minimize potential impacts on water quality and to control the rate of runoff. (Refer to # 2 below for further discussion regarding the storm water management plan.) Page 1 of 7 College Crossings April 4. 2007 Northeast Corner of NYS Route 96B and King Road East, Ithaca, NY 2 . Drainage Flow or Patterns : Possible concerns include impacts during construction : increased runoff, loss of soil, and possible downstream flooding, and impact after construction of increased flow due to impervious surface area. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP — 1 /2/07) has been prepared by RZ Engineering, PLLC , which includes a drainage analysis, storm water management plan, , and sediment and erosion control plan. Site development will result in approximately 1 . 97 acres of impervious road, driveways and roof areas and 1 . 02 acres of lawn and landscaped area converted from a mix of meadow, woods and some previously developed/disturbed area (e. g. , a building foundation) . The SWPPP includes the usual storm water runoff computations, . which have been reviewed by the Engineering Department. The SWPPP proposes a detention basin/wet pond in the northwest corner of the parcel to address water quality and water quantity. The system includes - a supplemental underground storage unit to store the peak runoff volume for storm events up to a 100-year storm . The system also includes a fore bay for pre-treatment of runoff. Catch basins would be positioned within the parking and driveway areas to divert storm water to the proposed storm water control system. The storm water plan also includes diverting water from the vegetated area above the site around the developed area so that all of the watershed does not have to drain onto the paved area of the site and into the site storm water facilities . The SWPPP also contains erosion control measures to be implemented both during and after construction. [Note : It appears that the reason the storm water detention system includes underground storm tank structures is because of limited room on the site for a larger detention basin. Because such underground storage structures are not typical storm water features used in this area, special attention should be given to reviewing the benefits and possible problems of these structures, such as on- going maintenance and repairs . ] The SWPPP has been reviewed by the Town ' s Director of Engineering (memo from Dan Walker dated March 20, 2007) . The Director of Engineering indicates that the design is appropriate for the site, but that proper maintenance will be required, and that an operation and maintenance manual must be produced for approval by the Director of Engineering. In addition, preliminary comments from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) indicate that if the sub-surface storage does not . comply with the specifications in the State ' s Design Manual for sub-surface pipes storage, or if the above-ground treatment does not comply with water quality treatment practices in the Manual , then the , proposed storm water system would undergo a 60-day Regional SWPPP review, which would require approval by DEC . DEC indicated preliminary concerns with sub-surface systems that require potentially tearing up parking lots for major maintenance, and suggested the installation of observation ports and access manholes, and that a maintenance plan and agreement are especially important for these types of systems . Page 2 of 7 College Crossings April 4, 2007 Northeast Corner of NYS Route 96B and King Road East, Ithaca, NY A preliminary sedimentation and erosion control plan has been submitted by the applicant, which indicates that adequate erosion and sedimentation control measures can be established to minimize those impacts, both during and after construction. Based on the information above, impacts identified in this section can be considered to be small to moderate. 30 Transportation Systems . The property fronts on Danby Road/NYS Route 96B and King Road East, a county road. The site would be accessed by one curb cut on Route 96B , with one entrance lane and one exit lane, and one curb cut on King Road East with two exit lanes, one for right turns and one for left turns, and one . entrance lane. The site driveways would be stop sign controlled . The Layout Plan (L3 ) shows 105 parking spaces (the desired number by the applicant) with the potential for adding 15 additional spaces for a total of 120 spaces if required . The parking analysis provided by the applicant, however, assumes a very large number of restaurant seats as a worst case analysis, which is not likely to be the case. The applicant has provided these estimates for planning purposes, and parking numbers may change as tenants for the building are more specifically identified. . A bank with two drive-through lanes would be provided on the north side . of the building. . Two-way travel lanes are provided throughout the remainder of the site forming an internal perimeter drive. The applicants have submitted a Traffic Impact Study, prepared by SRF Associates (December 2006) . Turning movement counts were taken. at four intersections listed on page 7 of the Impact Study, including the site access drives , Danby Road/King Road, and King Road/Kings Way/Montessori School Drive. Counts were taken on April 12`h and 13 `h, 2006 at the study intersections . Trip generation rates were based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer' s Trip Generation, 7`h Edition. Table 1 on page 4 of the Impact Study summarizes the projected vehicle trips that would be generated during morning and afternoon peak hours . Table II on page 5 of the Impact Study factors in "pass-by trips" because some of the vehicles visiting the proposed development site would already be on the road traveling to other destinations as well . The traffic analysis incorporates background growth of 2 % per year, which includes the developments that are approved or under construction in the area (Country Inn & Suites Hotel , Holly Creek Development, Westview Subdivision, and Namgayal Monastery. The intersection capacity analysis results are shown in Table III on page 7 of the Impact Study, which indicates that all study intersections will operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS) under existing, background growth, and full development conditions. In summary, the .Impact Study indicates that the existing transportation network can adequately accommodate the projected traffic volumes and resulting impacts to the study area intersections, and does not recommend any off-site road improvements to accommodate the development. The Layout Plan (L3 ) shows two drive-through lanes for the bank portion of the building. Although the traffic study does not specifically address the drive-through facility, it appears that the site layout includes adequate stacking lanes and has appropriately Page 3 of 7 College Crossings April 4 , 2007 Northeast Corner of NYS Route 96B and King Road East, Ithaca, NY considered the circulation needs to accommodate the drive-through facility. The Neighborhood Commercial Zone does allow a bank or other financial institution with a drive-through with a maximum of two drive-through lanes served by tellers or automatic teller machines authorized by special permit. The zoning requirement for commercial zones regarding offices and banks, and retail space on a ground floor, . is one parking space for each 200 square feet of floor area, and one space per 500 square feet of retail space on other floors . The parking requirement for a restaurant is one space per 5 seats . A parking analysis provided by the applicant (on the Campus Location Plan — MP- 1 ) indicates for planning purposes that a total of up to 150 parking spaces would be required, as follows : 39 spaces for 7 , 740 square feet of office/bank space and 111 spaces for a 556 seat restaurant. While the proposed 105 spaces would not be adequate to meet . the parking requirement, as noted above, the estimate for 111 spaces for a 556 seat restaurant is very high, and is not likely to reflect the actual tenant space. The Planning Board has the authority to authorize a reduction in the required number of parking spaces by up to 20% (Town Code Section 270-227A.2), and that reduction would yield the need for 120 parking spaces . The Layout Plan (L3 ) shows the potential to have a total of 120 parking spaces, if required. As the tenant mix becomes known, the final parking plan can be adjusted to reflect the actual on-site requirements . i The Traffic Impact Study includes a section on pedestrian safety conditions . The Study indicates that the existing crosswalk at the Montessori School on King Road East provides adequate sight distance for motorists and pedestrians and should continue to be sufficient after the College Crossings is developed . The development plan also includes a new walkway connecting the development site with the College Circle Apartments to the north. The conceptual location for the walkway is shown on the "Campus Location Plan" (Sheet MP- 1 ), and Section C on Sheet L- 8 shows a conceptual cross-section of design of the walkway. This is a good concept to include in the site plan because such a walkway would serve a large population of students in College Circle, and in turn to Ithaca College through the connector road and walkway system between College Circle and the College. This will have a beneficial impact on transportation and circulation in the area. Details of the location, design, and details of the walkway, along with an agreement with Ithaca College/College Circle should be submitted as part of the Final Site Plan details . The Planning Board has also discussed the possible need for a sidewalk along the frontage of Danby Road and/or East King Road, as well as the possibility of adding a crosswalk at the intersection of Danby/King Roads . These were discussed at several Planning Board meetings, but have not been addressed in the applicant ' s materials . Both Route 96B and King Road East are designated in the draft Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan as recommended pedestrian corridors with the need for long-term pedestrian facility improvements . The Plan indicates that pedestrian improvements should be incorporated into both private and public improvement projects (such as the College Crossings development) as opportunities arise. The Town Board also adopted an interim Sidewalk Policy (October 2003 ) with criteria for when new sidewalks on existing roads should be included in new development projects. The Policy states that "If a new sidewalk would . Page 4 of 7 College Crossings April 4, 2007 Northeast Corner of NYS Route 96B and King Road East, Ithaca, NY result in a connection to existing sidewalks or sidewalk system planned by the Town of Ithaca, the Planning Board may require sidewalks as part of the development." Both Route 96B and King Road East are designated as planned pedestrian corridors with sidewalks or walkways needed in the long term. The applicant ' s traffic consultant has discussed with NYS DOT the possibility of a crosswalk at the Route 9613/King Road intersection to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings . The need for a crosswalk arises because of the new development that is occurring at this intersection, including College Crossings , Country Inn & Suites Hotel , and Holly Creek Development, combined with the existing development, including Sam Peter Furniture Store, Italian Carryout, Manley' s Mighty Mart and the vegetable and fruit stand . The issue of a crosswalk would appear to have to be a coordinated effort involving NYSDOT, the Town of Ithaca, and the commercial developments surrounding this intersection, rather than just the responsibility of one new developer. Based on the above, the traffic study adequately demonstrates that the projected volumes from the proposed site development as described above can be accommodated on . the surrounding road system without causing significant impacts . Pedestrian facilities should be incorporated into the site development as determined by the Planning Board to ensure continued and future pedestrian safety. Additional area-wide pedestrian improvements, such as a crosswalk at the Rt. 9613/King Road intersection, should be a coordinated effort with the Town, NYSDOT and commercial developments in the area. 4. Odors, Noise or Vibration : The project will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise level during construction . This will be a short-term impact limited to the period of project construction. There are no nearby residences that would be directly affected. Based on the information above, impacts identified in this section can be considered small to moderate. 5. Character of the Existing Community. The Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan ( 1993 ) designates the Route 9613/King Road intersection as "Commercial/General Business" surrounded by "Suburban Residential". The project site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (NC), as are several other parcels around the intersection. Adjacent and surrounding uses include Country Inn & Suites Hotel (under construction), Holly Creek . Development (under construction), Sam Peter Furniture Store, Italian Carryout, Manley' s Mighty Mart, the vegetable and fruit stand, Hayloft Apartments, and Montessori School . The College Circle Apartments and Ithaca College Campus are located north of the site. The development of this site with the proposed College Crossings development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Neighborhood Commercial zoning designation of this area of the Town . The proposed development of this site is also consistent with the economic development goals of.the Comprehensive Plan. Although the NC Zone requires that individual buildings not Page 5 of 7 e College Crossings April 4, 2007 Northeast Corner of NYS Route 96B and King Road East, Ithaca, NY be larger than 7 ,500 square feet ( 10,000 square feet by special permit), the Planning Board has reviewed the building plans for the 19 ,644 +/- square foot commercial building, and has indicated that the architecture of the proposed building is consistent with the intent of the NC Zone, and has indicated its intent to . support a requested variance to allow the single building to be larger than 10,000 square feet. In addition, the proposed bank with two drive-through lanes would be allowed by special permit only (Section 270- 127 Town of Ithaca Code) . Two other variances have been identified as being necessary, based on the plans provided by the applicant, including a height variance and a variance from the buffer requirements in Commercial Zones . Section 270- 116 of the Town of Ithaca Code includes a height limit in Commercial Zones of 38 feet in feet from the lowest interiorr grade or 36 feet from the lowest exterior grade. The proposed building is approximately 40 +/- feet in height from the finished floor level . to the highest peak of the roof, as scaled on Sheet A3 . 3 Exterior Elevations (the elevations are not labeled with dimensions) . Thus, . the 36-foot height from the lowest exterior elevation would be exceeded . In addition, Section 270- 122 . 0 of the Town of Ithaca Code requires a buffer in which "no structure shall be placed closer than 50 feet to any residence zone . . . " . "Structure" is defined in the Code (Section 270-5) as "Anything that is constructed or erected on the ground or upon another structure or building. " Structure" also includes anything that is constructed or erected underground and projects up to the ground surface or above, or anything that is constructed . or erected wholly underground other than utility lines, septic and water systems, or other similar types of underground construction wholly ancillary to a principal building or structure on the premises . "Structure" includes constructed parking spaces . The term "structure" also includes a building. " Multiple Residence (MR) and High Density Residential (HDR) Zones abut the NC-zoned site on the north. A Low Density Residential (LDR) Zone abuts the NC-zoned site on the east. Therefore, the 50 foot buffer requirement applies to the north and east sides of the development site, even though portions of the NC Zone boundary do not coincide with property boundaries . The access driveway on the north side of the site is situated within 22-23 . feet of the NC/MR/HDR Zone boundaries, and the northern support of the drive-through canopy is situated within 45 -46 feet of that Zone boundary, thus encroaching on the required buffer. The access drive on the east side of the site is situated within 15 feet of the NC/LDR Zone boundary, thus encroaching on the required buffer. Therefore, the applicant has submitted an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for variances from the Code provisions cited above. The EAF Part I r indicates that the proposed project will create a demand for community provided services . The Town of Ithaca contracts with the City of Ithaca Fire Department to provide fire protection services in the town. Existing ' fire protection services should be sufficient to handle demand generated by this project.. Approval for fire access to the site will need to be provided by the Fire Department prior to final approvals by the Planning Board . Public water and sewer service are available for connections at the site and should be adequate to serve the proposed development. Police services are provided by the County Sheriff' s Department and State Police. Based on the information above, impacts identified in this section can be considered to be small to moderate. Page 6 of 7 • College Crossings April 4, 2007 Northeast Comer of NYS Route 96B and King Road East, Ithaca, NY This Notice is being distributed to : Involved Agencies : Denise M . Sheehan, Commissioner, N .Y. S . Department of Environmental Conservation Kenneth Lynch, Director, Region 7 , N .Y . S . Department of Environmental Conservation Janis M : Gross, Associate Transportation Analyst, NYS ' Dept. of Transportation Edward C . Marx, Commissioner, Tompkins County Depts . of Planning and Public Works Bill Sczesny, Tompkins County Highway Manager John M . Andersson, Tompkins County Department of Health Kirk Sigel , Chair, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Diane Conneman, Chair, Town of Ithaca Conservation Board Others : Catherine Valentino, Supervisor, Town of Ithaca Michael K. Barylski , NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation — Cortland Office Stan Birchenough, Resident Engineer, NYS Department of Transportation, Region 3 Joseph Turcotte, Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit Brian Wilbur, Fire Chief, City of Ithaca Fire Department. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Evan N . Monkemeyer, Owner James M . Kerrigan, Attorney Scott L. Freeman, R. L. A . , Keplinger Freeman Associates Amy Bloss, Dal Pos Architects Fred T . Wilcox III, Chair, Town of Ithaca Planning Board Environmental Notice Bulletin Page 7of7 ITO" OF ITHACA [( 1214iJ5 N. Tioga Street, ITHACA, N. Y. 14850 tMAR 2WRZNVK 273-'„1 21 ENGINEERING 273-1747 PLANNING 273-1747 BUILDING AND ZONING 273-1783 HIGHWAY (Roads, Parks & Trails, Water & Sewer) 273-1656 FAX (607) 273- 1704 TO VN CF I I;ACA PLAR �' If'•< t�ri; ,,,i, i:i^; Application-fo pearance m front of the Zonmg Board of Appeals Fee $ 100 For Office Use"Only For once� , ` use only ° •. C K ALL THAT APPLY property is located .w thln or adjacent to Dare Rece,�ea . C3 7 i V 11 V Area Variance COUtlty Ag D1Stnct Cash or Check No: , . < . Use Variance UNA Sign Variance Zoning Distndt Forest Home Sprinkler Variance Historical Distract Special Approval Requesting an appearance to be allowed to Ceou�zGE at ( O(o ( bAt�t `f PJ!)o , Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. Lk 3 — — 3 '� , as shown �-C-- on the accompanying application and/or plans or other supporting documents, under Article(s) , Section(s) ; of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, the UNDERSIGNED respectfully submits this Application Form. A description of the practical difficulties and unnessary hardship and/or the Special Approval authorization request is as follows: (Additional sheets may be attached as necessary.) �,�Z�r, �—S �Cz-e� ,, eSF' .� c.,�.zt.aq�.� �� ►C..,Au.� 1� .�� By filing this application, I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals or staff to enter my property to inspect in connection with a 'catio ,s ,(� Z, 2 ( O7 Signature of Owner/Appellant: v Dal • l Signature of Appellant/Agent Date : Print Name Here GYAt,4 tL Iy J<, "&- C IZ- Home Telephone Number ��) 2� 3 -` 380 Work Telephone Number C9a7 Z7 3 _4 300 NOTE: If construction of work in accordance with any variances given does not commence within 18 months, the variance will cxWm. Your attendance at the meeting is strongly advised. Revised 11 / 14/05 1 TOWN OF ITHACA Buiiding/Zoning Department 21 5 N . Tio a Street oPITMEY Bowls g 0 00 0 [Ml/ 0000390 Ithaca, New York 14850 02 1 P Y 0002199116 APR 20 2007 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 14850 \c>i33 Q nX> 1 ! ; l D -• i r , I APR 252007 ` Sam and Ruth Peter 1111 Danby Road �-°— ITHACA Ithaca, NY 14850 BUI _DiNG /ZO-Ni , G PETEiii * ;4148503282 iA05- 0 & -- 0 '4 / 23 / 07-- -- - ' - _ _ RETURN TO SENDER T NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER TOWN OF ITHACA 411 Building/Zoning Department o — d e�a N===== P1Ygev e®WE 215 N . Tioga Street ' O ° 0 Ithaca, New York 14850 02 1P ��� ° �� 6 0002199116 APR 06 2007 MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 14850 Sam and Ruth Peter 111 I Danby Road Ithaca, NY 14850 X 146. N.I.. . 1 ' At7S C - . a. o 04/ 09 / 07 FORWARD TIHE EXP. . RT.N TO SEND PETEW RUTH 10£33 DANBY RD ITHACA NY 14950 - 9401 RETURN TO SENDER _ _ 1405004257,. . MiEN Site Location for 1061 Danby Road 0 c� o n ■ C G�pR - i 1061 •■ tii 0 123 1 1070 p 0 0 0 1� p 0 - - - - � 128 p 128 X10 1 J1 132 • 0 1143 107 111 1176 1 Town Parcels LI 5 LR 123 ® 1j� Buildings M MDR 133 UNA J MHP Zoning MR _ AG E71 NC ' 0 � CC F-- l P PC p .. I - HDR L VFR Roads N 141 LC Forest LDR Home District 47 GRADING,DRAINAGE&UTILITY CONSTRUCTION NOTES pos DAL Pos ARcHffEcTs.LLc IIEET� M 15T LN11 AND GRACE i 101 N.CLINTON STREET,SUITE 300 SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 VERIFY ENISING NVERTS FROR TO PIFE INSTALLATION.CONNECT TELEPHONE"7F, PROPOSED FIFS TO MSTM STRUCTUSE i[IT4 UATERTIGNT FAX ONE 13151 422-0201 CONNECTION, 13 5)422-0776 @ CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE GAS LINE MTALLATIOT[JJM4 NTBEG K E P L G INSTALL 4'IIIATEft SERVICE.REFER TO FLUIEfN3�IIECWANICAL CIN ER FlAvId fRi AAN ;3 DRAWNGS L\mVm MOCIAIES w NV.IN-055256 1 1 Q "TALL SANITARY LINE REFER TO FLUTM� M�ICAL LAWAK AKITTECUl&LA PIANNINS FES WIN. DRAWINGS FOR CONNECTICNI AT BUILDING W.Off Iti . - ' r" IS mm CONTRACTOR TCCODFZ��TEELECrRCLMMTA-LATIMW� NONE (YIS)WWO W:01944W901 FES WSEDL NY,PUT-"S cl RZENLA90%PUC 40 04�-M4� 20--0-uce REFER TO F,LuTiolm CRAVINGS,PROVIDE LTE coNNScTIONl INTO INAGE EASEIIEW EXISTING SANITART LINE.COO INSTALLATION UN ICUN OF ST ST 'ST TIACA. NE&CONNECTION.LOCATION OF CORED HOLE I.W 111111=11IIIIIIIIINIP II—AT T-OF­ PUT 1, low III DRAM STOW LIFE PETER TO IIECIANICAL DFI MR COORDINATE WATER SERVICE INSTALLATION U114 TaTF<N5 CP.NfTT III 5AN.-EII�% L N6 POLE LOCATIONS�PIT IT."FOR INFORTLATIM ONLY. C2 EX STAN 220 SAN Nv.H- W.CUT MEW SMILE lEAD LJTFNAIW AND POLE..'?MNTM(EIGHT.F09M TO "I.OUT LICITNIS ANALYSIS PLAN a�ELECTRICAL PRAWNS SLA mil kKiNUAY�FERT'IfT FIRM TO COTSTRJCTION. FRCFI�PUT CONTRACTOR TO OWAN COTINITY KYADD.T NOTE DELETED. 24'M�m FEB @ INSTALL PURE,ATOP FER WTER NOTES A DETA18, WATER FLU4,4 CAF. m I WATER WZR CROSSING,NSTALL PER DETAIL INSTALL RODENT SCREEN AT END OF�DRAM FOND DFAN NOTE PeLBTEP WSOD'S Q IM 19 @ COI COAE�l�TCExIST��ARrMMMOI-�CF�EAM 5ANITARr FLOU TRENCH JT14N MANACLE AS RE=IRED TO AL-OU FREE FILM OF NEW SUER TO EXISTING IAN SM DETAIL----- u 31 Fri-M�W INV.OUT,Mll TC @ SAN[lARl`PLUS,CAF`AND�FER SANITARY DETAILS AND NOTE5. IM/ O, INSTALLGATE VALVE RIM Aft OFF&Tel TO GRAPE GATE VALVE SHALL REMAN CLOSED AT INV.OUT M4,60 A ALL TIMES E)CEFT PUFING rOW I�OFIERNTIONS.SEE PETAL MIT mSIDO YI CONNECT NEW PRANAGE PIPE AND END SECTION TO END OF IXISTNG FIfE. MIT NOIS OUT-M CORE DRILL OR SAW CUT HOLE FOR CPNW�OF PROrOSED 24• O fl 11 11 M`QNV mm TO Tod STO�TIER IANWOLE AFTER CONNECTIM NEV INV.OUT-M45S 10 F`F`_-SHALL BE BRICKED AND 111ORTAXIED INTO PLACE LEAVING NO Lu T TC GAF'SORVOIDS Aj �ASLJE OF CONNECTION.A NEW OTFUCTURE WALL SITE III r'® PROR 3E D BUILDING 002 m ■ FIFE 1(72.00 GENERAL NOTE IN 61 m*"WR C 3" CUTT Maw L TOPOGRAIIII41C AND UTI MY W�RIATION TAKEN PRW SUI�SY ENTITLED 9) IS DEED FL FOR EVAN N. TO ER ULLIATIS W4 ED LAND uj SURETORS LMERF�Ool_NED1 TOW DATED IARD4 2M OIJNIER AND ARCNTTECT DO NOT CONFIRI TIiE OR ACCURADT al�vuCN EKAMNATIO,t 0 F- wx CONTRACTOR Is FOR,14OF'ous" AND a A.1 ID,!5,Hla,UWACE AND, CONDITIONS CRCCTM THE NATURE-SCOFF,Calf-LEXTY AND COST a TIE CONTRACT DS, 1..CUT ONLY 11 PAVING.D.REITIOVAL L.TO Do to RXILIDE ANY ADJOINING,BROKEN OR DETERIORATING PAVING,CAREFUL.-Y CIJI u.j r INS, RESIOVE,STODFPH-E AND FIRCIIECT ANY ffEM5 NOTED FOR SALVAGE.ALL 0. Z DEICILMON SUBBLE,CEDWS AND EXCE TOILS TO BE FROMMY RCTICvED FT IS 811E UNLESS OTWISUISE NOTED.STRIP AND STOCKPILE SUFFICIENT�ISTW.ORGlc TOPSOILS FOR RIESF AND O Ca, ON DISTURSED AND REGRADED AREAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN LAUN AND w CUT FOR REPAIR OF DISTURBED EXISTNG LAJ,N!5 TO REITIAK STOCKFI ALL /J MATERIALS N�L TIONS UATHOUT 111119043"IM OTHER CONTRACTOR WOW,�_TRAFFIC OR DRAINAGE MIT 4.ALL FL_aACKFlLL OF EXCAVAT'"AND VOCS RESILTING FROM REMOVALS AND RELATED JORIC INTER NEW OR PAVING, AREAS,SIIALI.ONLY SE COARSE ASGII FILL LATERAL 'PROUG"'Y TO 9 OF THE STANDARD PROOTCfk DENSITY. DIPS 5.�ALL LME$AND PIFFROVEIIENTS ON AND ADJOINING THE FNOFERTY`WHICH ARE NOT SFEC CALLY CeNrFEP FOR W-10VAL VERIFY TRY.IN "65 C�tAl 'T FIE I r LOCATIONS,AND DEPTI45 OF ALL SEMRFADE UTILITIES TO RETAIN MOR TO �E CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY W.N.- ANY ADJACENT RSTlOvAL AND ID AvATION WOW, ALL DIMESION AT THE SITE MID IN,OUT-M.� IF CNPT_Y NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT 6,NOT-01INER ImDI Y I ANTBUFFACE OR SAMURFACE CC149-ICIS WRING OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR U14040M CON AFE ENCOLINTERED N ORDER TO PALE MSANW AD OF F NECESSARI*. REMSIONS rLr_l cl,111 �d�0 INV.CUT-"u. AN cz�s :2 F r4) 10 mx 7 QBQE INLET 3 \L2�/HUT TV OWLZ DVDIT 75 GR ------------ EAST DRAM BY. SUF/A CHECKED BY. SLIF PROJ,NO.: - DI 04 DIM JlIl* SO DAM DEC.2" W`1.15 1, '111111% N,IN--10 NY IN- •SIT SCALE. AS NOTED W.OUT-MID W.=I MIZO FES MOD'D TITLE.. FES -- =ZR GRADING - ------- --190 PLAN i 8T0QM PIPE BEDDING (ST) 1 GRADING PL Nul TV MAU DZIT0.011A 0 20 40 6PLAN L 2 SCALE IN FEET I COLLEGE CONNECTOR PATH LAYOUT CONSTRUCTION NOTES dal ■, os ' i / \ J I I ❑j Y WDE PAMiED STOP BAR C/ IIIIIL-T�IIIII �/ • ' ❑j 4-wDE PANTED LMEs,nrrPJ. DAL POs ARCHRECTS.LLC ■ ECE)D7 wALKWAY TO ITMAfi COLLEGE 101 N.USE,TON STREET.BL1 300 ■ OI ER TO OBTAN APPROVAL LETTER O NSTALL 6'LONG BENCH 51M FURNIS,POLDER LOADED EF. As TELE LISEE NEW YORK 13202 ■ IL ; Dp PRDM COLLEGE IWIFALTVED BT DIfiOR 617E g1FNI5HRYd SOPPLED BT EF. FAX E 131 bl 422-O7�A BLHAEITZER 555-%4-713L ■ -_-- ' ifYl WALK - vALY _ - K ❑ POPOIWER COATED Cd�EN A5 N441FACTN�D BT DUTM S n• h/•1 F 'ENT i PAVOMNT I FLIRNI N56 51A-PL,EO Br U.SC41EITZER 5Eb-%a213E K I P I N 6 E R ,-d S78"5f 70-E 347]3" -- -- ___ I _ _ , , -i -a •-- -- ]O•-m�.WDE ❑5 GGAATL ANTE IWL�BPWWA�CE PHLAATTE SOJPPm OOP7%)N�A6m A RS 0 f S f EN I -- 0' DRAINAGE EASEYIENi IViUFAOTIED BY DIA'IOR 9ttE R1R.ISHMGB SUPPLIED BT EF. IdIASEdPE d0.CH 1EMflE 8 O PIMH NG E __ }. {; OONUEITIER SA5-%a-1T3L 't .7.',. J 61N ILT ALA•WII AI,Oii 11TWIAE XEW)®(IIDA I .�, D E © WNSTALL STODONLED LIGHT POLE RIOIE 061 NS79B0 iAk 0151 N519BI +T ~ -- -- -- -- -- -- --- - - 1 ❑1 WALL LKJIT POLE- R_7 illfe7 RIC _ �� A O S T3)4•ITOE PANTED LMES.D'ON OENMR MTV" O �- T �- O - PAVETBR C�&AA° LK • ❑ M p4®mI 1 � - Xe� - QROSPIL4LK J qC CIAeBNG pER pf`ECA9T PAVERS DETAIL DSI :RI _- C411DERAIL __ ❑9 BRI Y O CONTRACTOR TO COORDNATE TRMSFORER INSTALLATION IM 1 -► Q -► _________ r ------, �� � O NATIONAL GRID.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE IOkW'CONCRETE PAD. • , !''-_•___-_---` WALK j « II NSTALL WOW DEIX ROSH wiH TOP OF RETAMRG PALL AApfALT I ; I/ _ i I ❑R 4'WDE.ILMIIE PANTED LIES A l5'TO PAWNG LIE& I-AVOW I �� ! � I rr�--��. �� - - Ca1c�TE I ,. I• `•`` AIJIYa ... OJWAIIALK - WALK TOyD' O 4•WDE.IWIIE PANID LRE I !�O-` LAYOUT • i \•`, f ❑N PANTED UMVERSAL V1.YDICAP SYPBO' } .° ! i i �''I ` '`' I �� ERNn� SIGN SCHEDULE ,�,; - Nw M2E NTADO.i.11liLD.Xb. I , „ _ ,�; IFr .Ifi,PLATE YUIlITNS M.,DO41OR I 72'.r ■ O 1T ( I I —_�i I i 5 - J® 67 L - n ',, I XDB� X85BbID °•x w eIw Xq P4-M ■ ` TOR 8 I 5A VY VIYOIfM 14 M, cDL°RA �� ; 11 l ,I 4 'F i 1 ; W 5R O !; ! ; ��_-- ,, , �:;- ��\�; LOT#2-54 SPACES ITl•■0. ca,•E+as, a■o ! '_ - �' _ �� (+4 IF REQUIRED) OORO 3ONO B Bl NT RGNNPR-DL '�'■ry .'_____�-- __—__ --_.., `�...- -. BABI BLAIX TIXITE%T T • B /J III��� O _ pAVBQTT SIR ,"', 1 3 BLAac Ba®ER A D J �. -- a . nn MVIJ - NO P4A�A5 O'X w r.—I ® re ((�� BR�+ ■ Par �L I ��\� © MO �� C�ITIERTE RLa IIXf ND DL1AER l]�/� I L ^�❑ _—__ - IO 11J PARLY °•%M• MYle Itl•- ��./U Q „" '`❑ T ;'e PROPO D BUILDING z D AW LU DRS WRE BaO FdfO. 0 ❑ INI°O ANT 1IE T-w HT. I�V/'!/111 � O I— m 2I'-0' A , F FE 1 72.00 °R 5 T1E fED DR 40 BD AER v v _. n MJ D (� ■ J lJ _. I IBI.4' --1 �'a =O'a WO ]3•a X1 II.O' ]a'-0• )\E' {�� eTCr erfi Ta•%u• errr Irs Te.e ��/1(..�IOy��y 1`-^ Y °� � I O—� ��'_ _. i� I I O O STOP Te NT. LDLQ�TED BAL7�d.�,L,. u A! _; rZ YXYiE TDC 4VD BOWER Q � w NGN � , , � ■ __. A 1 1 S t✓� O = _... I A D 5R r t Iegi T01R/A1C COMIiJL NW OETYL fOR WTN J.ATIM a� �//}}` ■ +— 1 1 Au XvuATDXrr er+is eNAU casom ro TIE I•DMT ald£Ni Cdl V Q - .— L T® J -: NYADQT.TWALIL T IIIIQdi iPAAiG COMfGL DEVKE° V �p�p � � Z ■ - ` t0 L -- ® -- I - '° "_. (+2) m PARKING SCENARIO luul MJ - I l ❑o--vim' tl0 POD51E7LE P.NMING SPACED,BItT GW CHMY.E DIJE 70 FINAL I DT' __ _ 5 ��_ , —. _ TEWWT OCCUPANCT. ■ t D -` i' '- - e p PA - BIKE LANE(NOT SHOWN) ■ p WIDEN DRNE FROM 24'TO 27'TO ACCOMMODATE � I �°. _ ! R �,;�` BIKE LANE FROM KINGS RD EAST TO COLLEGE � � ■ P 7 +1 4 e2M'_m. ' CONNECTOR PATH. SR R L--- e® -J -e• 'EyLe• Krewv.eawc 0 __-._. _....t --... .. C1FB pp a rt. R DIYESON5 AT MEE SIEAND ',E wn,T P MPTLY NOTIFY THE ARMTECT YY IN MTI11N0 OF ANY DISCREPANOES �•. : PA B� T#1 -51 SPACES p L _ _ _ e k•eauee:'eeeava.en �l-____________ • I SR �x •�m� 9QIS (+11 IF REQUIRED) p= °D= .` D, �. m. N /+5 ••` R ( ) T E xaL�P•m meAe1 ..Ae B e .. 18 PAVF2'B!i '� .eNro.aT��NNaAxn.M �eTXMA.L..�ea,AN�,.�N.M� IIRu'm A NmN.A✓ o.woxAs PARKING COUNT •N1'. 141 ' — T�TAL-105_SPACES(DESIRED COUNT) •• — • n TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGN — TOTAL 112aSRACES IF-REQUIRED • ' L' "°T°'� �`°" K I IN G p O D - ���''" ASKANT •` wE mocR m�luTtw A A SYJ PAVHEM • .. _ _ � - :�Ero�RI.�R E ` `I ` v.R�dea rLAa •`•��..� DRAMN BY: S l A I+',I _ ��``4"\� CHED(ED BY: ELF -'"'^`_ C Asm oa.m eTm eee evlam PROD.NO.: �� ,,,� DATE DEG 2°05 /^� TITLE.: AS NOTED / \ ��"N� nDLe — D uoenmeen Mesw.ce 0 20 40 60 cno■ LAYOCIT SCALE IN FEET N a z T .L BOLLARD(SB) PLAI`I K L 3 � OBlo1606A W L 3 s,�o dal pos Du Pas ARCHITECIS.LLC lw NQ S1 l&.300 ® SInACU3E. (3 6)M 13202 IEIEPHONE f315)422-0201 FA% IJ15)d22-0]Jh ---- --------® ------- ----I PROGRESS PRINT -- — wrwnmcmr<aox I � I e b I Ll I I I I I 1 I I I I I I b I I 1 I I I n TENANT 1 o nn nnn O I 1 nnn I I U u I I I I I ° I I a r— -- ----� L--- --- —� D° (� 0 b b b fNAN STAIR T 3 I —iJ _1J I ELEVI I ,re mm.nu. suu TENANT 2 TENANT Q TENANT 5 TENANT 6 TENANT 5 I _ 3O b I � I I I I — I— STAIR TENANT 4 - I „ I z - ul L b I r -=i __ b I I I 1 b I b I I I L____ ____________________ ____J L---- ___—J L--__ __—__—_--__—__—_--__ ____J I I I � 1 _____________________ nne. '.r_ra FIRST FLOOR PLAN - 4 a � e �LWELOp EUW A2.1 O dal pos < DAL Pas ARCHOECTS,LLC 101 K CLM A 51 9,5uu 300 SttfPLL ,NFN VORK 13202 r------------------------------ IEPHON 13151 422-0201 fA% 13151422-0776 I I I I 1 I PROGRESS PRINT I I wJwanmremcro. I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I ?n I I v(J I I I I I I c7 VO I I CS nnnn nnnQnnn Do Qo I nnn I I IJ I _ J L_________ IIJ n p I I I I nnn ' I I p I I p I L I �J ------ ELEV STAIR ------------ I I I I I I I I I TENANT 11 TENANT 10 0, AT°V I I z® I I �urnr wlsr nE I - I I I I I - I h I I I - I I _ STAIR I I ' - I ' I j - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I y I I w 1 I 1 _______________________� 0 nnr SECOND FLOOR y PLAN a � 6 A2.2 X23 SC.Vf:IA'-I'P dal pos Da.Pos ARCHITECTS.uc 101 N.ClN10N MES1,3UIE 300 SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13702 TElEP11ONE 1315)E22-0701 FM 1315)422.0776 Full! 1111 1111 1111 1111 11 1111 PROGRESS PRINT EAST ELEVATION Tf I� Q OoQo 111 11 Q a � O NORTH ATION ^� .............. ........... Vo 61w�1fiFv ®® ®® ®® ®® OF Irx I 1111 1111 11 1111 O SOUTN ELEVATION(KING ROAD EAST) rwi w: nlle 1 1 1 EXTERIOR 1111 1111 1111 1111 1111 ELEVATIONs ....I-T r. a � >! o W,re ES,T,E�LEVATON(NYS ROUTE 968) A3.3 FIM TOWW OF MIACA TOWN OF �+. ko � FINAL O R ZONI G DI l q G `� OF APPEALS —N a 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 RIFE F1 NAB. 10" CY ffMC TOWN OF ITHACA ct�ki�o ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 13 , 1997 PRESENT: David Stotz, Chairman ; Hang 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 Cornell would create access to the overflow parking lot with a new walkway and a break in the fence to the field . 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 Attomey 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 leamed 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 . 03-1 of the TOWN OF U ACA 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 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 . Mr. Roswick said displays would be along the road and the front of the building to show people what the garden center has . 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 . 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 TTHACA 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 . Attomey Kluscik asked if it were possible to have the resolution as approved recounted . Attomey Bamey said in about a week. Attorney Kluscik said they are concemed 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 . rLk Deborah A . Kelley , Keyboard Specialist/Minutes ecorder David Stotz, hai an I ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Russo's Garden Center Northeast Corner, Intersection of Danbv and King Road Planning Board, August 5, 1997 MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by James Ainslie : WHEREAS : 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and further, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed construction of a retail garden center proposed to consist of a 4,320± square foot store (30' X 144 ' ) and 6,048 square feet of greenhouse space (6 greenhouses @ 2 FX 48 ' square feet each), outside storage and display areas, parking and other appurtenances, to be located at 1059 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 43 - 1 -3 .2, Business " C " District. Evan Monkemeyer, Owner; Terrance Roswick, Agent . 2 . This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3 . The Planning Board, on August 5 , 1997 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant. a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Staff, a preliminary site plan entitled " Russo ' s Garden Center" , dated May 20, 1997, revised 6/ 12/97, 6/ 13 /97, and 6/21 /97, prepared by Cornerstone Site Planners, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Cornell, Bell, Kenerson. NAYS - None. The Motion was declared to be carried unanimoush7 Karen McGuire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca . M ry Br y t, Adniinisol0artive Secretary. ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Russo's Garden Center Northeast Corner, Intersection of Danby and King Road Planning Board, August 5, 1997 MOTION by Candace Cornell, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: 1 . This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and further, a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed construction of a retail garden center proposed to consist of a 4,320± square foot store (30' X 144') and 6,048 square feet of greenhouse space (6 greenhouses @ 21 'X 48 ' square feet each), outside storage and display areas, parking and other appurtenances, to be located at 1059 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No 43-1 -3 . 2, Business "C " District. Evan Monkemeyer, Owner; Terrance Roswick, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on August 5, 1997, made a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to Site Plan Approval, and 3 . The Planning Board, on August 5, 1997 has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Staff, a preliminary site plan entitled "Russo' s Garden Center", dated May 20, 1997, revised 6/ 12/ 97, 6/ 13/ 97, and 6/ 21 / 97, prepared by Cornerstone Site Planners, and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1 . That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval as shown on the preliminary site plan labeled " Russo's Garden Center", dated May 20, 1997, revised 6/ 12/ 97, 6/ 13/ 97, and 6/ 21 / 97, prepared by Cornerstone Site Planners, and additional application materials subject to the following conditions, all to be submitted prior to final site plan approval: a. Applicant to submit a revised site plan which shows an area designated for truck loading/ unloading with appropriate turning radius, the height of the proposed flag poles, the construction materials of all proposed parking areas and access drives, a planting schedule, and the location of handicapped parking. b. Revised site plan to show additional buffer/ landscape plantings, acceptable to the Director of Planning in the area east of the proposed garden center, between the project area and the Montessori School . ADOPTED RESOLUTION : Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Russo ' s Garden Center Northeast Corner, Intersection of Danbv and King Road Planning Board, August 5, 1997 C , Revised site plan to show the elimination of the proposed Port-A-Jon facility, to be replaced with a more permanent comfort facility for public use, or indication that comfort facilities for public use are to be included in the garden center building . d. That any required variances be obtained from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals . e. The estimated cost of improvements . f. The final site plan be revised to limit the use of the two circular areas on the north to picnic tables and chairs only instead of a chicken barbecue area and ice cream garden, without prejudice to the applicant to later apply for a modified site plan if he be so advised to have indoor facilities, and subject to the further condition that the three trailers in the Northeast corner shall be removed from the property three years from the date the first certificate of occupancy is issued or, if earlier, by August 5 , 2002 . AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED : 1 . That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following : a, there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant; b, the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project; C . the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca. 2 . That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffman, Kenerson, Ainslie, Bell, Cornell . NAYS - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . � cW � q Karen McGuire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Mary Bryant Admi ' rative Sec tary . T71Town Assigned Project ID Number Rev . 10 / 90 Town of Ithaca Environmental Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Located in the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County ONLY PART I - Project Information ( To be completed by Applicant or Project Sponsor ) F1 . Applicant / Sponsor : 2Project Name : �Precise Location (Street Address and Road Intersections , prominent landmarks, etc . or provide mapp : ( E � (V�v Tax Parcel Number : L 4 . Is Proposed Action : NEW � EXPANSION Q MOD IFICATION / ALTER ATiON 5 . Describe Project Briefly ( include project purpose, present land use , current and future construction plans , and other relevant items) : ( Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary to adequately describe the proposed project . ) 6 . Amount of Land Affected : Initially (0-5 yrs) % Acres (6- 10 yrs) Acres ( > 10 yrs) Acres ! 7 . How is the Land Zoned Presently ? S . Will proposed action comply with existing zoning or other existing land use restrictions ? YESt NO if no , describe conflict briefly : OY \ I . I 9 . Will proposed action lead to a request for new : I i Public Road ? YES ❑ NO Public Water ? YES NO Public Sewer ? YES [:] NO \/ 1 Wha / is the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project ? Residential Q Commercial Industrial Agriculture / Park /Forest /Open Space 6Ther ,le escribe : 1 ^ ( C, r ,� 'i b k' 1 1 . Does pro used action involve a permit , approv or funding , now or ultimately from any other governmental agency (Federal , State , Local) ? YES NO if yes , list agency name and permit /approval /funding : 12 . Does anti aspect of the proposed action have a currently valid permit or approval ? YES F] NO M If yes , list agency name and permit /approval . Also , state whether that permit /approval will require modification . 1 CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE I Applicant /Sponsor Name (Print or Type) : L, A i� � � t� �`, � . Signature : \ ' I 1 ^�� L• ��L =:.. . Date : . PART If - ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by the Town ; Use attachments as necessary.) A. Does proposed action exceed any Type I threshold in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 12 or Town Environmental Local Law? YES NO xX, If yes , coordinate the review process and use the full EAF. S . Will proposed action receive coordinated review as provided for unlisted actions in 6 NYCRR , Part 617. 6? YES NO XX If no , a negative declaration may be suoerseded by another involved agency , if any. C . Could proposed action result in any adverse effects associated with the following : (Answers may be handwritten, If legible) Cl , Existing air quality , surface or groundwater quality, noise levels , existing traffic patterns , solid waste production and disposal , potential for erosion , drainage or flooding problems ? Explain briefly: See Attached C2. Aesthetic, agricultural , archaeological , historic, or other natural or cultural resources ? Community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly : See Attached C3. Vegetation or fauna, 7sh , shellfish , or wildlife species , significant habitats , unique natural areas , wetlands , or threatened or endangered species ? Explain briefly : See Attached C4. The Town's existing plans or goals as officiaily adopted , or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources ? Explain briefly: See Attached C5. Growth , subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by 'he proposed action ? Explain briefly : See Attached C6 . Long term , short term , cumulative , or other effects not identified in Cl - C5 ? Explain briefly: See Attached C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy) ? Explain briefly: See Attached D . Is there , or is there likely to be , controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts ? YES NO XX If yes , explain briefly: E. Comments of staff X C3 other attached . . ( Check as applicable . ) PART 111 - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by the Town of Ithaca) Instructions : For each adverse effect Identified above , determine whether it is substantial , large, important, or otherwise significant. Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (is. urban or rural) ; (b) probability of occurring ; (c) duration ; (d) Irreversibility; (e) geographic scope ; and (f) magnitude. If necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been Identified and adequately addressed. Check here if you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY occur. Then proceed directly to the full EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration. Check here if you have determined , based on the information and analysis above and any supporting documentation , that the proposed action WILL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide on attachments as necessary the reasons supporting this determination . ZoningfBoarocof Appeals Name of Lead Agency Pre er's Signat a different from Responsible Officer David Stotz - Chair zrrte & Title of spo ibl Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Contributing Preparer 1. � Date : Signature of Res onsi 9 fficer in Lead Agency \ J. PART II - Environmental Assessment Russo's Garden Center, Northeast Corner of the Intersection of Danby Road and King Road East Request for a Special Approval for a combined floor area exceeding 10,000 square feet, and request for a variance to be permitted to have outside displays and outside storage of goods. Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals August 13, 1997 A. Action is Unlisted B. Action will not receive coordinated review C. Could action result in any adverse effects on, to or arising from the following_ Cl . Existing air duality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Proposed action is the request for 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 the allowed 10,000 square feet (4,320± sq. ft. of covered retail space plus 6 21 'X48' poly-tex greenhouses, or 6,048± sq. ft. of greenhouse space) and the request for variances from Section 36 and 38 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit outside displays and storage of goods. With this type of operation, the improper handling of fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals could affect air quality by causing drift, as well as surface and groundwater quality and quantity should chemicals enter into the stormwater drainage system. Extreme care and caution, and the use of best management practices, should be used in the storage and handling of these products. An increase in noise levels can be expected due to the daily operations of a retail garden center and associated activities, as proposed by the applicant. Delivery trucks, loading and unloading operations will increase the noise level somewhat. However, several parcels in the immediate vicinity are zoned commercial and this type of activity are standard in the day to day operation of commercial businesses. Traffic and traffic patterns will be somewhat impacted by this proposal. The entrance road has been located to take advantage of the existing curb cut on NYS Route 96B. (This curb cut is currently used by residents entering the adjacent apartments to the north.) Sight distance in both directions on Danby Road from the entrance road appears to be adequate. A traffic light exists at the intersection of Route 96B and King Road which serves to slow traffic down and may make turning maneuvers easier. Traffic counts are done periodically by the NYS Department of Transportation along NYS Route 96B . In a 1994 NYS DOT Sufficiency Report, it was estimated that the peak hour traffic on Route 96B was approximately half of the road's theoretical capacity. East King Road to the City line, at the time of the study, had an average annual daily traffic count estimate of 8,450 with the highest a. m. hourly count being 731 and the highest p.m. hourly count being 768. Peak hours of traffic in this area were from 8 to 9 a.m. and 5 to 6 p.m. Russo's Garden Center - EAF ZBA - August 13, 1997 Page 2 According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th Edition, the number of trip ends for a commercial operation of this nature, if based on approximately 10,000± square feet of proposed retail, (this includes the covered retail and the six greenhouses, averages 350 on a weekday, with an average of 40 vehicle trip ends during a. m. peak hours (7:00 to 9:00 a.m.) and 50 at p.m. peak hours (4:00 to 6:00 p. m. ) . Vehicle trip ends on a Saturday averages 727 and 585 on a Sunday. This amount of additional traffic on Danby Road, given the NYSDOT 1994 findings, would not appear to have a serious impact on the capacity of Route 96B . (Information taken from the dEIS for Ithacare Center, Senior Living Community, Section III. D.b., page III-18, dated June 1995, attached .) Solid waste production and disposal can be expected to increase as a result of this proposal but should pose no significant environmental impact. The potential for erosion, drainage and flooding problems is minimal. Existing contours show an average 4.5 % slope in the area proposed for the garden center operation. Proposed grades indicate a minimal amount of grading required and there appears to be little change proposed to existing drainage patterns on the site. C2. Aesthetic,- agricultural, archeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources, or community or neighborhood character? No significant adverse impacts to agricultural, archeological, historic, natural or cultural resources are anticipated. Community and neighborhood character should not be significantly adversely impacted. In accordance with the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, this is a permitted use in a Business District "C" . Several commercial operations currently exist near the proposed site. Immediately to the south across King Road East is Sam Peter's Furniture Store. Adjacent to this is Big Al's Hilltop Quickstop, a convenience store / pizza / gas station operation. Immediately to the west and across Danby Road is Ziebart Tidy Car Rustproofing. Diagonally across Danby Road to the southwest is a vacant parcel, zoned in part, as Business District "C" and "D". In addition to the above mentioned commercial operations, surrounding land use consists of single family residential (R-9, R-15, R-30), multiple residence including the College Circle Apartments and the Hayloft Apartments, the Ithaca Solar Townhouses, and the Montessori School which is located up hill and to the East. The applicant is showing some screening between the proposed project area and the school. However, because the school is at a higher elevation, the proposed garden center will be very visible from the school. A more substantial vegetative screen may be desirable in this location. An existing row of coniferous trees along the northern, southern and western edge of the property will provide a buffer between the proposed garden center and surrounding land uses. The tax parcel in question consists of three zoning districts. The portion of the parcel proposed for the garden center is zoned commercial, the portion immediately to the north is zoned R9, and the remainder of the parcel is zoned R30. This division of zones triggers the buffer Russo's Garden Center " EAF ZBA - August 13, 1997 Page 3 requirement in the Business Zone. In accordance with the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, Section 38 (5), a structure, which includes parking spaces as defined in Article 1 , Section 1 , of the Zoning Ordinance, cannot be placed nearer than 50 feet from any residence district and 30 feet from any other district. A strip at least 10 feet wide within such buffer area shall be suitably planted to screen a Business District from present or future residences, or a suitable screening fence shall be erected. Existing vegetative screens exist on all but the eastern side of the proposed garden center. Section 38 (6) states "In addition to the landscaping, screening, fencing and buffer requirements set forth above, additional landscaping, fencing, screening, or earth berm may be required to be provided in any area where the proposed structure or use would create a hazardous condition or would detract from the value of the neighboring property if such landscaping, fencing, screening, or berm were not provided. The Official Zoning Map for the Town of Ithaca 0 1 / 7/ 96) shows the zoning boundary for the commercial portion of the parcel in question to be approximately 100' from the edge of the nearest structure, which in this case is the entrance drive and the circular loading drive. Additionally, the applicant is showing storage trailers and bulk material storage on the east side of the proposed retail space (neither of which is a permitted use in a Business District "C" ). Although there does not appear to be any infringement on buffer zones in these areas, the portion of the parcel immediately adjacent to the east and north is zoned residential. Again, a more substantial screen, either with fencing or vegetation, may be desirable in the area between the proposed garden center and the school. C31 Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? No significant adverse impacts anticipated. A row of mature, healthy coniferous trees exist along the southern and western edge of the property, screening much of the site from the surrounding areas. The applicant has indicated that these trees are to remain and will be incorporated into the overall design. For the sake of advertising and visibility, the proposed outside display areas (not permitted in a Business District "C" ) will be placed on the garden center property between the existing row of conifers and Danby Road. This seems a logical request as this row of trees is an attractive site amenity and should be maintained. In addition, the applicant is proposing existing vegetation to remain on the northern side of the proposed project area . No other substantial vegetation exists on the site. C41 A community's existing 121ans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? None Anticipated. In accordance with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, this area is shown as commercial / general business and suburban residential. Proposed project is located in a Business District "C" where nurseries, greenhouses and retail stores are a permitted use. Russo's Garden Center - EAF ZBA - August 13, 1997 Page 4 However, the applicant is proposing to have outside storage, which is not permitted in a Business District "C" . The storage is proposed, in part, to be placed in three tractor trailers (wheels removed) and proposed to be enclosed in a "decorative wooden open framework" . The applicant has indicated that these storage trailers are anticipated to be temporary until such time as a more permanent accessory structures for storage can be built. In addition, the applicant is proposing to have outside displays, also not permitted in a Business District "C" . Since greenhouses and nurseries are a permitted use, it seems reasonable that some outside display areas can be anticipated with this type of operation. C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? None anticipated. The area is currently served by public water and sewer which will be utilized by the proposed operation. C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -05? None anticipated. C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of either quantity or type of energy)? An increase in the quantity and type of energy used can be anticipated but should pose no significant environmental impact. D. Is there, or is there likely to be, controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? No controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts is anticipated. PART III - Staff Recommendation, Determination of Significance Based on review of the materials submitted for the proposed action, the proposed scale of it, and the information above, a negative determination of environmental significance is recommended for the action as proposed. Lead Agency: Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals Reviewer: JoAnn Cornish - Plannerg( Review Date: August 6. 1997 J TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IAL 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 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 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Members, Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals FROM: JoAnn Cornish - Planner DATE: August 6, 1997 RE: RUSSO'S GARDEN CENTER Enclosed please find material relating to the proposed Russo 's Garden Center proposed to be located at 1061 Danby Road (the intersection of NYS Route 96B and King Road East, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -3.2, Business District, "C", Evan Monkemeyer, Owner; Terrance Roswick, Agent. This project received Preliminary Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board on August 5. 1997 and , pending the granting of a special approval and variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals on August 13, 1997, this project is scheduled for Final Site Plan Approval on August 19 , 1997o Variances required for this project include: 1 . a possible sign variance 2. a variance or interpretation to allow outside displays in business zones (Section 38 . 8 of the zoning Ordinance) 3 . a variance to allow outside storage (Section 36.2 Zoning Ordinance), in reference to the "bulk material and storage pickup" area 4. special approval for overall retail/ garden center use exceeding 10,000 square feet (Section 33. 1 .B Zoning Ordinance). Current proposal is for interior retail space of 10,368± square feet. Included on the Preliminary Site Plan presented to the Planning Board at the August 5, 1997 meeting were plans for a Chicken BBQ area and a "Sunken Ice Cream Garden" . After a lengthy discussion between members of the Planning Board, staff, and the applicant, the applicant agreed to remove these items from the site plan. Should these uses be incorporated at a later date, the applicant must return to the Planning Board for Modified Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special approval to serve food to the public in a Business District "C" . Additionally, the applicant informed the Board that plans for the proposed sign are being modified so that a variance will not be required. Staff has not received the modified plans for the sign and therefore no determination can be made. However, should a variance be required, the Planning Board, acting as the Sign Review Board, will have to review the sign before it can be reviewed by the Zoning Board for a variance. If you would like additional information or have questions regarding this project, feel free to call me at 273-1747 prior to the meeting on August 13th. TOWN OF ITHACA FEE : $ 100000 126 East Seneca Street RECEIVED : Ithaca , New York 14850 CASH ( 607 ) 273- 1783 CHECK S P E C I A L A P P R O V A L ZONING : A P P E A L For Office Use Only to the Building Inspector/ Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Ithaca , New York Having been informed that authorization is required to : to Cct�nSC� at (O Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . as shown on the accompanying application and / or plans or other supporting documents . The Special Approval tion is reque FSU to : Art icles V Section ( s ) f the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , the UNDERSIGNED respe u ly submits this cial Approval authorization . ( Additional sheets may be attached as necessary . ) oEtA L� Pk%tj: 4 By filing this application , I grant permission for members of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board f of Appeals or staff to enter my property to spect in connection with my application . Ca1c%l X31 Ov..9tzi dC_ NHS �C 'T v `c.FS t%. / Signature of Owner/Appellant : Date : I q Signature of Appellant/Agent : Date : Print Name Here : LVAt41 tA • oNtZ—Z JELt� Home Telephone Number : Work Telephone Number��01 NOTE : If construction of work in accordance with any approvals given does not commence within 18 months , the approval will expire . ' PLOT PLAN ' INFORMATION TO BE SHOWN . 1 . Dimensions of lot . 4 . Dimensions and location of proposed structure( s ) or 2 . Distance of structures from : or additionCs ) . a . Road, 5 . Nanes of neighbors who bound lot . b . Both side lot lines, 6 . Setback of neighbors . c . Rear of lot . 79 Street name and nunber . 3 . North arrow . 8 . Show existing structures in contrasting lines . Now Signature of Owne r/Appe I I ant a . A Date : 12W Signature of Appellant /Agent : Date : ORNC*RSTOiNe P L A E R S Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals July 25 , 1007 Application for Russo 4s Garden Center The above referenced project is presently being reviewed by the Planning Board . Sec enclosed materials , There are flvc issues that need to be addressed by tlt(-: Zoning Board per the ordinance . • Outside displays in a Business Zone • Outside storage in a BUSUICSS ZOI1C • Special Approval for retail space exceeding 10 , 000 sf. • Special Approval for proposed food service • Sign 1.' ariance This is a proposed garden center , an allowable use under the current Zoning Code° , They outside display and storage is for garden plants such as trees and shrubs intended to be purchased and installed outside as landscaping . The overall iI1tClll Uf 511C11 a bttsitless iS t0 SC11 typical gaI`den CCllter products sonic' of which arc grown out of doors . As for the outside storage this would include mulch and other materials used in landscaping that may be purchased n bull: . The outdoor display- and storage of such products is a natural cxtcn * IC) ii of this allowable use , Not being perijiitted to use the site in such a ftishloit is prohlbitive to the success of this venture . Regarding the retail space requirement . We are currently- proposing a building whi<: li is used cxclusivcly for retail sales along vvv th four greenhouses . The space In the grccilhouwrS senses a dual purpose . The first is an agricultural use in providing room for nursed stock to develop Into a mature product for sale . The other puI'pose Is to providc room to store this Ngable product until it can be sold . Since these grcciihouscs will be open to the public the planning board included it In the total retail space exceeding the allowable limit by 368 square feet . This is what has prompted a request for a Special Approval from the Zoning Boy-ird of Appeals . The Special Approval for food service Is to provide additional seasonal sum me ill ime activittcs on South Hill that would supplement the garden center and its thc: Iii<_ . As Tor tlic sign requirement . We are proposing a large sigil supplemented with a planted trellis which would support flowering vines . This would be iii kcepliig with the Gardetl Ceritcr theme . The wtent behind our request is to overcom.c a visibility problem created by the presence of a large evergreen liedgc• row located along the road frontages . The planning tx:)ard has expressed an interest in leaving Elie hedgero «• intact. . We vvould like to do this also but since the garden center would not be able to b . seen frOrn the road we would like to coliipensale for this by prcnriding n N-1sible landmark in terms of a sign . The present design is in keeping Withill the code but the. added trellis Is being interpreted as a structcir'e . If this is truly a structure thou the sign would need a variance to 10r lte It in lroilt of the Hedger(-) w - 6540 KirkviNe Rd . 11 Su to 32 a E . Syra (; use . NY 1 3057 8 ( :11 ro Az ?) _ , n -7 ' L � 4 .= -; : '-� 1 ( ` TON R L. A N N E R S MEMO Date : June 23 , 1997 Tv : Town .of Ithaca Ylannir. g Board From : Terry Roswick Re . Russo ' s Garden Center - Project Description This project is a proposed new retail garden center . Located on the corner of Danby Road and King Road East , This would entail the construction of a 144 ' x 30 ' building and six greenhouses ( 21 ' x 48 ' ) . These will be surrounded by outdoor display of plants decoratively arranged i ., a garden setting . Products that would be sold would include annuals , perennials , trees and shrubs , fresh produce , garden supplies and specialty items for the home and garden . The Garden Center will be a somewhat seasonal business operating from mid March through December 26 . Hours of operation will be approximately from 8 AM until . 7 - 8 PM . Access to the site will be off of Danby Road . This is a New York State Highway and will require the revision of the existing entrance to their specifications . Discussions have been initiated . The existing hedgerow along the southern and western boundaries of the site is considered to be a valuable asset and will be retained . But because this hedge blocks adequate visibility to the retail structure a display area has been incorporated along the base of the hedge along Danby Road . In addition to the display area a prominant sign will be placed along the entrance drive . A detail of this is shown on the plan , One theme that will be incorporated throughout Russo ' s Garden Center is the trellis feature , This can be described as a decorative wooden open framework , This feature can be seen on the main sign , and cn the entrance to the retail building as well as on the storage trailers . Decorative flowering vines will be encouraged to climb in and around the exposed framework . Parking requirements will be accomodated in two areas . The primary parking ( 19 spaces ) will be immediately in front of the main building and overflow parking of 35 spaces or more will be located further up the hill . All areas for parking and drives will be composed of compacted gravel , a permeable surface . Althou ^yh ,lot Officially part of this proposal areas have been set aside directly to the north of the building to accomodate the potential space for a future chicken 8B - Q tent and a sunken ice cream garden . 6 540 i{ irlc' N , iIi R w. C . . . .. an r- - / PERfl0,", AL1TER "l,` r INALLPOLE MOUNT LUMINAIRES f Tide energy saving area lighter combining .- efficient lighting , vandal resistance and � aesthetic appearance . The g'rowing dorrand fur energy conseti' dtion has influenced iurr, inaire designs to use enarpy - efflciant IarrpS that provide maxi- j mum lighting p orformance. Hubbell L.ghting ' s PEPIMALITERa furnlnalre is a highly effic : ent lighting rix-lure designed for max:rnum I spacing between luminaires, utilizing arergy -efficient H.I. D. lamps, I f This iuminalre crin provide tho Sarno uniformity at a n to t spacing- 1 to - mounting height ratio other wall lighters achieve at a 4 to t ! f spacing - to - mounting height ratio This iuminairo is Qerfectiy suiteo for safely and security appiicaron ..1 , i13 WQl! 83 Cofornercial and industrial, wall and area ' ilhlinr� for. • parking iQt.$ • stores f • office buiidir, gs . fast !cod rastaurint5 I + wanks • warehouses 4 athatl o • parking garages DIMENSIONS U • shopping centers in shori, it can iae used to Illuminate 're outside perlmetar of virlusiiy any building. With its optical efficiency and performance, fewer Porimaiitor luminaires are needed to fight any given area, theret�y reducing electrical cost and energy consumption • This iightli ,g fi turS s aesti olic appaara, , _. e will Complement any I � architectural satting, and its vpndaf- ro"istant construction is j designed to iw.t. Front Access Door Incorporating Lena Assembly — Re- --= mac ,� t �seimmj rtloYabie, one -piece, injection molded, UV stabilized door and _ clear lens hinges for full front access, Units feature polycartaonate for maximum vandai mnafstance, interior door surface finehed in 9,111 P i.- bronze. Rear Housing — cOne -piece, heavy duty, did -cast aiuminum for ions life and cooler ballast operation. frtl8ctor — ANtOUALO finished nigh quality speCular grade ltlurrinum for optimum photvme ', rics and maximum light t trein8mis3ian. Be0" t — Class " H " intsu(ated, 2066 i • 40 ' F fvr HPS) Vairting , oHr. , high power factor ballast. Normal power factor reactor " ,49 ;1 ilaet available for HPS ( 5o Hz bailasts also available). An `? uminum ballast compartment cover isolates this electrical Components from the optical assombly . i . . ttotacoritrot Accessory A button -type photocell Can be field Anotainect beninct the prisma(i (, window for pnotocontrcl operation, "M+ prismatic window doors not a! low light beiow 9o° to activate )crtocontrol. P104 Mounting Acees$ory — Aluminum slipGtter housing �- %0: 2%h' O, l]• tenon for 'laid insiaPa:ion Of single, or Deck tQ .bltCk double , post top mounted Perimaliter luminaires with Huo it'S bronze LFKTACCOTEID finish . ; PVL - PVT' -. Additional Feature& — Bronze LaMrocote finish; two side entries �- -- • Provid&d for through conduit wiring if rKuired; U. L• 1572 listed, C 4 certlff?d, 5uitnbt9 for wet locations . . porct l n mugul base ffPYPQ ffC*WUA � N�mx, .. sacker. r 1,. �' i CELL ' Lighting , inc . THE K ETAI l� - BART I Height : 14 - 0 - , Width : 21 '-0 " ( per bay) Size Shown : 42 'e2 1 /2 " x 54 ' -0' , 2 , 278 SQ/FT f= rame Sections : Spaced 6 = 0" on canter I °6 " I russ Height: App roximatel y (Ground to horizontal truss member) 5 Part Truss System : 1 " and 1 , 66" Galvanized Tube Frame Sections , Ridge . Purlin , Side Purlin , and End Frame : � G " Q . D . x 14 Gauge Tube , 52 , 000 Yield , 58 , 000 Tensit Strength Concrete Attachment Pads : 1 . 518 " Leg Stands i Optional Ground Stakes : 36" x 1 . 3/4 " Rain Gutter: 14 Gauge Galvanized 8mm Clear / White Polyearbonate Structured 33heeting Electrical ; 110V (2) - Single Stage Thermostats (2) - Slant Wall Fans with Shutters , Guards ( 114V) j I 1 Ail `\ I l 4 � I }I � III I , ql i , , Jill L P .O . BOX 458 CAME FOLK , MINNESOTAy cAE : pa�w,n � i DUWN ar: 12417. 92 91376 - 92 LKH TI_IL t•1 r: rrRt'4ER :=: TONE _ I T PLf: i' rl I :... '- _ - 0 a BIG /1I Ce to the t hall, app -- _ WE ' LL CARE " ' j ;j-' •� 4!'� `.tih� t, [t Ci-; [,1•,•; p-, rl (: jL:C•_;C r: St :;"�,T; 1 I;ii` I � ' I1C4 • • `�' � ' t ' (-- • • , iill \'2r11.'.nl . plenty f) r rc, m � . ar _ un -. h �.p Si.: om f� . j• . 15 (Etrce . . . an[' Car? tt.r Jf �[Tl?r 'J " Ill '! L' LSIL� 3Cc°sue ^ L'I._ Il ` -' _ . ' WC •l , Carole li3rr!:i C `• t_ : I TTt. ,r.a 1�? ' : ' , • _. . r- _ � ,1 , _r6+ . • d ' _ .1C — — — -- — _ We Care about quality , t1, C ; l LAC 7hr _Pi Lr' Cn.'r: ry • �i 14 i :1•!Lj tii'141 (11C avr ? V • ' + r• C= . l,?G .er � . ,r j ,', , `•\ "' .: f;tiilliG� ',\ �,i;`j , caI:11 `• ', [ , , . ; � ` 1 l' C:3IE about cons e, r �'! 1 } �\• + h . • iUl [}: t? l�CZC ort U r �� ` •lllii: ht r �. v ,!C'!..•:' \ , 5 ,.� - �i O .lr p , y CIII N., ' .'V . ` 1 • r `lCil` t{h" )V�.t�r,, „ a ,:; . `.. . t � - .-���`I]ll1. c'l� ` 7l a', . H21 ''1 �(SC) - Sri. tJ il � ' - r3 ' 'r . : t t . .1C' ICG r d S � Il Cv . fl `i�: a . ?, ^ 11 iL Jilu.P, L� (�V `.t'r �4 :Qe � L�r '• Ai- r,.� , r :, unit_ Cle.: A\ SiItiz[� } �I t - 1• :Cf iatl �' 3C ^:: : i . '.il'.'1 �73C2 ' - • r `,�_ '., . _ . . .� `l='� � : actic' n; f • , utre;. ,er �slSl' 1ttCI] (l;,uj � `•- � < il "- ` .li.0 pn°r�� �` - I r are diet ` e `" t u,.;ure that all State , F and p�,� y tntti e rV - t1i ; ` With . ; j�-e ' !I � • } t'drt'a.l � A Care outd(uor toilet : ple ' r< t a (7- .^. = 1 _ I 1 ' 1 G =• 1 G L H 1 '1 IY G (•. 1 _ Y /_ 1 1 _ I- _ 1 ann P ® ms5 JAiuminUM ) 1 All po , es on pages 56 ! h -ouejh 73 can be t ,- c -'. rf role, as .YI ac from hal a C rc '•es , JI ,? • '-. � � �'1iXB0' Cr 1'flatCht?� 0 aChiCv ' i r r a , . ? . v Ji cr:_53 dr : r, 6 the higher 4 mn nea ! ' of Swim .� : :� 7j- nl3 !t' ^._CIS. -IAC *)! . At,,I nrdt . ; ks. Or ar1'y qua .it :ty pfiCing , but shipmen ` rnust be _ made to the same locator at rchi4ecturad the Same tilma, Model d Roc . 1 Economy Extra r,cPosaQ Overa (i Flag Shipping _ ; Roc , �elght Length ! �, 7 Wall Sire { Wei M � . Overall I Flay Shippin5} _ ECP25_ 28 ',9 " „ 4 0 T '�___}? } x 5 ' 160Ib9 Height Len h ! 6utt i Top ! Wait Sizo _ M 131/z ; 68 + 4 ' x Of 205 ibs ECXP2$ 28 '-0 3�I 25T 3 ' x 5 ' 5 t ,, Ibs tT - ^ 3 C.7 CO ECP35 38 'x " T 7 " 3 i ' 198 S x 8 ' r 2701D9 SUM 33 '-0 ' 5„ 3 „ F h r ECP40 G4 0 ' 8 ' 3 ' s : be 6 ' x 10 ' I �.- _ ._ ' 2 4 ' .T t` • " , 3.57 trs . ECXP35 ! 38 ' x " r 6 ' 1 3'�2 " . 156 5 ' x e ' S r Wit...-. 20, !0S ' ECP45 a9 0--f- 8"- # 3 '=2 j 168 , 6 ' X 10 ' , 367 ip5 . ECXP40 i 44 ' -0 " 7 ' 3 ';7 " 156 . 6 ' 10 ' 2V is Ecpso 55 . 4 , 0 ' 4 " T-1888 e ' x 12 ' I 445 ibs . � �: • _: . . . .. . _l. . ECXP50 55 '-0 ' e " 3 . 2 188 18 ' x 12 390 ! 35 ECP4,0 I 6b '-0 " I , 2 ., 41• _ZSG : 10 ' r t $ 70514.9 - - . ECXP5.0 66 -0 " t0 " 4 " , 188 10 • x 15 ' � 'La ECP70 77 ' .,x ; 1 - - --�- , .-�� - - - • ._ 2 " 5 " • . 312 12 ' x 18 ' 795115 EGXP1 '7 " p Q -0 11 �/ ( 4 . 31i 12 1( 13 , 71 . 14g 7 in _ Clear Anodized ' MID" 1 .2 7 + Aleael 1 -2 EGF'2G 3 1 , 500 3 1 , 425 51 . 350 - i __ ECP25 S 1t7$0 S 1 , 694 $ t ECP30 107 1 .814 1 , 530 ECP30 _ 29030 ` 1 , 928 1:424 ECP36 k 2 , 100 } 1_ 1 , 894_ ` ECP35 2 ,560 21432 I -7,3W1 111 ECP40 ^- - - 2 , 840 2 , 844 2, 358 ECP40 31310 --] . 146 2900 ECP45 _ 3 , 120 211964 ^21808 ' I ECP45 31780 1 3 ,590 3 , 400 ECP50 I 4,240 1 .029 31816 ! ! ECP50 4 , e50 f 74 , 608 1 ,384 ECP60_ 8 ,620 _ 6 , 190 7, 758 I -' -- _.. �_ . _ ECP6Q 14 ,530 I 9 , 054 84576 ECP i'0 9 , 340 ��_-�._� 51872 � i 8. 408 ` 'r � 1 ECP70 10,380 1 21W 1 0 ,342 ECXP -5 1 , 130 1 , 092 1 , 034 1 i ECXP25 1 ,430 1 , 35_81288 MKPU 1 , 270 " ! 1r206 1 , 142 ECXP30 _ ' 1 Bp4 11520 I f , 410 ECxP35 1� 71� p 1 , 824 f , 540 : I ECXP35 21120 I 2p014 r 1090 2 , 360 j 2 , 242 �_ 2 , 124 - I I ECXP40 2 ,430 _ 2 , 688 I 2 .546 . ECXF50 3 ,200 3 ,040 2 , 804 I ! ECXPSa _ 9 , etQ 3 , 620 3 , 430 ECxP40 3 , 140 a, 8g4 4, 626 1 ECXPaO 6 , 000 6 , 700 5 .400 ECXP70 7 , 590 7 210 b, 83ow� ECXP70 - a 620 8 , 09{ 7866 , Bronze Anodized _ Black Anodized sx1e1 1 .2 3-8 7 t Model 1 .2 3,14 1 ECP25 3 1 , 850 S 1 , 758 31 , 664 I i ECP25 I - 7 + $ 2 , 000 S 1 , 940 s t . boo ECPao _ 2 . 140 2 .,032 1,222_4 ECP34 2 ,270 2, 15 - 2.042 ECG35 2. 660 2 ,528 2 .394 EG? 35 2,800 2 ' 7 ECP4-0 _ _3 , 520 3 , 344 3 , 168_ I ;r 2,810 ECP4Q 3 , 670 3 ,446 302 ECP45 3 970 ' 3. 772 _ 3 , 572 > ' ECP45 4, 150 3 , 942 ] 774 ECPcO 6, 140 4 .882 4 826 S 470 1 ECFso 5 , 194 41922 fCP50 10 ,040 9, 536 9 , 036 ECP70 10 , 710 10 , 1 )4 ECP60 10, 490 9, 966 I 'i, 444 9,sko ECP70 11 , 180 10 ,402 10, ¢44 VECXPW 1 11510 1 1,43.4 T 1 , 38Q 1 , 586 1 ,502 ! 1 ECXP25 1 620 1 . 640 1 .454 2 .210 2 , 100 t - ECXP30 _ 1 ,580 1 , 76$7990 ¢ � j E-cxP3S 4 , 44- 0 , 2 , 316 2 19$4�` 800 _g600 I ECXP40 3 04o i 2, 8,. �__ 3,200 d, 40 5 , 924 3 ,618 ECXP50 4 , 160 2 4, 380 1 8 .400 8 , 300 7,920 ECXP60 i '- 0 1 8 , 422± 4064 �� "Yardarms Only E�" 1 'X70 8 , 40 - 81342 kb ve : : J16 III iNCLUDfi jal !ar .^ 1 Caffs • Only Paie iC>varali aDc'.? ,'races DO NC7 nCi ,he gap. Cieylr I Bronze Alod•i $1=e ! Lc th Satin I AnodE,�d A , Block FS1z r1 '1111 111 �e� t ssto ss3o - t--nodlzed Mc* h Satin A od drones tnodlmd e ' aa0 158,0 Geo -r_- .. oC I Anodlled 7 Y95 a ,s I g; a 810 4 saw b90 820 6BQ 476 � . 0 4go 420 f B80 ' `� .t--�-0. TOrO 2 Y13o 57 ' lip GP9 ' - .�-_.- 720 I T Y 140 6G 1 14 ' bop ---- -i ago G10 1 a A '�-"�-+-Y 180 ° .- -. a� bbO 880 .-T- - �- 0 I 60Q 1 550; i) ' i ? 8 g94 -�I �gT� t' 21 � 9f0 Gtr , S iz I 8Q 810 I 64 t'A'N i X3(1 -{,- , u. Q ' � � � .% C .1t'' C Nag?. +: iJUai: d! AOt29 C r I 1 Jne zTH.cK 2rus1 . e- �o za.rc x / N HL - ZOIK 1 {- I L. r1wNKY+t,YJL � . - HS•o1-sy ' _y.- -r vrRD.r. LIT't •+[� - nT :y ,__ - � c-aw sw+e IL."O. V17JAL 'X.Le Dn (anPVbeO Gw a tt�C'iir V't +LLLD �5 '- (°' .rT.) \ ' II°tap_I �] • ,S•w•r � T� _ �'K T¢J•NOwt/u.1TYD °aO'1 A. 7TC _ - _ rwnT also a. :iPIItGR.T17t XIi little tovva0 �p I .. i`soswre �is l,V -o •16C••GrOW w..wru Nit &WiAm it •Y°aa b�� �it I j s 1t -q -l.st It e i TVr..Uowdr+ TFJI+►J fm' \ -'1'•y^�r��\} I �� •' - I 9t-A-if R- f0 hh ..• ,. n IVT. ro ••t•tR" wtow+rl \ \ \ I . ,:• 4y.irJ � i •I. , f raO"T ahl•1'1 - --� \ \.. t •� -.� . s».vt n S.ticw: . ) .\. I I '' - .� i �—��V I � I North ~ \ \ \ + \, 1@7 7 7 T T T. T TT T T TT 7" — '• /0, _!0nWAV v. a ad \+ \ \ � I I I \ I I I I I I` ( 1 1 I \ \ '4f I so,. � �s°r 7 N V • ,Li-\.a F f. I � si �IU. L6C �✓ Orcl.l X21.14>6G7 Lr • ' �^ . , >, � t I paved d I,r \ i " , +` \ >� . • ! / / 1 tore. °s..raae - Gl.+l•rr,N(. e+fn�v \ r.•�. � \ �- �B°Ydtag \ �. +tT In •f'rmno w•: /D{IKO w LA'If.. \ •(w LV"141w \ \ s �' - ..rtJi i ` .T \ l l •� . tM CgfKTLJ y10. riR.► • 1?l VE warAL 1\ IV — J I \ - - f cw.•trtc T. •oewwi / ! �"` \ Notes D4 ?O Dlar.a.Y raKafaT dfKK / \ t \4 -_ ...._ . \ b / / I'''II taa9CO+T.T voRa°..c. ( � -� �\ y \ [ \ 'r• \ qaq. ➢ \ �C-a • V / / '{ C . o1•rc PuN 17 p iorp UPVT1 •P�ItvaMtK. "•'-`— � ,y+(/ / \ ° �c»M.1°"" Y' `F i ' Z / / /.' I ' •VJL., -r Car e•/ r soF(4 xwlec.rr ra, �.a. y Nil 1 •.a . 0 +' I � rwr lane: T•Z5.Id") e v,.u, Pamaw 1\ n. a.� .� + '� / / / ` I j1 . aeww. WI X6 ti," t..Fs I�IiPL.aY Ae� �_- 5ta a:f aarwl I \ ,, �. �" -� = ' " I j / $ vteKl•"r, � DRIK «,a..r +► se 4Jr�+\c.m I: • I .. I p :-o• \\i I \ � I tiwae � ` ,- // �� r wet/ catnaa:Tt.D sfr.✓a ,'• hlri. v.l+f.1 i �- / / /� I • Drrr IV ZcNGD e+JWN" po`.FmzT C lip 155 \ a r / / / Pcc zw.a a. y r waee D.IO.9 I -. , e.•. .w" \ I [ / rettsENNg1-�Ee + t�' •,D' , pt[en�xlcarrov wrtctwaL �'. _ .? DT M�T'rbx INC. cranrt.e L4.R, n Ntw w.ti il.Itw ",? �ylaL A' +Y 'i. I ! I ,O MOLtL I•LY1E r tIC);TW L rL�{ 'is w�.u~i.IocKcosL. °" °'"�°' \ t � \ 11 iniPt ... wsTaR � EIS(. e.L�ICf i I J`tou..wu r 1-w - � �l . • \ t / / / : 1 L' �DL air 1T' fiend +v a.e trmNtPRO tiA c\ �y we � � r� ..rat \ � 3 .. / / �/ 1 \ 1 rrc ••nD rGr,,It PropmyLine - - - Er. IY•114Ar•Y° t+' - I 04* ! t •r,.v`:.' .+ �a ,: 'f'/' \ F - Existing Coraow W-- - - - - - - --- - - - - 0' � ` ► It 11 ProDD+ed Contour — - l „/ , - — _ - _ 1 R Tnwaa►) / / .,'•j u.,r ----. . -� . Fe:°trap Spw Grade Mae) .L �_1 \ / I . Propowd Spot Grade �'• .+ (( wr / OveNand Drairuge Swale -.•.n... ... _.i),,,.... . .--M-,-•. \ �. � r.. .; , %}�, � " / : �' .ts•.rn ewo FROMM water Line - w - °" ' New -f ' �� ?I. �_ :1.:[ . Pa^AT 11sfJ. : . t•I++.ISb�f // i I �• 1 Sanitary Sewer —y.N — e+a., gw$ \\ f. ' L"_�> — � , \wrfM •JiafGnML11NV� .. •Kfb.�•�/ ± I I : .J Memo= Service — e — {' y.w.a v 7 Storm Sewer - x - __ _ - \� \\ .. .- t� >t Iv , a• _ -._�__ _, .__ �..�r�f-+F_-„I I - it e A% _ — `w — �— till �iPuT x+ry Nlr fr f" e - "i.9D " �.�- - �� - -- - " � lit, '; ., . . .�.. owl' 10� �I _ '"Y Danby , Road_ � ,d.• , , dD11w I II I t '.. .i. ID 1 f:erhEG Enrrla.N•ILE � 1 1 r��� /LL N.Ya Vfrr b/GL-. H�ivCycr [�jA'� I�Lb✓ATIOhI DLar.) 11=R°'�Di1 6KYUUhITtI Site Plan 6cab: 7• - 3a - o• Title: Pfeluninary Plan "d' �•. •ID' /I Mo ----7 lrL1! aW1 r/#r1fIN4 ! Pic 6.0w I rm uel I —r...� c.,.. +caa cRO. o w ap' w sI ��yy r �'i ra.ICIJN✓ � .• .. . .. , .' , - • : . '. 1I�LRRO 6 IIaraP.71 .P,n1EP.r Cornet of Danb/' Rwd and King Noad East •II( ( '-'ter I I I/ 1 I i �, .� Town of Ithaca. ianpkw Cmay. New Ywk o./ri•F4faesN 17- - I - . , Cornerstone - Site - Planners O.Yrsir\ as NTt<M1L6 OMAN wOVD a1DINV ` I Landscape Architecture and Planning IYOt-fr4 IicwAertov rmceN� (R6�w•1✓ D.Ofr.) i".fD '' o.. I ��p.{ Fpe"o 73 wumr« Drive, Eu1 Syrawee, New Ywk (313)132. 1970 1�•� G•sr•,•1 x-x°raN Date: May 30, 1907 • s ,9 oV+•a•M� Client; Evan Monlcetroyer Y Fw. i•K•�Y YIfwRW D io JUL 2 3 1997 Tompkins County ]1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING to'WN OF ITHACA PLANNING. ZONING. ENGINEERING 121 East Court Street Ithaca, New York 14850 James W. Hanson, Jr. Telephone (607) 274-5560 Commissioner of Planning FAX (607) 274-5578 July 22 , 1997 Ms . JoAnn Cornish Planner Town of Ithaca 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, NY 14850 Re: Review Pursuant to § 239 -1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law Action: Preliminary Site Plan Approval and ZBA Recommendation, Russo Garden Center, 1059 Danby Road, Tax Parcel Number 43 - 1 -3 .2 Dear Ms . Cornish: This letter acknowledges your referral of the proposal identified above for review and comment by the Tompkins County Planning Department pursuant to § 239 - 1 and -m of the New York State General Municipal Law, The Planning Department concerns regarding driveway access , screening and signage were adequately addressed in tt:e Town's staff review. The proposal, as submitted, will have no significant deleterious impact on intercommunity, County, or State interests . Therefore, no recommendation is indicated by the Tompkins County Planning Department, and you are free to act without prejudice. Please inform us of your decision so that we can make it a part of the record. Sincerely, /* ML i James W . Hanson, Jr. Commissioner of Planning � � Re(-v(-led paper TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FINAL 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 z Z �P ,l �D O Cry 1 -e r owl- ' 1 1 V 1 r1 W �n J