The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2002-07-02Planning Board Minutes, July 2, 2002 Approved — Approved- Approved- Approved- July 16, 2002- Approved- Approved- Approved- Approved TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, July 2, 2002 ' ..,. . The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, July 7, 2002, in Town Hall, 215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Board Member; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (7:07 p.m.)Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:25 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra- Lehman, Planner. EXCUSED: Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Sharon Mazzarella, 1 -B Wildflower; Sue Hemsath, 1D Wildflower; Mira Andrews, 95 Brown Rd; John Murray, 95 Brown Rd; Nancy Hewett, 14 B Strawberry Hill Rd; Marie Layer, 12D Strawberry Hill Rd; Rhonda Kline, 12 C Strawberry Hill Rd; Jessie Harper, 12C Wildflower Dr; Tom Reimers, 3C Wildflower Dr; Fredrick Pohl, 21 D Strawberry Hill Rd; Paul Murray, 33C Hartwick Rd; Francis Paolangeli, 6 Winners Circle; Jane Hammond, 16 C Strawberry Hill Rd; Jeanne White, 18C Strawberry Hill; Georgian Leonard, 16 D Strawberry Hill Rd; David Harding, 450 South Salina St, Syracuse; Tom Salm, Ithaca College; Hal At, 31A Sunnyhill Lane; Brian Chalet 30 F Sunnyhill Lane; Waurene Gilbert, ASLA; Lamoia Farrow, 120 Eastwood Terrace Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:03 p.m, and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 24, 2002 , and June 26, 2002, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on June 26, 2002. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) AGENDA ITEM: Persons to be Heard: Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:03 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7: 04. AGENDA ITEM : SEQR Determination, Splitting East Side Restaurant, East Hill Plaza, Pine Tree Road Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:04 p.m. John Murray, 95 Brown Rd — The current space, which has been in place for the full service restaurant was on a 4000 ± square foot footprint and we are seeking approval for to cut off 1200 Oquare feet and make it two spaces being approximately 1200 and 2800. In consideration for that, you'll see in your packets, you may or may not know that that used to be two spaces many years ago 1 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED and there's actually a front door and exit door, that would now be used as a thorough fare door for the smaller space. In keeping with the zoning and Andy Frost's conversation that we had put a second means of egress. So what we did was, one option was bringing them back to the front, but we thought that might be cumbersome because that might obstruct the front fire lane, if people were parking there. We decided to make it cut back through the rear corner of the 2800 square foot space. The fire door we've complied with the requirements, would then exit out to the rear of the plaza. Chairperson Wilcox - Any environmental impacts? Mr. Murray — No, not to the best of our knowledge. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions? Board Member Hoffmann — Is there going to be another kitchen for the carry out restaurant? Mr. Murray — Yes ma'am. Board Member Hoffmann — So that will be put somewhere in that smaller space? Mr. Murray —Yes, it will. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? I note on the short environmental assessment form, part one, under item 11 "that the proposed action involved the permit approval ", etcetera, etcetera , "from another governmental agency." I believe the answer should be yes. You need to go to the ZBA? Mr. Murray —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — I'd like to change item 11 to "yes ". Good evening. Board Member Mitrano — How are you? Chairperson Wilcox — How do you like our new time? Board Member Mitrano — I'm as late at this time as I am at the other time. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to the environmental review? PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -072 - SEQR, Former East Side Restaurant, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, 329 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. 2 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed creation of a new restaurant space in the former East Side Restaurant, located in the East Hill Plaza, 329 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C." The proposal involves splitting off a 1,200 + 1- square foot portion of the existing 4,000 + 1- square foot restaurant for use as a separate business establishment. Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owner, Ashley Management Corporation, Agent, and 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 July 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Planning staff, and application materials for the proposed outdoor seating and hanging plants, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance 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 the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed. Therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed splitting off a +/ -1, 200 square foot portion of the former East Side Restaurant to create a new restaurant space in East Hill Plaza located between Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road, on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District C. The modification will result in the creation of space for two separate business establishments, one +/ -1,200 square feet in size and the other +/- 2,800 square feet in size. Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owner; Ashley Management Corporation, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 p.m. 91 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Unidentified Member of the Audience - My question is with the sound. We can't hear nothing. I hear the sound, I hear the humming. I do not hear voices and I have been to several meetings, but I cannot hear what you are saying. The people who are looking at you, we cannot hear what you are saying. Chairperson Wilcox — We will pull them up a little bit closer and we will check to make sure that that microphone is on. Ms. Ritter — I don't know, it is on? It is on. But one must be right into the microphone in order for it to amplify. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anyone who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular item? Can you hear me back there now? Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:09 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — The materials indicate that you do not have a tenant at this point. Mr. Murray — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Therefore you do not know what the sign will look like that I assume the tenant will want to put up at some point. Mr. Murray — We're not actually sure what it will look like. We will obviously have to follow the requirements for the signage allowance indicated by law. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody have an issue with not seeing the sign or knowing anything about it at this point. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I do because the history up there is not too great. The other day when I drove by, I saw the sign that we gave approval for putting up for the Best Western Hotel. That was supposed to be directed so that people saw it coming in from the entrance from Ellis Hollow Rd from between the two banks. It is directed so that you see it when you come driving along the building straight towards the hotel. We specifically asked why it was needed from that direction. As I remember, we came to the conclusion that it really wasn't needed when you drive from the west to the east toward the hotel, but the applicants made an argument that it was needed when coming in from the south because otherwise people coming to the hotel couldn't see it. Now it's directed in such a way that you can't see the sign coming from the south anyway. Mr. Murray — Unfortunately, that is not part of this parcel. It is a separate, it's Cornell owned, but have nothing to with it. I don't control any of their physical applications such as signage. What they would do, Eva, is apply to the owner for their input on it and then the owner would give their input, they would come to you and it would then be up to you guys and enforcement to see whether they followed through with what you said it was going to be, but that is outside of our boundaries. M Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I brought it up because it is in the same location and the ownership is under Cornell even though it's not exactly the same ownership perhaps as for this particular piece. As an example of things not necessarily going the way we hoped they would go. I think it's important to see a sign before we approve, for that reason. Mr. Kanter — Do you want that in the resolution? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — How would that work? Board Member Hoffmann — I hate to put it that staff give approval because I'd like to see us give approval as much as possible and us be the ones who make the decisions about what to approve and not instead of laying it on staff. I guess, ideally, I'd like to see the sign before we approve. Maybe this should only be preliminary approval. Chairperson Wilcox — So have a separate approval for the signage? It seems kind of laborious on the applicant, but we can do that. Mr. Kanter — If you wanted to add a condition that would say " submission of details for any signs to the Planning Board for approval prior to issuance of any sign permit" because Andy would have to issue a sign permit for those. Mr. Murray — Not to interrupt you, but I can't do anything about the placement of Best Western sign, even though it's the same ownership. Like if you had a problem with me and snow piles not being cleared, you can't go to Best Western and say "hey Cornell's your owner too ". So I'm only trying to deal with this situation. We would be bound once we find ownership, there is a law which indicates, bases on the dimensions of the width as it relates to what allows for the signs banner system. All that's going to be utilized is utilizing the existing box system that was part of the fagade that was previously included. Board Member Hoffmann — You mean that there are not going to be any signs in addition to what's along the roof edge. Mr. Murray — No ma'am. What you see for all the signage for East Hill Plaza. Well, P &C is outside the banner system, but that was approved with your blessing and Cornell's blessing. Everybody else was approved when we renovated the fagade and made that screen box lettering system. What we do is we pull that lectron panel out and you would be able to use that box sign, but they might end up splitting the one box or something. We are not going to put something else onto the fagade of the plaza and the law would dictate how much signage space they're allowed based on square footage. Chairperson Wilcox — There is some issue about the color and things like that. Mr. Murray — There isn't really. What they've done is try to stay with that dark brown template and then they're lit from the inside with florescent lighting and they are all alike. I think the only one that N1 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED had the exception was M &T had a little color, it used to be Citizen's Savings Bank and they had a little color in their logo. Little Caesar used to have a little orange, too, but everyone else has the brown and white. It's like a brushed aluminum color. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you committing to the fact that any signage put there for this establishment will be consistent. Mr. Murray — It will run in consistent lines with the banner which is on you attachment there. So what we'll end up doing is that sign that you see now will be removed and will have to comply based on this banner and what the law requirement or get a variance. The system is build in a series of boxes that fall in between the pillars and no body changes anything but the electronic space. Board Member Hoffmann — But would both of these restaurants have signs that would fit in this space. Mr. Murray — They might have to share it because you can't actually see it, but where your hand is there, where the tree is, there's another small little box that is behind that , but with the foliage system planted to address the front area and enhance that, it sort of prohibits your view of that small box. They are going to come up with something creatively that maybe splits that box or does something. There's only some much band that we can work with. I can't and will not put anything above it or below it. Board Member Hoffmann — The restaurant that was there also had signs in the windows. Mr. Murray — It had stencil lettering in the window, yes ma'am. East Side Restaurant and the other said Zorba's. Board Member Hoffmann - Is that something that you are saying will not be there in the future? Mr. Murray — No. I said to you, the outside signage for the box system is what we are going to use. There will be no pedestal signage and no other add ons. I can't tell you, I'm assuming a lot of the businesses do take advantage of the window space. Again, it's indicated by law what they are allowed to do. It's hard to have a crystal ball and know what they might want to do, but it couldn't exceed the boundary of what the law allows without coming back for a variance. Board Member Mitrano — What happened to that restaurant? Chairperson Wilcox — They closed. Based upon the recommendations made, what is the Board's pleasure at this point in regard to the signage? Board member Thayer — I would say if it meets the Zoning Boards requirements, we shouldn't have to worry about it. 101 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Board Member Talty — I have a question. The two, according to this illustration here, one is indicated as a carry out restaurant, one is and the other is indicated as a sit down restaurant. Am I to understand from what I hear tonight that you don't know who the occupants are going to be at this point? Mr. Murray — There has been some consideration for who the occupants may be. We have to get over one hurdle at a time. You know what I'm saying? You would be the place to start. There is no concrete lease yet . I can't represent to you that I even have a letter of intent. People have looked at it and there was a consideration that they would have a food establishment. That is the goal from the owners is to the larger space to a family type sit down restaurant. They might look at it to have a beer and wine, not full service liquor. The bar was taken out of the old restaurant. Then some other type of food application that is in that other little 1200 square foot... Board Member Talty - Because I thought that it was a little unusual that you would term it as a carry- out restaurant without a tenant because almost any other occupant could go in there. Mr. Murray - Well, again, I didn't physically put that term on there. I did mention it to Maria when they printed the application. It could be a situation where, again, law is going to indicate based on square footage how much seating is allowed. Right now that the tenant that they have had some initial conversations with the majority of their business is the take -out, carry -out type place. They are trying to... Board Member Hoffmann - Well, how do you all feel about if in fact one or both of the tenants coming in are franchises of national restaurants that have their own specific logos like you remember the other restaurant up near East Hill Plaza, the Subway. They wanted to have their specific logo and their specific colors, which is not the way all the signs along the roofline at East Hill Plaza look now. They all have a unified color scheme and lettering, actually. The East Side Restaurant had a different style lettering, but as I remember, the color scheme was still the same. I'm worried that it wouldn't look as attractive if you get another kind of sign, that is why I would like to see it. Board Member Conneman - Have you indicated that the sign will be similar to all the other ones? Mr. Murray - We cannot change the size of the box that holds that. Then there is a formula working with the Zoning Officer, which indicates how much signage you are allowed. Chairperson Wilcox - You're not listening. It's the appearance that we are talking about. Mr. Murray - I understand that. Board Member Conneman - You could put arches and a yellow sign that says, "McDonald's ". Mr. Murray - That is not our goal. I think... Board Member Conneman - I don't care about your goal. 7 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Mr. Murray - I understand that, but again, you are asking me do I have a crystal ball as to what is going. Part of process for this individual place is that when he goes for signage is to come back in front of the right authority and get the blessing for the signage. Board Member Conneman - Then put it in the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. I got two. Where are we going with this? Board Member Howe - I am comfortable given the perimeters that have been set out, if we put in the resolution that we want staff to review it. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. I've got two staff, but I got two us. Where are we going? Let's make a deal. Board Member Talty - I'll jump on the staff bandwagon. Chairperson Wilcox - I've got three for staff. Board Member Mitrano - All right. I'm a follower. I'll jump on the staff bandwagon. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Would someone like to move the motion? Mr. Murray - Excuse me. Does that mean we have to come back in to get Planning Board approval? Chairperson Wilcox - Not right now you don't. Larry, I'm sorry. Did you move it? Board Member Thayer - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Do I have a second? Board Member Mitrano - Sure. Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. Any suggested changes by staff? Are we all set? The Town Attorney is probably still thinking that we start at 7:30 p.m. If there are no changes, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. We've got one, two, three, four, five. All those opposed? We have two, Eva and George. The motion is passed. Mr. Kanter - Could I just ask for clarification? When you said no changes does that mean you didn't add in a condition about the sign details? Chairperson Wilcox - You're right. I think we want to add a condition that the sign be approved by the Director of Planning. Lets go back through this. Is that change acceptable Larry and Tracy? Board Member Mitrano - Yes. E:3 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox - All those in favor? Same five. Opposed? Same two. The motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -073 - Former East Side Restaurant, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, 329 Pine Tree Road, East Hill Plaza, Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed creation of a new restaurant space in the former East Side Restaurant, located in the East Hill Plaza, 329 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District "C." The proposal involves splitting off a 1,200 + 1- square foot portion of the existing 4,000 + 1- square foot restaurant for use as a separate business establishment. Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owner; Ashley Management Corporation, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on July 2, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials for the proposed interior modifications to the former East Side Restaurant. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed interior modifications to the former East Side Restaurant as shown on the submitted application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the issuance of any building permits, and b. details of any signs to be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning prior to issuance of any sign permits; we Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED 1. That the Planning Board, in making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a. That 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 granted. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: Hoffmann, Conneman. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, 3 -Lot Subdivision, Hartwick Road I Wildflower Drive. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - Is Mr. Paolangeli here or his agent? Frank Paolangeli, President of PJT Incorporation - I'm here tonight to ask the council to approve 3.8 acre parcel of land that at one time or another was split as you can see on the survey map into two separate pieces. All three parcels that I am asking to be allowed to subdivide have road frontage. There is water and sewer available with easements through parcels a and b. The purpose of the subdivision is to be able to sell these lots for residential development. Chairperson Wilcox - Environmental issues you are aware of? Mr. Paolangeli - No. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions of the applicant in regard to environmental issues? I think the only one that comes to mind is the water and sewer and the need for cross easements given the rather unusual situation here where one parcel has water, but not sewer in terms of parcel b. Parcel a has sewer and not water. like] Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Mr. Paolangeli - I haven't called the UFPO or the Town to lay out all the water and sewer. I see that somebody may have. What we have up there, to my knowledge, we do have water to two of the parcels. There is water down on Hartwick that would serve parcel a. there is water, to the best of my knowledge, on Wildflower that would serve parcel b and be able to get to parcel c. Sanitary is available on the west side Hartwick road. It could be brought across the road or under the road. Once it is across the street it could be taken up through parcels a and b thus service c. Chairperson Wilcox - Once again I want to take the board back to the environmental short form, question 11, proposed action involve a permit approval or funding ultimately from another government agency. Again, as the previous one, I believe you need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals with regard to parcel b because of the lot depth. Mr. Paolangeli - I'm a bit confused. I talked to Mr. Frost about that. He claims that 150 feet is necessary as a depth. I did not get a chance to go in and speak to him after we had our brief conversation over the phone. I am a bit confused about the north side of parcel b. Parcel a has 150 feet and c has 150 feet or more. Parcel b on the north side, I don't know how that would be interpreted. You have a 14 foot segment, a 122 foot segment and a 15 foot segment, which is a 150 feet of depth. I don't know how it is worked. I have to speak to Mr. Frost to see about that. if that were not acceptable... Attorney Barney - Where do you get the 150 feet on parcel b? Mr. Paolangeli - If you take the north... it would be the west end, you have a 14 foot leg there. It goes perpendicular, not quite perpendicular. It has a 122 foot section and then a 15 foot section. I don't know how that would be interpreted. Attorney Barney - It is perpendicular to the road, back 150 feet is the way the statute is written. You're bending. You're going at an angel. I think that probably Andy is right. I should declare for the record that our office represents Pogo in a variety of matters from time to time. We are not, obviously, representing them in connection with this application. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Thank you, John. So I would like to change item 11 to indicate that the answer is yes, that there is another agency. I have a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion with regard to environmental review, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -074 SEAR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Three -Lot Subdivision, Hartwick Road /Wildflower Drive, Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -25.2 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located off Hartwick Road and Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -25.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide a 3.8 +/- acre 11 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED parcel into three parcels of 15, 052 + 1- square feet, 21, 427 + 1- square feet, and 3.064 + 1- acres. The 3.064 + 1- acre parcel will be retained by the owner for possible future development, while the remaining parcels will be sold for the development of new residences. PJTM Corp., Owner, Francis J. Paolangeli, Applicant, and 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 Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on July 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands Owned By PJTM Corp. Located on Hartwick Road & Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Lee Dresser, T. G. Miller P.C., dated May 13, 2002, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval, 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, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:28 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located off Hartwick Road and Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -25.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 3.8 +/- acre parcel into three parcels, with the 15, 052 +/- square foot parcel and the 21,427 +/- square foot parcel to be used for new residences. The 3.064 +/- acre parcel will be retained by the owner for possible future development. PJTM Corp., Owner; Francis J. Paolangeli, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:29 p.m. 12 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Tom Reimers, 3C Wildflower Drive - I am president of Eastwood Commons Residents Association. Thirteen months ago, if you will recall, we woke up to the Ithaca Journal article with the proposal to build 81 townhouses for more than 300 students in our residential, owner - occupied neighborhood. To say the least, many of us at Eastwood Commons and within a quarter mile radius of Eastwood Commons are very skittish about any plans for development of the neighborhood. We are concerned about student apartments... other things, which we feel would be incompatible with our neighborhood. I would just like to ask some questions if I could to get some clarification about this process. The subdivision process of a and b that specifically subdivides those two properties for single family residential homes. Is that correct? It wouldn't be apartments. Chairperson Wilcox - It subdivides them and the owner, whether it is Mr. Paolangeli or if someone should buy the parcels can build units that are consistent with the zoning in that area. Mr. Reimers - R -15, which is single family homes. Attorney Barney - With supporting apartments. Mr. Reimers - Would those require sketch plans and final... Chairperson Wilcox - Not before this board, no. We do not review architectural plans. Mr. Reimers - Lot 3, the big one ... the 3 acre, if that is developed and subdivided that would need to come back here for another hearing. Chairperson Wilcox - Yes. Mr. Reimers - Is there any possibility that would become a planned unit development and if whoever owns the property comes before the Planning Board for or the Town Board for rezoning, would that be required to have more than just single family homes there? Chairperson Wilcox - If they want to do something that is not consistent with the zoning, they would have to go to the Town Board to get it rezoned. Mr. Reimers — To get it rezoned to multiple residence or something like that? BZA just for a variance? Attorney Barney — It depends, but basically those are the two ways you can do something like that. Variances are usually for minor deviations to the zoning. Mr. Reimers — Going from an R -15 to multiple residence, not necessarily a multiple residence zone, that's a major issue? Attorney Barney — That would typically dealt with through the zoning ordinance, re- zoning. Mr. Reimers — Okay. Thank you. 13 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Sue Hemsath, 1 -B Wildflower — I'm the owner of the condo home in Building One , the original building for Eastwood Commons. While I've lived in Ithaca for over 30 years, I've just a year ago purchased 1 -B. My home is only a few feet from the proposed parcel B, which Mr. Paolangeli or whoever he sells it to, I guess wishes to develop. have two concerns and one request. My first concern is, obviously, I want the residential quality of this quiet, well maintained friendly neighborhood to continue. I would like assurances from Mr. Paolangeli that if he does receive permission for this subdivision that his plans would support and if not even further encourage this kind of quality neighborhood. My second concern, and I look right at this every day, it is very close to me, is the drainage for Parcels A and B. This is a very wet field. Water flows from Wildflower Drive, down across to Hartwick. There is also a large open drainage pipe, which empties onto it and I've seen first hand after a rain storm that there is a lot of water that flows across this land. Any development needs to seriously take this into consideration. My one request is that Mr. Paolangeli or whoever develops this land plants a screening of trees and bushes along Parcel B boundary as my neighbor and I literally are only a few feet from where he'll be developing the land. There were wild roses and honeysuckles when I moved in along Parcel B and they've all been cut down. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you ma'am. Sharon Mazzarella, 1 -B Wildflower, - I bought this condo about a year ago at which time I moved in. This is my first home, I've never owned before and I love living there. When I bought, I was a little naive and I didn't think to ask who owned the adjacent woods that all but one of my windows look out on. I've since learned that it is not Eastwood Commons property. At this stage, I understand and accept that Mr. Paolangeli has a legal right to build on his property. I'm not challenging that, rather, I'd just like to ask the Board to consider that there are very real people that live in the adjacent property and to consider the quality of our lives and the character of the neighborhood in which we live now when you're making a decision on this proposal tonight. Specifically, I ask for there things. One; that the Board's approval for this subdivision stipulate that the owner or developer plant trees along the property line. I am particularly concerned with Parcel B, which is the parcel that abuts my property. As my neighbor said, we are literally, just a few feet from there. In my case, all but one of my windows looks out on Parcel B. This is important because ...... I just said why, I'm sorry, I'm a little bit nervous. My second request is that the Board look into the drainage issues. My neighbor, Sue Hemsath, has raised that issue. It's also particularly relevant to me because my unit is down hill of much of Parcel B. Much of Parcel B is above my first floor window. The third thing that I would like to raise is to encourage those people involved in the development of this property to consider the current character of the neighborhood when deciding what types of structures to put up on this property. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Chairperson Wilcox — Who would like to be next, if anybody. You can wait Mr. Paolangeli, if you would please. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 p.m. 14 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Is there another copy of that letter Kevin, I've passed mine the other way so I've lost it. John, why don't you hold on to that, just in case. Questions, reaction? Board Member Thayer — Would the zoning requirements take care of the problems that the neighbors might have? Attorney Barney — I'm not sure what you mean by the zoning requirements. Board Member Thayer — Well, I mean it's R15, so it can't be anything other than a residential house with an apartment. It doesn't say anything about screening. Attorney Barney — No, it doesn't. Board Member Thayer — Anybody can build without screening. Attorney Barney — Typically, if you were going to require screening, it is normally for a multiple residence. That's not to say that you can't do it. Board Member Thayer — We really can't dictate that they build to the quality of the neighborhood other than Andy Frost looking at the plans, right. Attorney Barney — they have to meet the zoning requirements. Board Member Thayer — Well, what I'm saying is that I don't think that we have really any control over what we're being asked here. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, not at this point anyway. The only additional control we would have is if whoever buys Parcel C wants to come in and subdivide it. Then we would have some input over that, but if Parcel A and Parcel B were to be subdivided, they could be built on without any further input from us. Board Member Thayer — It's got to be residential in the square footage character . Chairperson Wilcox — And meet the zoning requirements. Board Member Thayer — Right. Exactly. Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to make a comment about the removal of the honeysuckles and the wild roses. While they are very pretty to look at, they can become problem plants too. So there may have been a reason why they have been removed. Maybe it's better to try to consider planting something else. Chairperson Wilcox — Are they invasive? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, they are. 15 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Board Member Talty — Did John leave open the door that we could maybe stipulate something about screening? As a possibility. Board Member Conneman — Would Mr. Paolangeli, as a good neighbor, consider it? Chairperson Wilcox — We'll get to it in a second. Board Member Mitrano — I'm sympathetic to the comments that have been made. Maybe I don't know enough about condominiums and ownership, but what would prevent the folks on those parcels from doing their own screening? Attorney Barney — I have a little familiarity with Eastwood Commons because at the conception, I represented the developer at the time. These are kind of a unique situation where each homeowner owns a little parcel of land which is basically even with the walls of their building and then the Eastwood Commons Residents Association, I believe it is, owns the land surrounding each of the buildings. So what would have to happen, I suspect is that the Eastwood Commons Residents Association would have to undertake the screening because each individual land owner does not control much beyond their patio. Someone here may know more than I do about the current situation, but that's what it was several years ago. There's nothing preventing it, if they chose to do it. Board Member Mitrano — Fred, this woman has I comment that I'd be willing to hear, if it's okay with you. Chairperson Wilcox — You're lucky. I never turn down Tracey. Ms. Hemsath — The reason why Sharon and I asked about it is that Building One is slightly different. Our property line at Eastwood Commons is only, literally about three feet from our condos then there is a ten foot easement with underground utilities. Then actually is Mr. Paolangeli's land. So we don't have space to put up the hedges or anything. Board Member Mitrano — Who owns the easement? Ms. Hemsath — I have made many, many phone calls about this. My understanding from New York State Gas and Electric is that they have the easement, but Mr. Paolangeli owns the land. But they don't know for sure. Mr. Kanter — Clarifying then. Your building is within three feet of the property line? Of the actual property line? Ms. Hemsath — Yes. Board Member Mitrano — Did that require a variance? Mr. Kanter- That would be very unusual for a development. But Eastwood Commons Phase One was approved in the early eighties? 101 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Attorney Barney — I think seventies. Mr. Kanter — I was going to make a comment about drainage. Normally, part of the building permit process would have involved coordination of review of drainage between the Building Department and the Engineering Department when the individual lot plan is submitted for the building permit. That's normally where that would happen. In this case, with a two lot subdivision like this, we normally waive the requirement for details, topographic and drainage analysis with a situation like this. So the building permit process is where that happens. Chairperson Wilcox — And that's granted by Andy Frost? Mr. Kanter —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Paolangeli I'd like you to come up to the microphone. You had something that you'd like to mention. Francis Paolangeli, Winners Circle — I'd like to talk a little bit about the drainage. The problem about the drainage up there is that the Eastwood Commons property has culverts and pipes draining over on to this property. I haven't looked into it in great detail as to whether they have the right to do that, but there are culverts, two of them that I am aware of that I noticed when we mowed up there that dump on to this property. I have to speak with — I don't know who represents them, it used to be Mr. Gardner, but I'm not sure at this point — to see what they can do about re- routing that piping so that it doesn't dump directly on to this property. I don't know if that is allowed or not, I haven't looked into it and I will. I also want to state that we talked about quality. You go back to 1990 when I did Winner's Circle. I believe the precedent for concrete and /or blacktop that is used in the roads is a specification that I came up with and did in the subdivision on Winner's Circle and it was adopted by the Town. My name is associated with quality and I only do quality. As far as, they talked about the honeysuckle and the trees, I employed a general arborist to go up there last year and do some clearing. He cleared out all the trees that he felt were what he would call not quality trees. Chokeberries and this kind of stuff and he mowed the area, which upset a lot of people. It wasn't intended to do that, it was intended to clear it for subdivision at a later date so people could go up there and view what they might possibly be getting. Board Member Conneman — We all live in this community and try to make it better and keep it good. I wonder if you'd be willing to put some screening up that would be helpful for 1 B or whatever. Mr. Paolangeli — If you were to go up there and view, you'd see that along the property lines I did not cut anything of any quality at all. I left a lot of trees on the perimeter of the property and on the interior. All that was taken out of the property is what I would call junk trees or garbage trees. Would consider it, I won't commit to it. I would consider it. Chairperson Wilcox — Even if you did commit to it, that would only be assuming that you owned the property. If you should sell the lots to someone else, I'm not sure what that would do. Mr. Paolangeli — The intention is to sell the parcels for single family homes, that's the intention. 17 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions for Mr. Paolangeli? You can have a seat. Thank you. This was my back yard when I was a kid. Board Member Conneman — We've heard that before. Chairperson Wilcox — I used to play there as a kid. When I lived on Slaterville Road. Board Member Mitrano — So what should we do? Chairperson Wilcox — That's up to each of us individually. Do you have an opinion of what we should do? Board Member Mitrano — No, I'm looking for leadership. Chairperson Wilcox — Three concerns were brought up: current character of the neighborhood, my opinion is, that's why we have zoning and the zoning is R15 it allows certain things, it prohibits certain things. Drainage: I wish our Town Engineer was here, he'll be here later, hopefully. Jonathan Kanter has mentioned that drainage review is part of the application process to Andy Frost, the zoning enforcement officer in the issuance of a building permit. The trees and the screening: that one is a little tougher. Normally when we do subdivision approval, without really knowing what's going to be build on the lots, we don't think about screening. What are we screening? Right now we're screening and empty lot. We don't know if anything will ever be built there, we don't know what will be built there. We know what the intent is. So that's kind of new to certainly me, as member of this Board, to think about initial screening. The fact that the Eastwood Commons structure is within three feet of the property line is certainly unusual, even in a multiple residence district that's very unusual. I guess we have this Board (not necessarily these members) to thank for that because they approved it. Attorney Barney — I'm not entirely sure that these folks have identifiable survey. I remember those subdivisions, I don't remember any of them being that close to lot lines, but this goes back 20 years. We probably have buried in our archives back here a copy of that plan that showed the ten buildings, think were on the plan and it showed them , in my recollection, pretty much centered on the lot . Three feet does not stick in my mind at all. I have a sneaky suspicion that maybe the line is different. Board Member Mitrano — John, may I ask you a law school question? Attorney Barney — You're going to get a law school answer. Board Member Mitrano — Mr. Paolangeli has been very, very reasonable in his response. As a hypothetical question, if we required that kind of screening and an applicant were to litigate that issue, wouldn't there have to be some reasonable reason that we were asking for that screening on an empty lot? IFV Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Attorney Barney — Absolutely. You're allowed to impose conditions, but they have to bear some relationship to the problem. The question here is; can the person who came first ask that he put the screening on his property because they were here first. Board Member Hoffmann — But, it isn't only that they were there first, it's also that because they don't own the land, other than what's just under their house, they are not able to put in screening on the land adjacent to their house. As I understand. Board Member Mitrano — They have to do it through the association. Board Member Hoffmann — They would have to do it through the association which might be a much more difficult situation. Maybe the association wouldn't agree to that. They don't have the choice that a typical homeowner that owns the land, as well as the house, to the property line has of being able to plant wherever they want on the land. Board Member Mitrano — Maybe I'm being too litigious, but with all due respect to those homeowners, it would seem to me that's one of the risks of buying in that kind of context. Mr. Kanter — I think Planning staff over here is going to comment about what the setback of the Eastwood Commons Building may be. Ms. Balestra- Lehman — We're not absolutely sure, but according to the location map that was included in your packet, there appears to be more than three feet between the property lines. But, because it is such a close measurement we'd have to check. Ms. Ritter — You can kind of look at them and compare other buildings nearby, other houses and look at the setbacks. It's sort of comparable to some of the houses set back on Pine Tree Road, it looks like. Board Member Hoffmann — I am sort of puzzled when I look at that location map that we got because it does look like the building is centered on the parcel. Ms. Ritter — Again, those aren't exact, we did get this from the county and there are two different coverage's that might not have been the size of the same scale so I wouldn't go for precision on that, but it is relative. Board Member Talty — With regard to what Eva said and some of the other Board members, I am very sympathetic to the two women that spoke tonight, but I would be nervous about setting a precedent with regard to having other people come along and us and some of the public here tonight hearing that we are going to mandate screening for people who maybe want a new tree and things of that sort. I just don't think that the different individuals that have come in front of this Board before and future individuals that come in front of this Board, I don' t think that it's fair to the person who is trying to sell the parcels that they should be mandated to do screening. That's my own personal opinion. Although I am very sympathetic. W7 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — That normally doesn't happen either, that you ask for screening on somebody else's property. You do it on your own, except in the case of a different use coming into the area, then that requires screening between, for instance, a business use and a residential area. But not between residences, this is a little different. Board Member Conneman — If there was a mistake made for three feet back here, maybe that's the problem. If, at the time this was allowed the first time, which I wasn't on the Board either. But I'm not sure that it is three feet. Maybe that is something we should try to find out. Chairperson Wilcox — If it was three feet, would you act any different at this point? You don't have to answer, that's just something for you to think about. Board Member Conneman — You mean if the original proposal was three feet? Chairperson Wilcox — What I'm saying is that while you make up your mind as to how you want to vote on this, if the setback was at three feet or the setback from that property line was at ten or fifteen feet, would that change your decision. Board Member Conneman — Yes, if it was at ten or fifteen feet, it would certainly change my mind. Chairperson Wilcox — In my case, it wouldn't because I'm on the camp of Kevin and others who have expressed the opinion that the problem is with Eastwood Commons, the problem is on that property. They need to solve that problem. It's difficult for us in our R15 zone, for example, to start imposing restrictions which we normally don't, except under very special circumstances or very unusual circumstances, you mentioned a change in zone from commercial to residential or high density to low density. PB RESOLUITON NO. 2002 -075 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Three -Lot Subdivision, Hartwick Road /Wildflower Drive' Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -25.2 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located off Hartwick Road and Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -25.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide a 3.8 +/- acre parcel into three parcels of 15, 052 + 1- square feet, 21, 427 + 1- square feet, and 3.064 + 1- acres. The 3.064 + 1- acre parcel will be retained by the owner for possible future development, while the remaining parcels will be sold for the development of new residences. PJTM Corp., Owner; Francis J. Paolangeli, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on July 2, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as 01 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands Owned By PJTM Corp. Located on Hartwick Road & Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by Lee Dresser, T. G. Miller P. C., dated May 13, 2002, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision at Hartwick Road and Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -25.2, as shown on a survey map entitled "Subdivision Map Showing Lands Owned By PJTM Corp. Located on Hartwick Road & Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " prepared by Lee Dresser, T. G. Miller P. C., dated May 13, 2002, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of easements for the extension of municipal water service from Parcel B to Parcel A, and for the extension of municipal sewer from Parcel A to Parcel B, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town and recording in the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, prior to the issuance of building permits for Parcels A and B, and b. Granting of the necessary variance for Parcel B regarding lot depth from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Conneman. The motion was declared to be carried. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15. The project involves construction of a 590 +/- foot road, a walkway, stormwater facilities including 21 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED a new detention basin, and modifications to the existing parking lot to accommodate the new road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 p.m. David Harding, QPK Design, 450 S. Salina St. — From the last preliminary site plan approval you asked for a couple of design changes which we accommodated and I'll point them out briefly. One was the separation of the pedestrian walkway from the roadway in the vicinity of the soccer stadium area and you can see that we indicated cutting out the existing pavement to create a minimum six foot wide strip there, as you can see, it gets a little bit wider in other locations. The other major issue that came from the last meeting was the handling of the storm water flowing down from the hillside above the soccer field. We have now indicated a storm system which pipes the water from the current ditch above the soccer field on the Ithaca College property all the way down and over into the retention basin system. This differs from the original scheme where we were simply putting in a diversion structure down on the existing ditch here and siphoning off some of the water and Dan Walker was not comfortable with that solution and preferred to see it all separated very completely so that there is distinct ownership between Ithaca College and College Circle. Related to that, you asked that I provide evidence of NYS DOT conceptual approval, I did receive a letter from them, which I forwarded to the Town. Chairperson Wilcox — It was on the table in front of us when we arrived. Mr. Harding — You'll see in that letter that they do agree in concept, they do want to look at it in a little more detail, which I'm working with them right now. You asked that we submit a phasing plan which indicates that all the storm system improvement would be constructed first before the rest of the project commences and I did submit a copy of that. You have another item on here "submission of easement language to ensure access between Ithaca College and College Circle" and that is something that will be developed by the College's attorneys and submitted prior to obtaining a building permit. On the drainage facility maintenance plan, it is my understanding through discussions with Dan Walker that he was preparing that plan. Unfortunately, I don't see him here tonight to respond to that. I've contacted him and been advised that he is preparing draft language for the College Circle Apartments project and that similar language applied to this one. If there are no further changes, then I would be happy to get these Mylar copies in here tomorrow . The College is interested in proceeding with this and does anticipate starting work the week after next. Chairperson Wilcox — I know that Dan is trying to get here, will try to get here, may not get here sort of thing. So in his absence, we do have a comment in the memo to us from Michael Smith indicating that the Engineering Department had reviewed the revised plans and are comfortable with the new piping and overall drainage plans. If Dan shows up, we can ask him more questions. Questions of Mr. Harding or Tom Salm, who is also here and would be, I'm sure, very happy to answer questions. I would like, by the way, unless there are specific questions to drainage, I think 22 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED we've discussed drainage issues for a very long time at preliminary and would hope that we don't need to cover those things again. Board Member Hoffmann — I have some questions about the light fixtures. You did provide us with some copies. These are not shielded on the sides. Mr. Harding — No. Those are existing light fixtures and as I explained in the preliminary site plan approval, we're not adding any new lights. Those are all existing light poles along this stretch of the walk. One exception to that is that we're going to relocate one light pole, but otherwise they are all existing. I was not certain why you wanted to see the light fixture cut because we weren't proposing new ones, but we complied and sent that in. Board Member Hoffmann — How tall are the poles? Mr. Harding — Those are 30 foot high light poles and they are spaced at probably 200 feet apart. Board Member Hoffmann — How does that height compare to the light poles up at Linderman Creek, the Phase One? Mr. Harding — I believe the Phase One light poles were 25 foot high poles and I think that as part of the Phase Two approval that you granted, part of that was lowering them to 20 feet. Board Member Hoffmann — So these are pretty tall at 30 feet. Mr. Harding- They are and the height is a direct function of how much area that they can light. As you can see, this is not the most aesthetic looking fixture. It's overhead that you typically see along most of the Town roads. It's utilitarian in purpose, primarily for the safety of students using that fairly remote parking lot, we want to illuminate it as much as possible. Board Member Hoffmann — What about light spillage onto the neighboring residences along there? Mr. Harding — I was talking to Tom Salm about that earlier anticipating that there might be a question about that. He indicated that the lights are not visible from the adjoining residences through the thick trees. There is a band of woods that stretches all the way along the west edge of the parking lot and it makes the visibility from both the highway and the adjoining residences poor, if not impossible to see. Board Member Hoffmann — The trees are tall enough, you mean so that the lights don't stick up above them? Mr. Harding — That's correct. Those trees are probably sixty feet high, granted the slope drops off pretty quick. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:08 p.m. 23 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Mr. Kanter — I just want to suggest that in proposed condition "b ", this has to do with the NYS DOT approval, since we have the conceptual approval and the DOT has indicated that they agree, that we change the word conceptual to final. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -076 Final Site Plan Approval Ithaca College Connector Road Danby Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15. The project involves construction of a 590 +/- foot road, a walkway, stormwater facilities including a new detention basin, and modifications to the existing parking lot to accommodate the new road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, did on May 21, 2002 make a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on May 21, 2002, did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project, and 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals, on June 17, 2002, did grant Special Approval, for the proposed project, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate for final approval, plans titled "Overall Site Plan" (Sheet L -1), "Demolition Plan" (L -2), "Grading & Utility Plan — South and Details" (L -3), "Grading & Utility Plan — North and Details" (L -4), "Site Details" (L -5), "Layout Plan — South" (L -6), "Layout Plan — North" (L -7), dated April 1, 2002, revised 6120102, prepared by QPK Design, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, as shown on plans titled "Overall Site Plan" (Sheet L -1), "Demolition Plan" (L -2), "Grading & Utility Plan — South and Details" (L -3), "Grading & Utility Plan — North and Details" (L -4), "Site Details" (L -5), "Layout Plan — South" (L -6), "Layout Plan — North" (L -7), dated April 1, 2002, revised 6120102, prepared by QPK Design, and other application material, subject to the following conditions: 24 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED a. if no application is made for modification of the special approval for relocating the roadway within two years from final approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the surface be changed to asphalt, the plans for the action to be submitted and approved by the Director of Engineering before installation begins; b. submission of evidence of NYS Department of Transportation conceptual final approval of stormwater management plan, prior to issuance of any building permit; C. submission of easement language to ensure access between the Ithaca College campus and College Circle Apartments for review and approval of the Attorney for the Town, prior to issuance of building permit; d. submission of a drainage facility maintenance plan to Town Director of Engineering to be approved prior to issuance of any building permit; e. submission of an original final site plan on Mylar, vellum, or paper to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis Center and the Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of two multi- purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500 +/- cubic yards of fill. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention basins and creation of a recreation trail, linking the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 8:11 p.m. Laurene Gilbert, ASLA — I am the project manager for this project.... Chairperson Wilcox — We are going to have to do a couple of things. They can't hear you back there and that's your voice and I'm going to have to ask you to speak into the microphone as full as you can. Ms. Gilbert — Can this just be turned up a little bit? Board Member Mitrano — It can be brought around to her side. Is it working right? 25 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — It's on, believe it or not. The other thing that I will mention to the audience is that you are welcome to come behind us. It doesn't necessarily make it easier to hear, but it does make it easier to see. Ms. Gilbert — I'll use my strongest voice. We're here for final site plan approval and we believe that we've complied with all the conditions that were set for us during the preliminary site plan approvals. What we're bringing back to you tonight is the same drawing essentially, the same plans with the addition of a sanitary facility, trash receptacles and pedestrian/ horse crossing signs. Those I consider to be the more minor additions. Probably the more important one is the condition that dealt with the sediment basin. I guess, we've agreed to maintain them over the long run as additional system for controlling runoff into the Hawthorn area. Also, by stabilizing the new slope areas off of the fields, by the use of a grass wildflower mix that we've gotten from Cornell Plantations. Also, the athletic department has been very cooperative in working with Cornell Plantations and their request to work with a professor, Martin Petrovik, who's renowned in integrated pest management plans, to monitor the area and make recommendations to us for how to maintain that field, to protect that area from any contaminations from fertilizers and pesticides. As a matter of fact, he will be monitoring that area and making the recommendations and then coming back periodically to see if his recommendations are working and if there are any indications that they are not, he'll make what ever adjustments that we need to make that correction. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Laurene. Questions from members of the Board? Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed that there is a difference in the plan that you are showing there and the plans that we have, which is called " L -1 ". Ms. Gilbert — This plan is the one that we brought the last time, this is the one that you have. The differences were so relatively minor, that I just brought plan, but I do have the other one. What differences exactly are you talking about? Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed that that one, which is dated 6/4/02, that it shows the extended parking lot as was proposed in a different application last time. This plan seems to show the new parking lot with the new plantings and the shrubs are removed. Whereas on our plan, it just shows the outline of the existing parking lot. Ms. Gilbert — This is the same plan that Brenda Cartland used when she presented her parking lot paving plan. Being that it is the same parcel of land, we put the both projects on the one plan. Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to be sure that... Ms. Gilbert — I'm not presenting the parking tonight. Board Member Hoffmann — I know that, but since we are looking at a plan which contains what you are presenting tonight for our approval, I want to be sure that what we approve is not exactly that plan but the plan that we were given. K41 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Ms. Ritter — Well, that would be in the resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to be sure that everybody understands that. Ms. Gilbert — If you want, I can just put this plan up. Chairperson Wilcox — No. We're all set. Any other questions? I should point out that the purpose of the microphones is both to amplify and to record. Lamoia Farrow , 120 Eastwood Terrace — I usually drive up Mitchell St to the Judd Falls Plaza to shop and one of the pleasures of Spring, of course, is watching the warblers and Hawthorn Orchard that is there. This afternoon I walked the recreation way and counted the number of gorges that pass beneath the recreation way trail and there are about five. So , my first question is; what is the elevation of those playing fields that will have subsequent runoff and where are the drainage areas that they are planning, I can't tell from this plan. Chairperson Wilcox — Why don't you ask your questions and then we will respond to them. It usually works a little bit easier that way. Ms. Farrow — The second concern that we had was that, I'm a member of the Cayuga Bird Club and it was reported to us that Cornell had decided to curtail their property enough to save the Hawthorn Orchard and I hope that that is still in force, but that they were going to cut down three hawthorn trees, two of which had died. Subsequent observation has shown that the birds use the dead wood for feeding and that when it was reported to the Cayuga Bird Club, it said the Cornell had reduced the over all size so that they would not incur into the Hawthorn Forest and that there would be a five foot fence to protect that. My concern as I walked the recreation way was that there was no need for a trail through the Hawthorn Forest and when that was mentioned to us at the Bird Club meeting in December, that surprised a lot of us because Hawthorn Woods is a very steep gorge and I wondered what kind of trail was proposed through that. From my personal perception from Mitchell Street, a bridge going across it would be more appropriate if they're going to make another trail across that. In walking it today, we had not interference or anything and there are a lot of culverts, five, in the recreation way, which drain water from that east hill down into the Six Mile Creek Watershed and I was concerned about that. I didn't see any reason for another path through it because there is a small plank across one of the gorges, which enables you to walk up in to the Orchard area, which I didn't do because I'm handicapped, but I wondered whether you had thought about the incursions into the Hawthorn Orchard and whether you thought that was necessary. The recreation way blends in perfectly with the path that is on the northwest side of Mitchell St. So my three questions; the elevations, the protection of the Six Mile Creek Watershed and the damage involved, and the incursion into the Hawthorn Orchard. Tom Reimers, 3 C Wildflower Drive — A neighbor of mine at Eastwood Commons brought up the point a couple of days ago that, I don't know if this has been considered, but to the west of the former plasma physics lab on Mitchell St, on the south side of Plasma Physics lab and on the west side of Black Oak Rd development, there's this large informal parking area. I think Cornell owns it. It' s right along the East Ithaca Recreation Way and I and my neighbor were concerned that this would become 27 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED an informal, unregulated parking and partying area after athletic events. It's really tucked away behind the Plasma Physics Lab, it's that big building that used to be, I think a train repair station. Chairperson Wilcox — Is it next to the former Bud's Red & White, the knitting? Mr. Reimers — Yes. So I wondered if this had ever been considered as a problem area. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:26 p.m. Ms. Ritter- I received a phone call during the bird season. There were a lot of people, I guess, wanting to park as close to the Hawthorn Orchard. So it's birders who are using that area, which is sort of a fill area that Cornell University owns. I talked to our park manager, there wasn't much we could do about it because it is Cornell land. I think Rich was going to keep an eye on it and see once the birding season was over is that ceased to occur. So we are aware of it. I think it's something that Cornell might have to deal with if it does become a problem. It is a concern because cars would actually be going around a curb and if you have bicyclists coming the other way it could be a problem. Chairperson Wilcox — It is quite a broad entrance to the recreation trail there. Ms. Ritter — But it's just a short distance beyond that curb where people are parking. Chairperson Wilcox — So we'll have the birders and the sports practicers. Ms. Ritter — It's a ways away from the athletic field for parking there. But if people do perceive it as a problem, I do think it's something that we should talk to Cornell about and perhaps the Town could talk to them about putting signs there. Chairperson Wilcox — As for the other questions, I wish you had joined us at our..... how many meetings is this? I think this is our fourth meeting after the Plans became final on this particular version of the plans. Questions that were brought up: the encroachment on the Hawthorn Forest; I'll try to answer your questions the best I can and if not, I'll ask you to come back and we'll see what we didn't get to. The original plan of this, this go round the plans presented called for a tenth of an acre encroachment, it turned out that it was a half acre encroachment. This Board, frankly, was not too concerned about a tenth, but we were very concerned about a half and based on those concerns, the plan was revised, the north field was made smaller and the encroachment on Hawthorn Forest is now nil. We, at the previous Public Hearings have heard from bird enthusiasts and as a result of their knowledge and their concerns, we have put a couple conditions in both the preliminary approval and the final approval, which deals with when construction can not occur. Construction may not occur in May and June, which are the primary breeding times. We have also included, for various reasons, conditions that there be no amplified sound or light on these fields, again, with regard to the neighbors and the birds. With regard to the elevations, I'm not sure that we have anyone here to address the elevations. Can you speak up to why the elevations are important. Ms. Farrow - (inaudible speaking away from the microphone) N:3 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Are you prepared to spend a couple minutes to go over the drainage structures. know you didn't bring the other gentleman this time. Ms. Gilbert — I guess, basically, just starting off to say that we've done an exhausting hydrology study in the area for these projects and for the parking area that is going to be paved. I think we've addressed every drainage issue that has been brought before the Board and to us and we've worked in conjunction with the Town Engineer on the drainage and I guess that's all I really have to say about that. I have a couple of other things I'd like to say. There was some misinformation about three hawthorn trees that are being cut down. There are no hawthorn trees being cut down. Dead or alive. I think maybe another piece of misinformation, it seems like she was saying that the trail was going through the Hawthorn Forest and that is not the case, it goes around. Chairperson Wilcox — We should also point out that Mr. McPherson has, in previous meetings reviewed the drainage structures at some length. I believe there are two drainage ponds to be employed as well as the sedimentation basins around the north field, which were originally only going to be there during construction, but which will now be left after the construction to help with the filtering of the runoff before it enters the Hawthorn Forest. Again, Dan is not here this evening, but he has reviewed the plans and he or his assistants had considerable input on the design of the drainage structures and their ability to handle the runoff. So, I think we've covered that ground quite extensively in previously meetings. Any other questions ma'am? should ask you to come to the microphone, but go ahead. Ms. Farrow — (inaudible speaking away from the microphone) I was wondering what is the elevation of the hill.... Chairperson Wilcox — Relative to the existing? Ms. Gilbert — The slope of this field right here is a very gradual slope. It is a three to one slope. Attorney Barney — What does that mean? One foot down for every three feet? Ms. Gilbert — Correct. Mr. Kanter — Laurene, you might not remember this off the top of you head, but can you see on the maps...I think the question is basically " What is the actual elevation of the fields and what is the elevation of the recreation way, how much difference in feet is there ?" Ms. Gilbert — (inaudible away from the microphone) Your typical mowable slope. Mr. Kanter- Could you see what the elevation of the recreation way is approximately for comparison. Chairperson Wilcox — It's like 875/ 876? Ms. Gilbert — Well, recreation way is up higher than 876, but it doesn't say how much. •'7 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Would you estimate five feet higher, roughly. Ms. Gilbert — I guess. Mr. Kanter — I think part of the point is the Planning Board did go through this discussion prior to making the environmental determination in the preliminary site plan review. So, I think that the Board was satisfied with that analysis. Chairperson Wilcox — In terms of the views and the sound. Board Member Conneman — I'd like to congratulate Laurene on responding to what we objected to originally which was invading the Hawthorn Forest. It seems to me, whether you cajoled Cornell or convinced them or mediated or negotiated to recognize that you can play soccer on smaller fields, that you need trash barrels and port -a -johns whoever is responsible for that should take the credit because that hasn't always happened. Board Member Hoffmann — I'll second that and I think that you've done a very good job from the very, very beginning, when the plan you came in with was so impossible that none of us would have voted for it to this one. It's much better than it was originally. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, let me point out that we do have an e -mail from Hollis Erb our good buddy up there who has expressed her opinions and yes, we have kept mostly all of those conditions in there. Board Member Conneman — I still have concerns about those horse crossing signs because I think that opens you up to new litigation, but Cornell's got lots of lawyers so that's okay. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -077 Final Site Plan Approval, Cornell University — Precinct 9 Athletic Fields Pine Tree Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1- 5, and 60 -1 -8.2 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis Center and the Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of two multi - purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500 +/- cubic yards of fill. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention basins and creation of a recreation trail which will link the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA, Agent, and gill Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, has, on March 19, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on July 2, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate for final site plan approval, plans entitled "Layout and Grading Plan" (L -1) dated 1122102 and revised through 6120102, prepared by the LA Group, and other application material, and 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals granted Special Approval on June 17, 2002, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, as shown on the drawing entitled "Layout and Grading Plan" (L -1) dated 1122102 and revised 6120102, prepared by the LA Group, and other application material, subject to the following conditions: a. developer to minimize to the extent possible, truck traffic during peak hours of traffic in the morning and afternoon; b. that a routing plan for trucks hauling fill material to the site shall be submitted for review and approval of the Director of Engineering prior to issuance of any kind of building or construction permits, and that such truck traffic shall occur only on weekdays between the hours of 8 am and 5 pm; C. submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies; d. submission of information on the seed mix /vegetation used to stabilize the slopes along the new fields prior to issuance of any building or construction permits, for review and approval of the Director of Planning; e. no amplified sound nor light to be part of the project; f. limit mowing activity for non - playing field areas west of the Tennis, Equestrian, and Swine Barn facilities (but not the area south of southern most play field that is used for haying) to after August 1St for the benefit of nesting birds; g. if project is done in more than one phase, the first phase is to include the walkway connection to the recreation way; h. the parking lots at the Oxley Arena and the Reis Tennis facility be rebuilt and paved before the first playing field is operational; 31 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED i. construction of the fields is not to occur during the months of May and June. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: Hoffmann. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of June 4, 2002 Minutes PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -078 Approval of Minutes - June 4, 2002 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the June 4, 2002 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -079 Approval of Minutes - June 18, 2002 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the June 18, 2002 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann, Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS 32 Planning Board Minutes July 2, 2002 APPROVED — JULY 16, 2002 — APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Jonathan has something. I think you all got this in your packets. I just want to read two paragraphs. "Planning and Zoning Boards of Appeals that are making decision on site plan..... should always accept only the certified survey of the applicants for making determination. If it turns out that the applicants survey differs from his or her neighbor, then the rights the applicant acquired from the Board are nullified at no risk to the Board itself. Planning Boards and ZBA's make their decisions based on the evidence that is presented to them, they can only give an applicant the rights that the Board is legally able to give. Therefore, if the applicant turns out to be wrong about his or her property lines, he or she has acquired no rights from the Board since the are acting in the first place on misinformation presented by the applicant." I'm going to alert the Board to the ... We have two subdivisions next meeting. It should be a really short meeting. One is the one on Indian Creek Rd where we asked them to go back and move the line and make the lot 1500. One is on Coddington Rd, it's real interesting. Tracey will not be here at the next meeting. You want to talk about conferences, Mr. Kanter. Mr. Kanter — We have this one day one on Thursday, August 8th actually looks pretty interesting. Outside of Rochester. If you are interested, let us know real soon. The other one is the NY Planning Federation and Zoning Conference, September 29th to October 2nd and I think we've gotten pretty good advance notice this time. Chairperson Wilcox — And there's additional information in the "Town Topics ". Mr. Kanter — I also noticed that there's a special first ever golf tournament in association with that on Sunday. Chairperson Wilcox — We went around and around about this last year. Who ended up going? Me and somebody else. Board Member Hoffmann — I went last year. Chairperson Wilcox — As much as I love to go, I would hope that others, who haven't had the chance to spend a weekend in Saratoga Springs. Bring your spouse. I tend to go every other year so, I don't know if I want to ask to go this year. Scott Chatfield is on there, "How to avoid an Article 78 ". Scott Chatfield is lawyer out of Tully who represented the owners of the adult entertainment facility. He's represented many other people, but he's just a very interesting person to talk to. Attorney Barney — He also represented Monkemeyer. Ky-3 Planning Board Minutes, July 2, 2002 Approved — Approved- Approved- Approved- July 16, 2002- Approved- Approved- Approved- Approved based on the evidence that is presented to them, they can only give an applicant the rights that the •Gard is legally able to give. Therefore, if the applicant turns out to be wrong about his or her property lines, he or she has acquired no rights from- the Board since the are acting in the first place on misinformation presented by the applicant." I'm going to alert the Board to the ... We have two subdivisions next meeting. It should be a really short meeting. One is the one on Indian Creek Rd where we asked them to go back and move the line and make the lot 1500. One is on Coddington Rd, it's real interesting. Tracey will not be here at the next meeting. You want to talk about conferences, Mr. Kanter. Mr. Kanter — We have this one day one on Thursday, August 8th actually looks pretty interesting. Outside of Rochester. If you are interested, let us know real soon. The other one is the NY Planning Federation and Zoning Conference, September 29th to October 2nd and I think we've gotten pretty good advance notice this time. Chairperson Wilcox — And there's additional information in the "Town Topics ". Mr. Kanter — I also noticed that there's a special first ever golf tournament in association with that on Sunday. e aChairperson Wilcox — We went around and around about this last year. Who ended up going? Me nd somebody else. Board Member Hoffmann — I went last year. Chairperson Wilcox — As much as I love to go, I would hope that others, who haven't had the chance to spend a weekend in Saratoga Springs. Bring your spouse. I tend to go every other year so, I don't know if I want to ask to go this year. Scott Chatfield is on there, "How to avoid an Article 78 ". Scott Chatfield is lawyer out of Tully who represented the owners of the adult entertainment facility. He's represented many other people, but he's just a very interesting person to talk to. Attorney Barney — He also represented Monkemeyer. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right. He showed up at one meeting and represented Even Monkemeyer. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the July 2, 2002 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Resp„e Submitted, Lori Quigley Deputy Town Cler 33 TOWN OF IT1 ACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, July 2, 2002 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination, Splitting East Side Restaurant, East Hill Plaza, Pine Tree Road. 7:06 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed splitting off a + / -1, 200 square foot portion of the former East Side Restaurant to create a new restaurant space in East Hill Plaza located between Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road, on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.121, Business District C. The modification will result in the creation of space for two separate business establishments, one +/ -1,200 square feet in size and the other +/- 2,800 square feet in size. Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owner; Ashley Management Corporation, Agent. 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination, 3 -Lot Subdivision, Hartwick Road / Wildflower Drive. 7:11 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located off Hartwick Road and Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -25.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 3.8 +/- acre parcel into three parcels, with the 15, 052 +/- square foot parcel and the 21,427 +/- square foot parcel to be used for new residences. The 3.064 +/- acre parcel will be retained by the owner for possible future development. PJTM Corp., Owner; Francis J. Paolangeli, Applicant. 0:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15. The project involves construction of a 590 +/- foot road, a walkway, stormwater facilities including a new detention basin, and modifications to the existing parking lot to accommodate the new road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis Center and the Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -187 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of two multi - purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500 +/- cubic yards of fill. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention basins and creation of a recreation trail, linking the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA, Agent. 8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 9. Approval of Minutes: June 4, 2002 and June 18, 2002. 10. Other Business. • 11. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC 14EARINGS • Tuesday, July 2, 2002 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, July 2, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:06 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed splitting off a + / -1, 200 square foot portion of the former East Side Restaurant to create a new restaurant space in East Hill Plaza located between Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road, on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.121, Business District C. The modification will result in the creation of space for two separate business establishments, one +/ -1,200 square feet in size and the other +/- 2,800 square feet in size. Cornell University Real Estate Department, Owner; Ashley Management Corporation, Agent. 7:11 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivision located off Hartwick Road and Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60 -1 -25.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal is to subdivide the 3.8 +/- acre parcel into three parcels, with the 15, 052 +/- square foot parcel and the 21,427 +/- square foot parcel to be used for new residences. The 3.064 +/- acre parcel will be retained by the owner for possible future development. PJTM Corp., Owner; Francis J. Paolangeli, Applicant. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot parking area at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, Residence District R -15. The project involves construction of a 590 +/- foot road, a walkway, stormwater facilities including a new detention basin, and modifications to the existing parking lot to accommodate the new road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree Road behind the Reis Tennis Center and the Cornell Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -18, 60 -1 -5, and 60- 1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of two multi - purpose athletic fields, involving the deposition of 7,500 +/- cubic yards of fill. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention basins and creation of a recreation trail, linking the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis Center to the East Ithaca Recreation Way. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, ASLA, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times 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 impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, 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 hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, June 24, 2002 Publish: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 LJ • The Ithaca J'ournal Wednesday" 3whe-26, 2002 TOWN OF-RHACA PLANNING" BOARD ' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, July 2, 2002 By direction of the Clc,',Terson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning' Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday Julyy 2, 2002, at 215 North Tiogo Street, Ithaca; N.Y., of the following times and on the following matters: 7:06 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final' Site Plan Approval and a Rec- ommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed splitting . off a 41, 200 square foot pot -, tion of the former East Side Restaurant to create a new restaurant space in East Hill Plaza located between Pine Tree Road and Ellis Hollow Road, on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, Business District C. The modification will result in the creation of space for two separate business establish merits, one + /-I,200 square feet in size and the other +/- 2,800 square feet in size. Cornell University Real Estate Dgpartment, Owner; Ashley Management Car- ;poration, Agent. 7:11 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Sub- division Approval for the proposed three -lot subdivi- sion located off HorWck Road and Wildflower Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. ,60-1 -25.2, Residence District R -15. The proposakis to subdivide the 3.8 +/- acre parcel into three par -, cels, with the 15, 052 +/- square foot parcel and the 21 427 +/- square foot par - cel to be used for new resi- dences. The 3.064 +/- acre parcel will be retained by the owner for possible future development. PJTM Corp., Owner, Francis J. Poolongeli,, Applicant. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval, for the proposed construction of a connector road between the College Circle Apartments and L -Lot park- ing area at Ithaca College, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42- 1.13.2 and 41 -1 -30.2, Residence Dis- trict R -15. The project in- volves construction of a 590 +/- foot road, a walkway, stormwater facilities includ- ing a new detention basin, and modifications to the ex- isting parking lot to ai;com- modate the new ;road. Ithaca College, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; Da- ' vid A. Harding�Agent. 7:35 P.M Coasideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell Univer- sity Precinct 9 Athletic Fields located off Pine Tree-Road behind the Reis Tennis Cen- ter and the Cornell 'Equestrian Center, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s, 60- 1 -9.1, 60- 1 -9.2, 60 -1 -181 60 -1 -5, and 60.1 -8.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes the creation of two multi - purpose athletic fields, ,involving the deposition of 70500 +/• cubic yards of fill. The proposal also includes improvements to the existing stormwater detention basins (and creation of a recrecition trail, linking the proposed athletic fields and the Reis Tennis Center to th'e East `Ithaca Recreation Way. Car - ;nell University, Owner/ (Apppp�icont; Lourene Gilbert, IASLA Agent. (Said Planning Board will of 'said times and said place hear all persons in support tof such matters or-objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person.' Individuals with visual ,impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, lupon request. Persons desir- ing assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning '273 -1747 June 26, 2002 • ol�. U TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN —IN SHEET DATE: July 2, 2002 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION ^ll RhO Ii ., 1 0 1 1 M11 A ..I Off i • I • �I�ii • W7/affA r" ep rVA011 i 1� i 1 ^ll RhO • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, July 2, 2002 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting Date of Publication June 24, 2002 June 26, 2002 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 26th day of June 2002. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State-of New Ycwk No. 01CL6052878 -Oualified in Tompkins County - - Commission Expires December 26, 20 Oa r