Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2017-05-16 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, May 16, 2017 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox, John Beach, Yvonne Fogarty, Jon Bosak, Melissa Hill Town Staff Present: Sue Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; David O'Shea, Civil Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Debra DeAu0stine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr_Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies- Paving Improvements, 201 Tibet Drive_ Mr_ Santelli gave a brief overview of the project.The paving will include the main drive from Danby Road, the loop road that frames all the main buildings on the site, and the upper parking lot. It's currently all gravel_The main drive is 24 feet wide_The proposal indicates asphalt for the entire width; an alternative is for 20 feet of asphalt with 2-foot gravel shoulders on either side_They're not changing the width of the pavement; it's just a matter of resurfacing the road because the dust they experience is a continual problem_The parking spaces in the lot are the standard size_ Mr_ Bosak said that on his site visit, the main drive didn't appear to be 24 feet wide, so he measured and found that it was closer to 17 feet. Mr_ Santelli said that's what the paving contractor said, and he will have him check_ Mr_ Bosak noticed that there was a lot of material that suggest very active construction; things are piled up that look like modular units_ Mr_ Smith said they're still building out the 2006 approval_ Mr_Wilcox said there are six pre-fab units_ He wanted to confirm that the design of the stormwater management system took into account that these access roads and parking lots would be paved_ Mr_ Santelli responded that gravel roads are not considered as having any perviousness to them_ Ever since the DEC started the SWPPP program, they consider any compacted gravel as being impervious_ PB Resolution No. 2017.042: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Namgyal Monastery - Paving Improvements, 201 Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel No. 43.-2-10 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: PB 054&2017 Page 2 of 13 1_ This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed paving improvements at the Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, 201 Tibet Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43.-2-10, Medium Density Residential Zone_The proposal involves asphalt surfacing of the remaining main drive, the upper parking lot, and the loop road_The driveways and parking areas were previously approved by the Planning Board in 2006 as mostly gravel surfaces_Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Own- ers/Applicants; Frank L. Santelli, P_E_, T.G.Miller, P.C.,Agent, and 2_ This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review, with respect to site plan approval and special permit, and 3_ The Planning Board, on May 16, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ- mental Assessment Form (SERF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, a drawing titled °2017 Paving Improvements" (C101), prepared by T.G. Miller P.C. and dated 4/24/17, and other application materials, and 4_ The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required_ Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed paving improvements at the Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, 201 Tibet Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43.-2-10, Medium Density Residential Zone_The proposal involves asphalt surfacing of the remaining main drive, the upper parking lot, and the loop road_The driveways and parking areas were previously approved by the Planning Board in 2006 as mostly gravel surfaces_Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owners/Applicants; Frank L. Santelli, P_E_, T.G.Miller, P.C.,Agent Mr_Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Ms_ Fogarty asked how the difference between the stated road width and the actual road width would be resolved_ Mr_Thaete said that if there's going to be a lot of earth disturbance, the question is whether a simple SWPPP or a basic SWPPP would be needed_ PB 054&2017 Page 3 of B Mr_ Santelli responded that he ran area calculations and Spencer Paving came back with their estimate, and the two estimates were very close_ Mr_ Bosak said to keep in mind that he only measured in one spot He suspects it was wider when it was put in. Mr_ Santelli said that with the amount of use it gets, there's grass growing along the edges even though there's a gravel base underneath, so it's the full width. Mr_Wilcox added that as long as it measures 24 feet or less, we don't care_ Mr_ Bates said they've had a lot of erosion_Also, the original plan showed the driveway that wide_ Mr_Thaete said he mentioned the SWPPP because, historically, when the monastery has been building out, they've pushed the envelope on limits of disturbance, and public works has had to write letters_ He'd rather they fill out a simple SWPPP at a minimum; that way, public works will have some enforcement action_ Mr_Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2017.043: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, Namgyal Monastery - Paving Improvements, 201 Tibet Drive, Tax Parcel No. 43.210 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1_ This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed paving improvements at the Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, 201 Tibet Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43.-2-10, Medium Density Residential Zone_The proposal involves asphalt surfacing of the remaining main drive, the upper parking lot, and the loop road_The driveways and parking areas were previously approved by the Planning Board in 2006 as mostly gravel surfaces_Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Own- ers/Applicants; Frank L. Santelli, P_E_, T.G.Miller, P.C.,Agent, and 2_ This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to site plan approval and special permit has, on May 16, 2017, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3_ The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 16, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a drawing titled "2017 Paving Improvements" (C101), prepared by T.G.Miller P.C. and dated 4/24/17, and other application materials; PB 054&2017 Page 4 of 13 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the Special Permit standards of Article XXIV Section 270.200, Subsections A - I, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, specifically that: 1_ the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning are being promoted, as the proposed project will only be providing an asphalt surface to existing drives and parking areas, and 2_ the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, given that the premises already contain the drives and parking areas that are being paved, and the proposed modifications fill a neighbor- hood or community need, and 3_ the proposed use and the location and design are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, as they are only paving existing drives and parking areas, and 4_ the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neigh- boring inhabitants, and 5_ operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes,vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone, and 6_ community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to protective services, roadways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities are currently, or will be, of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use. Additionally, the use is already operational, and the proposed modifications are not increasing the capacity or use of the facility, and 7_ the proposed use, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and ordinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan, and 8_ the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, and 9_ the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, and 10_ the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use; and access, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, as access, parking and loading facilities are already provided for the facility and are only being paved with asphalt as part of this project, and PB 05.16.2017 Page 5 of 13 11_ natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drain- ageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties_The applicant provided a Full Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan in 2006 for the original development of the site, and the stormwater facilities have been installed, and 12_ the proposed use and structure comply with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1_ That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2_ That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies Paving Improvement project, located at 201 Tibet Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43.-2-10, as shown on the submitted plan referenced in Whereas number 3 above_ Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: South Hill Cafe, 930 Danby Road Mr.Gupta said they've been using this building for office space for Digicomp.The building consists of two floors,with 3500 square feet on each floor. About six or seven years ago, Digicomp downsized and the lower level operation is enough for their office space.He's been trying to rent the upper floor as office space,but has been unable to because of the competition of the South Hill Business Campus (SHBC) next door.A couple years ago, they got a variance from the ZBA to use it as a restaurant.The proposed cafe will be a self-service operation from 6:30 a.m.to 6:30 p.m.They'll mainly have coffee, snacks, lunch buffet, and some sandwiches. Mr_ Sharma described the scope of the site development_The existing upper parking lot will be expanded by five parking spaces, and more parking will be added on the lower side, which will involve building retaining walls_There will be no change to the building itself. Mr_ Santelli said part of the issue with expanding the parking lot was that the grades come right up to the building, so part of the work is to cut back a portion of the existing pavement to regrade_At the lower level, they'll have it milled down so to keep drainage away from the building_They're proposing curbing for the upper parking lot curb, a concrete walk, and a stone edge adjacent to the building, tying back into the sidewalk in the front One of the review comments from staff was to try to mitigate the point discharge below the site. Originally, they just had outlet protection, which is a stone riprap apron_They've modified that to a flow spreader, which spreads the water across the hill PB 054&2017 Page 6 of 13 and keeps it from concentrating immediately_ It complies with the current DEC standards for that type of practice_ Ms_Balestra said she received the revised plan via email that day_ Mr_ Santelli said the project is proposed to be phased_ Phase I would include the upper parking area; the retaining wall and the lower parking area would be Phase IF Ms_ Fogarty said the proposed parking will get three or four additional parking spaces on the top level_The additional parking will go out towards Danby Road_She wondered why the parking lot had to be reconfigured instead of simply having people parallel park along the south side of the parking lot behind the other cars_This would put the cars out of the way of the cars coming off of Route 9611; that doesn't look safe_ It seems that those parking spaces come very close to the road_ Mr_ Bosak pointed out that Danby Road is not that close_ Mr_Wilcox said there's a concrete ditch and a shoulder_ He didn't see an issue_ Given the slope of the property towards the SHBC, you'll have a cut and fill issue if you try to put parking spaces to the south. Ms_ Fogarty said that there's already room now and they're extending the parking_ She thought her proposal would require a lot less work_ Mr_Wilcox said you need 18 feet to back out of a parking space, and Mr_ Bosak added that he'd be concerned about cars backing into the cars that are parallel parked_ Mr_Wilcox questioned whether they needed that many parking spaces_ Mr_ Bosak said it was illuminating to read our discussion of this property back in 2013_The impression he got from the minutes was that this number of parking spaces would be perfectly fine for a takeout restaurant, but maybe not for a sit-down place_Ms_ Collins had pointed out that it was to the applicant's advantage to make sure they did not incorrectly balance these two things by putting in a restaurant that would require more spaces_Since the proposal is specifically for a takeout place, it looks alright to him_ If in the future, the nature of the business changes, they might have to come back to us for more parking spaces_ He pointed out the staff comment that there is no exterior lighting proposed_That startled him because they want to keep it open until 6:30 p.m., and there are times of the year when it's pitch dark out there at that time and there are no streetlights, nothing but the sign_ Mr_ Sharma said there will be wall-mounted lights on the face of the building_ Mr_ Bosak said he was struck by how close this is to the SHBC_ If this were his business plan, it would be leaning heavily on the fact that they'll get a lot of foot traffic from the SHBC, and to promote the business, they should consider building a pathway to make it easy to get there_ He thought it was a serious enough question to wonder whether this was something that needs to be dealt with. It creates a hazardous condition to have people walking down that stretch of Danby Road_ PB 054&2017 Page 7 of 0 Ms_ Ritter said the town got a giant for $1 million to build a sidewalk from IC to downtown,but on the other side of the road_ Ms_Balestra noted that if people are walking from the SHBC, the most logical place would be across the grass from the parking lot The land is flat and the grass is pretty short Mr_ Bosak said that's not the case in January_ Mr. Sharma said they'll probably take a car_ Mr_ Bosak said that's the alternative: if they're not walking unsafely down the street, they're getting in their car, starting it up, driving a couple hundred feet, and driving back_This is something the planning board should be looking out for. He likes the proposal and thinks it stands a good chance of being a successful business,but he thinks we're creating an unsafe condition_And what a nightmare from a traffic point of view, especially at lunchtime, to have a bunch of cars pull out and drive 200 feet and drive back_ He would recommend a path and sitting down with the SHBC people to get permission to connect with their pavement Mr_Wilcox said the problem is that a path might not work in the winter, although it's better than nothing_ Mr_ Sharma said that once the business opens, if they see a lot of people coming from the SHBC, they'll look into making a decent walking surface_ Mr_Wilcox said that there are already easements on the adjacent property_We can determine that some sort of access, like a path, is necessary and include it as part of our approval_ Ms_Brock responded that if all the parcels aren't owned by the same entity, you'd be requiring construction of a structure that they weren't proposing on adjacent properties that aren't owned by them_The difference between requiring easements necessary for this project is that presumably the other corporation was amenable to that, or it wouldn't be in front of us_ Ms_ Fogarty agreed with Mr. Bosak regarding the need for a path,but didn't think it could be resolved now. She suggested tabling the approval to give the applicant a chance to figure out how to put the path in. Mr_ Gupta said he thought it makes sense to put the path in for business reasons_ Right now, the building has been sitting vacant for five or six years_There are a lot of carrying expenses and they are just starting out He'd like to see how the traffic goes, and in a year or two, if it makes sense to put in the walkway, to make it more convenient for the customer. Mr. Bosak said that if we could somehow trap that commitment as a condition, he would be happy; he understands that building the path would add to their initial cost Mr. Gupta addressed the number of parking spaces_They expect traffic in the morning, so there will be quite a few cars at certain times_ He thought that cars backing up into a line of parallel-parked cars PB 054&2017 Page 8 of 13 behind them when it's not light would create a hazardous situation_That's why they want to expand the parking up top_ Ms_Brock said capturing the path as a condition sounds too speculative_What would the trigger be? We need a threshold_We have to write it in so Mr_ Bates knows when he's in compliance_ Ms_ Fogarty said that writing it so they have to do it in a year or two is not achieving anything_ If people can get there on foot within a year or two, why would you need a path?And if it's dangerous to walk along the road, it's dangerous from day 1_ Mr_ Bosak said he couldn't think of a way to resolve this off the top of his head, so he conceded that if we can't come up with language to trap that cleanly, he would let it go_ Mr_ Sharma pointed out that the grading is quite steep in one area.A path would have to comply with ADA requirements; it's a lot of expense_ If the grade is steep, they have to provide railings, lighting, eta PB Resolution No. 2017.044: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, South Hill C46, 930 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 41-3-9.1, 43.-3-9.2, 43.-3-9.3, 43.-3-9.4 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Yvonne Fogarty WHEREAS: 1_ This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed South Hill Cafe located at 930 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 40.3- 9.1, 40:3.92, 40_-3.9.3, and 40:3.9.4, Industrial Zone_The project involves using the first floor of the existing building (2,500 +/- square feet) for a cafe_The project also includes adding a new sign, 13 additional parking spaces, a retaining wall, and new landscaping_ ICS Development Part- ners Inc. and Sunom Inc., Owners/Applicants; Jagat P. Sharma,Architect, Agent, and 2_ This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review, with respect to site plan approval, and 3_ The Planning Board, on May 16, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ- mental Assessment Form (SERF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, a survey map prepared by T.G.Miller, P.C., dated 2/23/98, titled "Bounda- ry and Topographic Map Showing Lands of ICS Development Partners Inc_, Danby Road -N.Y.S. Route 96B, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York;" drawings prepared by Jagat P. Shar- ma, Architect, dated March 7, 2017, titled "Planting Plan" (L1.01) and "Plant List, Details & Specifications" (L1.02); a drawing prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect, dated Feb_ 22, 2017, titled "South Hill Complex, 930 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York" (A101); a set of drawings pre- pared by T.G.Miller P.C., titled "South Hill Complex, 930 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca, Tomp- kins County, NewYork," including sheets C000, C100, C101, C104 and C201 (dated 2/8/17), and C102 and C103 (dated 2/22/17), and other application materials, and PB 054&2017 Page 9 of 13 4_ The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required_ Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed South Hill Cafe located at 930 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 40_-3.9.1, 40.-3-9.2, 40:3.9.3, and 40:3.9.4, Industrial Zone_The project involves using the first floor of the existing building (2,500 +/-square feet) for a cafe_The project also includes adding a new sign, 13 additional parking spaces, a retaining wall, and new landscaping_ ICS Development Partners Inc. and Sunom Inc_, Owners/Applicants; Jagat P. Sharma, Architect,Agent Mr_Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. He commented that the building isn't inviting: the driveway pavement is broken up, there are dandelions in the lawn_ It may be fine for an office building,but it's not a place he'd want to stop_ He hoping the changes they're making will create a nicer building_ Mr_ Sharma said there will be some landscaping around the sign_Aside from the existing wisteria, they'll add some plantings in front Ms_Balestra said the majority of the plantings proposed are flowers and very small shrubs_There are a few trees_The reason she mentioned additional landscaping around the parking areas in front of the project in the staff memo is that we're trying to make roadways look more beautified, and having cars and parking areas be the first thing you see on a property does not go along with that goal. With other projects, the board has approved shrubs that can grow as high as three feet to screen the parking area.The sign will be 20 feet tall_ It meets the current sign law_ The board agreed that a low-growing evergreen shrub would be a nice combination with the forsythia_ Mr_Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2017.045: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, South Hill C46, 930 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No.'s 43.-3-9.1, 43.-3-9.2, 43.-3-9.3, 43.-3-9.4 Moved by Melissa Hill; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: PB 054&2017 Page 10 of B 1_ This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed South Hill Cafe located at 930 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 40.3- 9.1, 40:3.92, 40_-3.9.3, and 40:3.9.4, Industrial Zone_The project involves using the first floor of the existing building (2,500 +/- square feet) for a cafe_The project also includes adding a new sign, 13 additional parking spaces, a retaining wall, and new landscaping_ ICS Development Part- ners Inc. and Sunom Inc., Owners/Applicants; Jagat P. Sharma,Architect, Agent, and 2_ This is a Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to site plan approval has, on May 16, 2017, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3_ The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 16, 2017, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a survey map prepared by T.G.Miller, P.C., dated 2/23/98, titled "Boundary and Topographic Map Showing Lands of ICS Development Partners Inc., Danby Road -N.Y.S. Route 96B, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York;" drawings prepared by Jagat P. Sharma,Ar- chitect, dated March 7, 2017, titled "Planting Plan" (L1.01) and "Plant List, Details& Specifica- tions" (L1.02); a drawing prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect, dated Feb_ 22, 2017, titled "South Hill Complex, 930 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York" (A101); a set of drawings prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., titled "South Hill Complex, 930 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," including sheets C000, C100, C101, C104 and C201 (dated 2/8/17), and C102 and C103 (dated 2/22/17), and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT: 1_ The Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having deter- mined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of nei- ther the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board; and 2_ The Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed South Hill Cafe, located at 930 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 40_-3- 9.1, 40:3.92, 40_-3.9.3, and 40:3.9.4, as shown on the submitted plans referenced in Whereas number 3 above, with the following conditions: a_ Before issuance of a building permit, revision of the planting plan (Sheet L1.01), to show landscaping consisting of a mix of evergreen and deciduous shrubs that will grow to a mini- mum height of three feet along the north and east sides of the parking lot in the front of the project along Danby Road/NYS Route 96B, to screen the parking area from those traveling along Danby Road/NYS Route 96B, for review and approval by the Director of Planning, b_ Before issuance of a building permit, submission to the Town Planning Department of a shared driveway agreement and easement between Lot 1 and Lots 2, 3 and 4, for review and PB 054&2017 Page 11 of 13 approval by the Attorney for the Town, and submission of proof of filing of the approved documents in the Tompkins County Clerk's office, c. Before issuance of a building permit, submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the NYS DOT highway work permit for any modifications to the existing curb cut off of Danby Road/NYS Route 96B (if required by NYS DOT), d_ Before issuance of a building permit, submission to the Town Public Works Department of a revised drainage plan (sheet C103) that shows proper mitigation of any drainage impacts as- sociated with the project on any affected adjacent properties, e_ Before issuance of a building permit, submission to the Town Planning Department of one original set and two copies of the final site plan drawings, revised as above, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor(s), en0neer(s), architect(s) or landscape architect(s) who pre- pared the site plan materials, and I. Before any site disturbance, approval of a Basic SWPPP by the Town Public Works Depart- ment; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: 1_ Pursuant to Section 270.227.A (4) of the Town Code, the Planning Board hereby authorizes the reduction of the standard 180 square foot parking space size to no less than 153 square feet, find- ing that the reduction will not cause any adverse effects on the project, on the surrounding prop- erties, or on the neighborhood, and 2_ Pursuant to Section 270.227_B (2) and (3) of the Town Code, the Planning Board hereby authorizes the placement of parking in the front, side and rear yards of the project site, finding that: a_ The particular use, nature, or location of the proposed project or building, requires that park- ing arking 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 charac- ter of the neighborhood, and d_ No such parking will occur in any buffer areas_ Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Hill AGENDA ITEM East Hill Village public forum Scott Whitham said there will be an open public conversation about what may or may not happen at East Hill_ During the Maplewood process, they heard a strong desire for transparency in the process and a strong feeling that the community should be at the table from day 1_ Cornell got that message and has put together a team to do some envisioning, starting with a community forum_ Into the PB 054&2017 Page 12 of 13 summer, there will be charettes and community meetings to hear what might happen: there's a desire for density, for housing, for place-making. Mr_ Beach said that while he's happy Cornell is doing this, during the Maplewood project, the planning board said we were concerned about the next steps of East Hill Development. He believes this part of the process was known by Cornell back when we were asking those questions, so when he saw the announcement, he had mixed emotions_While he's glad to see this community forum, he was wondering why when we were questioning future development in that area, that information wasn't delivered to the board Mr_Whitham said Cornell has heard that and he thinks that's very much a part of why they're starting the planning for East Hill Village in an open and transparent fashion_ Mr_ Bosak said his reaction was the same as Mr_Beach's when he read about it. For SEQR purposes, we were looking for something that actually included development that was just as big as Maplewood, and we were denied that information_ Mr_Wilcox said some people still believe that segmentation might have been an issue_ Ms_Brock asked what plan on East Hill exists_ Mr_Whitham said we're not going to see any plans for East Hill; we're going to have a public forum on the possibilities for East Hill.The assumptions at this point are still based on the 2008 Master Plan_ It could be a good place for housing, and there's a real concern for staff and faculty housing at Cornell.That site has been earmarked for a long time for that potential.At the same time, East Hill Plaza could really be more of a place_ Opening it up will allow them to explore all the issues_ Mr_ Bosak said his concern was a process concern; it has nothing to do with what they're going to do moving forward, and he's happy to see the way they're doing it. Mr_Wilcox said he hopes this time Cornell reflects public input in their plans a lot quicker than they did with Maplewood_ He reminded planning board members who attend the meeting to keep an open mind and refrain from forming opinions about the project until something is before the board_ Comment, ask questions, but refrain from forming opinions_ Mr_Thaete made a point that every time we talk about development on East Hill, they're doing design charrettes, looking at density, but the things often forgotten are water and sewer, the things people never see_We know there's a capacity issue up there right now, even with the new tank that will go online for Maplewood_ He requested that Mr_Whitham keep that in mind when he talks to his clients about density; they need to talk about infrastructure and the sewer and water capabilities we have on East Hill_ He said the new water tank is dealing with Maplewood and the existing demand, so any new densification beyond what's already there will require new water storage_The sewer main on State Street in the city is at capacity, so it's not just getting sewer through the town, it's getting sewer through the city as well. Mr_ Bosak asked whether the engineers would be planning for a bigger water tank if they knew exactly what was going to happen_ PB N-16-2017 Page 13 of 13 Mr. Thaete said we do master planning as well, and have gotten wind of this. We have some solutions to add quick capacity to the system, but that costs money. Part of the Maplewood tank coming online, is a process for us to upgrade the existing Pine Tree tank and some mains to help feed the grid better, knowing Cornell has plans to densify the area. With water,you never want to overdesign a water system because you end up with water quality problems. Your water system has to grow with your development. Sanitary sewer is different. We're dealing with an old sanitary sewer system that was put in decades ago that just dealt with development that was going in at that time. Now that we're increasing things, those need to be upgraded as well. Ulysses is a prime example: they built their water system oversized for fume development that never came and now they have water quality issues. AGENDA ITEM Continuation of Discussion of the Chain Works District DGEIS comments and draft responses. Mr. Wilcox thanked Mr. Bosak for his written comments. Ms. Fogarty said the issue was non specifics, which Mr. Bosak talked about. The timeframe for this project is seven to 10 years; maybe that's the reason for everything being so non-specific. Ms. Balestra said she also had that concern when she read through our comments and their responses to our comments. She spoke with Mr. Gensel, and he explained that the document the city gave us to review is just part of the GEIS.They gave it to us to see if we found any glaring errors. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - No one came forward to address the board. AGENDA I'T'EM PB Resolution No. 2017.046 Minutes of May 2, 2017 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of May 2, 2017, as amended. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Beach, Bosak, Hill Adjournment Upon a motion by Melissa Hill, the meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Debra DeAugis 'ae; Deputy Town erk