No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2002-12-17FILE boo Q DATE�'��, TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING 1310 FM TUESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2002 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, Decembek7,:2061 idTTbwn Hall, 215 N. Tioga St, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; Gt�'org6;:Co'nne �ian,- Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod. "dWb—;.f oard Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Dan VVV. Iker, -Director of Engineering (7:10 p.m.); David Dubow, Attorney; Susan Ritter, Assistant Directort�` ©f` .PlaPrning ,. Christine Balestra, Planner, EXCUSED: John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environ ental Planner. ALSO PRESENT: Brian Klumpp, Groton NY; Dave Auble, North Carolina; Martidi Ni'6hol �i4 Coddington Rd; Greeley Ford, Cingular Wireless; Peter Paradise, Cornell-- 1Universif :Brerld t Cartland, Cornell University; Dr. Robert and Sara Baker Jr., 114 Pine Tree Rd; „Mina- An- t1hds- en;,%dL Cornell University; Steve Benens, 1328 Slaterville Rd; Hollis Erb, i,:16 :Snyder`• d F ill .4 d, Sohn ° °'r. Gutenberger, Cornell University; Kathryn Prybylski, 514 Wyckoff Rd; Shirloy-,.Egan, CorneltUniversity, : Randy Hall, Quick Cash Auction; Harry Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane; VinayL, - Ambeg9Qkar; a'' Sugarbush Lane, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town ^:HslllAhd�the Ithaca Journal on December 9, 2002, and December 11, 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 December 11, 2062. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by fF e New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. and asked if any members df,' p the public wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR, Determination: Telecommunication Antennas on a Cornell University` Water Tank, Dryden Road, Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. :9* PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Mr. Dubow — I should advise the board of two things. Number one, is that in one of my prior lives I did a lot of cellular related work. I was involved and represented the principal owner and entity, which is the predecessor to Cingular. I know longer have a relationship with them. I also know Mr. Ford, who I worked with at that time. We've known each other for many years. We know each other on a personal and professional basis. Greeley Ford, Cingular Wireless — Eric Murray, whose name is on the paperwork, was a consultant that was working for our company. He did most of the legwork on the site after I turned it over to him because I was assigned to another project. The company has since let go all contractors so I'm back. What our project basically is ... what we are proposing is to provide more coverage to the City of Ithaca, Cornell University. We have a few other sites in the area that just do not seem to be providing the right capacity that is needed. The amount of demand down here is quite a bit. We have a great international community here. It is pretty sophisticated bunch of people down here and they use wireless to a great degree. The best way to serve an area by any site is to be where the coverage or the capacity or the demand is. The nature of wireless these days since it is such a low powered technology, you can't serve an area by being far away from it. We are all turning our sites down so if you get lower and lower power, it requires more sites to be where the calls are being made. The water tank that is on Cornell University is absolutely perfect for our needs. It serves all the area perfectly. It fits into the grid of where our other sites are. It is just a win -win, we think. It is a co- location, which is what I believe the Town Law encourages. It will basically be unnoticeable once it is built. Chairperson Wilcox — Environmental impacts that you are aware of? Mr. Ford — None whatsoever. Not one. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions from the board? Comments from the board? Board Member Hoffmann — My only comment has to do with our own dealing with these things and the way that ... (not audible). I understand that we cannot ask the applicant to inventory other telecommunication towers because there aren't any. It seems to me that eventually they are going to have to ... (not audible). Ms. Balestra — The way that the law reads is that the definition of a telecommunications facility in our law is a telecommunications tower. Board Member Hoffmann — We did talk about other facilities ... (not audible). Chairperson Wilcox — Encourage what? Board Member Hoffmann — Encourage the use of other facilities. Chairperson Wilcox — That is true. That is exactly what we are getting. 2 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — In the language of the law... something that... collocating on other facilities (comments not audible). Mr. Kanter — There are no towers in the Town that is basically why an inventory in the Town would be irrelevant. That is not saying there aren't towers in other communities, but that is also not saying that if a company wants to locate a facility here and they can do it on an existing structure, then the inventory should be waived, according to the purpose or intent of the law. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I'm just saying that eventually wouldn't we want the applicant to look at the other facilities ... (not audible). Mr. Kanter — Why? The purpose of collocation is so that there isn't a proliferation of new telecommunication towers or structures specifically built for the purpose of placing... Board Member Conneman — Cingular would have to allow someone else to share that water tower. Chairperson Wilcox — No, they don't. Mr. Kanter — They can't. Chairperson Wilcox — It's Cornell's tower. Mr. Ford — We have no exclusive right to the water tank. Mr. Kanter — The intent to the law... Board Member Hoffmann — Why can we not ask applicants in the future to inventory those places...? Mr. Kanter — I don't know what the purpose or intent of that would be for the purposes of advancing the goals and objectives of the telecommunications law. I don't know what you would get out of that. Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe they could also ... (comments not audible). Mr. Kanter — I don't think that... unless it was a related company, I don't think they could do that. Mr. Ford — To sort of answer your question, we are on silos and co- located on silos with other carriers. I can think of a couple where we are co- located with Sprint. As a matter of fact, the Cornell water tank ... our only protection would be interference rights. We have no ... we would ask that if someone else comes on, they have to coordinate their frequencies with us. We have superior interference rights. Anyone after us has to make sure that they don't interfere with us. It is just like when you co- locate on towers, we do that all the time. You'll see towers with four or five carriers. First on has superior interference rights. The last one on has to defer to everyone else. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know the technical aspects of all of this very well. It seems to me that it could be in the future some benefit to having these co- locate even if they aren't on specially built towers, but on other structures, too. 91 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — I think we have been very lucky so far. We've had one silo and this is the third water tank and we've had two utility poles. I think we are doing pretty good so far. No towers and we're the hills, if you will. Any other comments with regard to environmental review? There being none, would someone like to move the SEQR motion? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Rod Howe. All those in favor please signal by saying aye? Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — The motion is passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:17 p.m. PB RESOLUTION 2002 -117- SEQR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval, Cingular Wireless Telecommunication Antennas on Water Tank, Dryden Road /Route 366, Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed telecommunication antennas on a Cornell University -owned water tank on Dryden Road /NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching nine panel antennas approximately 74 feet high on an existing water tank, and installing an 11'6" x 20' equipment shelter to house radio and computer equipment. Cornell University, Owner; Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, LLC D /B /A/ Cingular Wireless, Applicant; Greeley Ford, 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 December 17, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II and Visual Addendum, prepared by the Town Planning staff; a report entitled "Application for Site Plan Review and Special Approval Recommendation, Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Facility," prepared by Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, LLC D /B /A/ Cingular Wireless and dated November 20, 2002; plans entitled "Cornell Water Tank Site, Project No. S -02 -007, Zoning Drawings" including Sheet No. Z2 entitled 'Property Plan," Sheet No. Z3 entitled "Overall Site Plan," Sheet No. Z4 entitled "Plans and Elevations," and Sheet No. Z5 entitled M PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED "Details," all prepared by C & S Engineers, Inc., and dated November, 2002; and other application materials, 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 FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. 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 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed telecommunications antennas on a Cornell University Water Tank located off Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching 9 panel antennas on an existing water tank approximately 74 feet high and the installation of an 11'6" x 20' equipment shelter to house the radio and computer equipment. Cornell University, Owner; Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, LLC d /b /a Cingular Wireless, Applicant; Eric Murray, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else you would like to add at this point with regard to the proposal? Mr. Ford — I talked to Christine about this, this afternoon... about the antennas matching the tank to blend in. We would do our best to match it and make it blend in as much as it can be done. Chairperson Wilcox — I noticed the tank itself is not very visible. Why the concern about the antennas being painted the same color? Ms. Balestra — Well, in previous applications the Planning Board had required the antennas be the same color. It is just to be consistent. Mr. Ford — We match that kind of stuff all the time. We have antennas on church steeples and on tops of hospitals and they are painted to match. 61 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Questions, comments from the board? Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed on photographs of what it is going to look like, the little structure below the water tank has a brownish color. Mr. Ford — It is a concrete aggregate. Board Member Hoffmann — Are you planning to paint that to blend in better with the rest of the structures there, too. Mr. Ford — At this point, no, we are not. That is pretty well hidden, though, from view from the road. I can't remember if it is a mound of earth or if it's a water tank there, but you don't really see it from the road. Mr. Walker — It's a brick building. Ms. Balestra — On one side its the brick building. Chairperson Wilcox — And the other side is the partially built into the ground water tank as well. Board Member Hoffmann — I thought there was a more close up picture that showed it. Mr. Ford — That is driving in towards the compound and looking passed it. Board Member Hoffmann — Will this building be seen from the Plantations area? Mr. Ford — No. Its behind the water pump shed. Mr. Walker — The ground tank is between the Plantations. You can't see the pump station building from the Plantations. Mr. Ford — It could be made to match it I suppose, but it is an extra expense that really doesn't accomplish anything for it. That is why it was never proposed. Chairperson Wilcox — This is a public hearing, if there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, we ask you to please take a seat at the microphone. We ask for your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. There being none, I will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:23 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion? Board Member Thayer — I'll move it. 101 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. All those in favor please signal by saying aye? The motion is passed unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -118 - Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval, Cingular Wireless Telecommunication Antennas on Water Tank, Dryden Road /Route 366, Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2. MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed telecommunication antennas on a Cornell University -owned water tank on Dryden Road /NYS Route 366, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching nine panel antennas approximately 74 feet high on an existing water tank, and installing an 11'6" x 20' equipment shelter to house radio and computer equipment. Cornell University, Owner; Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, LLC D /B /A/ Cingular Wireless, Applicant; Greeley Ford, Agent. 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 December 17, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part ll and Visual Addendum, prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 17, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a report entitled 'Application for Site Plan Review and Special Approval Recommendation, Cingular Wireless Telecommunications Facility," prepared by Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, LLC D /B /A/ Cingular Wireless and dated November 20, 2002; plans entitled "Cornell Water Tank Site, Project No. S -02 -007, Zoning Drawings" including Sheet No. Z2 entitled "Property Plan, " Sheet No. Z3 entitled "Overall Site Plan, " Sheet No. Z4 entitled "Plans and Elevations," and Sheet No. Z5 entitled "Details," all prepared by C & S Engineers, Inc., and dated November, 2002; and other application materials. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary & 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 & Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Telecommunication Antennas on the Cornell University -owned water tank on Dryden Road /NYS Route 366, Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, as shown on plans entitled, "Cornell 7 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Water Tank Site, Project No. S -02 -007, Zoning Drawings," prepared by C & S Engineers, Inc. and dated November, 2002, subject to the following conditions, all to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit: a. Obtaining Special Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals, b. Submission of a copy of the negotiated lease agreement between the applicant and the property owner (Cornell University), for the location of telecommunication antennas on the water tank, C. Submission of a financial security bond for the removal of the telecommunications facility in the amount of $50,000, as per Local Law No. 4, 1998, which is to be approved by the Attorney for the Town, d. Submission of a large size original of the final site plan (Sheet No. Z4 — Plans and Elevation) on mylar, vellum, or paper, bearing the original stamp, seal, and signature of the licensed engineer who prepared the site plan, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and e. In order to minimize potential negative aesthetic impacts, the cellular antennas are to be painted to match the existing water tank. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant; b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project; C. the specific proposed change in use as a result of the proposed project is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca; d. the proposed telecommunication antennas are necessary to meet current or reasonably expected demands for services; e. the facility conforms with all federal and state laws and all applicable rules or regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission, Federal Aviation Administration, or any other federal agencies having jurisdiction; f. the facility is considered a public utility in the State of New York; E:3 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED g. the facility is sited, designed, and constructed in a manner which minimizes (i) visual impact to the extent practical, and (ii) adverse impacts upon migratory and other birds and wildlife; h. the facility complies with all other requirements of this ordinance, unless expressly superceded herein; and the chosen site is the most appropriate site among those available within the technically feasible area for the location of a telecommunications facility. 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved, and 3. That the Planning Board recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals waive the following requirements of Local Law No. 4, 1998, relating to the Construction and Maintenance of Telecommunication Facilities: a. an inventory report specifying existing telecommunication facility sites and evaluation of opportunities for shared use, b. the dimensional standards indicating the fall zone having a radius equal to the height of attached antennae, C. the agreement to negotiate with subsequent applicants seeking to co- locate telecommunication facilities on the initial applicant's structures, and d. the vegetative buffering surrounding the fence containing the equipment cabinet to buffer the view from neighboring residences and public roads. 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. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR, Determination: Quick Cash Auction — Trailer Relocation, 635 Elmira Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Randy Hall, 635 Elmira Road — We moved the trailers accordingly to last time that I had seen you. One of the problems that was presented with the trailers that were going to be out in the wide open in the far corner of the lot. First of all it was a little soft in that area to put the trailers. That was one concern we had. Even prior to that we found that there was space to put the trailers behind a fenced area, which puts the trailers further back from the road and ended up being a lot less of an eye soar. we PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Un -be- know -it to me, I didn't realize it was going to cost me several hundred dollars to make that decision to appease that. I decided to do it and it's done. It's there. I believe you have a new plan agreement that shows where the trailers are. I think if anyone has driven by there, you would agree that they are in a much less conspicuous space than they were if they had been put out in the open in the far corner of the lot. That is about it. I did have a couple of questions for you before I leave. Also, during our talks, there was the talk of the portable display units that I have out there. I spoke briefly with Jon; we are not using those display carts right now and probably won't be for a while still. I want to make sure that I am still in compliance with what you had asked me to do. One of the things that we had talked about was that the display carts were supposed to be put parallel with Route 13 in a certain area out in the middle of the lot. At that time, it was my understanding that that is where I was going to use those carts when they were up and running. When they are not up in running they are set in the back, I just assume leave them there. If it mattered to you that you thought they looked better parallel, I'd move them. Its not a big deal to me, I just wanted to clarify it. Chairperson Wilcox — What you are saying is, is this board requiring you to have the carts out front even though they are not being used. Mr. Hall — Right. That is where they are on the planagram. I just didn't... Chairperson Wilcox — The answer is no. Mr. Hall — I didn't think so, but because I had to come back with another planagram for the trailers being in a better location, I didn't want to have to run into the same situation with the carts. Mr. Kanter — The answer is no in person, but when you look at the resolution the answer is yes. I think maybe we should change the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — Change the wording to say when the sales kiosks are in use then they should be in that location. If there is no further discussion with regard to environmental review, I will move the motion. Do I have a second? Board Member Hoffmann — (Comments not audible). Mr. Hall — The property line goes down the bank a fair amount. The clean fill that is in there is the clean fill that I've had. Anything beyond that was there when I purchased the property. Board Member Hoffmann — Is that all on your property? Mr. Hall — Correct. I would like to have some better, clean rock fill come in, in that area. I had one of the contractors offer to bring in some busted up asphalt and stuff. I said no because I guess there are some problems with DEC and asphalt so I elected not to go with any asphalt in there. If anybody has got any clean fill as far as stone, gravel, concrete. It's a good place to put it. Mr. Walker — We do have an earth fill ordinance that if you place more than 50 cubic yards in a year you need to get a permit for that. IM PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Mr. Hall — Okay. I don't see that happening. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion. Do I have a second? Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. Further discussion? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying aye? Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — The motion passes unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:31 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -119 — SEQR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval, Quick Cash Auction House — Site Modifications, 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -21. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the approved site plan for Quick Cash Auction House located at 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -21, Commercial District "C ". The proposed modification includes relocating two of the trailers from the southwest corner of the property to a better - screened location closer to the building behind a fence. The plan titled "Trailer Location Alt I" (June 10, 2002) is the plan that was approved on June 18, 2002 by the Town Planning Board. Randy Hall, Owner /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 Site Plan Approval and Modifications, and 3. The Planning Board, on December 17, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Proposed Site Plan Modifications — Quick Cash Auction ll, Trailer Locations — Alt. Ill, " dated Nov. 10, 2002, and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Modifications; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: 11 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED 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 for the proposed modification to the approved site plan for Quick Cash Auction located at 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -21, Business District "C ". The proposed modification includes relocating two of the trailers from the southwest corner of the property to a better screened location closer to the building behind a fence. The original plan was approved on June 18, 2002 by the Town Planning Board. Randy Hall, Owner /Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann — (Comments not audible). Mr. Kanter — The site plan shows them where they were approved to be located, but it was supposed to be revised to be parallel. The original alternate I is the one that was actually approved by the board a few months ago. Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed ... (comments not audible). Mr. Kanter — Right. This is the location, just not the orientation. Board Member Hoffmann — They would be that close to the road, but parallel. Mr. Kanter — Right. They did get a variance from the Zoning Board to locate them there. Chairperson Wilcox — We don't want the trailers to become permanent. Mr. Hall — I understand that. At that time, I think it was also said that we know that the trailers have to be out of there at that time. We also discussed the fact that probably I wasn't going to have enough funds to build a building by then and that I could come back to the board and we could discuss other options at that time. One of those options might be that if the trailers are out of there and if I am using the kiosks and the kiosks are successful and its not raising a hair on anybody's back that you are not getting a list of phone calls into the board or the Town of Ithaca then maybe it wouldn't be a problem if I continue to use them maybe at that time a different location would be more fit. We could cross that bridge when we get there. Chairperson Wilcox — I think it would be fair to point to you that this board does not make a decision based upon phone calls. This board makes decision based upon good land use. Any other questions for Mr. Hall? Board Member Hoffmann — Are you using the building at this time? 12 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Mr. Hall — I'm using the building at this point for storage. We had to put a little bit of a halt on opening the store. It should be coming along down the road. We ran into a real hot summer. We ran out of gas this passed summer then we got into the busy season and we just didn't have the time or the manpower to complete what we had started. It is something that we are definitely putting forth the effort as we speak right now to get that place open. Chairperson Wilcox - This is a public hearing, if there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item, we ask you to please take a seat at the microphone. We ask for your name and address and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. There being none, I will close the public hearing and bring the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the resolution as drafted? So moved by George Conneman. Seconded by Kevin. Mr. Dubow — I would insert that during any period of time that the kiosks are in use, and then they shall be at that location. Mr. Kanter — I would suggest in addition to adding something at the end, saying something like when not in use the kiosks may be moved away from or back from Route 13 so as not to be...I don't think we want to suggest that he can use them somewhere else along Route 13 just because they are not in use. There maybe ... like where they are now looks appropriate. Mr. Dubow — I understand the existing approval requires that they be located when in use at that location. Is that correct? Mr. Kanter —Yes. Mr. Dubow — You could identify a particular location. When not in use they could be located near the rear of the property. Mr. Kanter — I don't want to get into going back and revising the drawing even because I think what we have is adequate for our purposes. Mr. Hall — (Comments not audible). Chairperson Wilcox — How would you describe where the kiosks are located now? Mr. Hall — They are back along the fence. Mr. Kanter — They are rather small structures, so they won't have the same kind of impact as the trailers. 13 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? All those in favor of the resolution as revised please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — The motion is passed unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -120 - Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Quick Cash Auction House — Site Modifications, 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -21. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the approved site plan for Quick Cash Auction House located at 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -21, Commercial District "C ". The proposed modification includes relocating two of the trailers from the southwest corner of the property to a better - screened location closer to the building behind a fence. The plan titled "Trailer Location Alt I" (June 10, 2002) is the plan that was approved on June 18, 2002 by the Town Planning Board. Randy Hall, Owner /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 Site Plan Approval, has, on December 17, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 17, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Proposed Site Plan Modifications — Quick Cash Auction 11, Trailer Locations — Alt. Ill, " dated Nov. 10, 2002, and other application material, and 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 modification, as shown on plans entitled "Proposed Site Plan Modifications — Quick Cash Auction 11, Trailer Locations — Alt. Ill, " dated Nov. 10, 2002, which involves the relocation of two trailers from the southwest corner of the property to the location shown on the above - referenced plan revision, subject to the following conditions: 14 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED a. During any period of time while the kiosks are in use, the two sales kiosks shall be located parallel to Route 13 rather than at the 45 degree angle shown on the Nov. 10, 2002 site plan, and during any period of time while the kiosks are not in use, the two sales kiosks shall be located near the fence located in the rear portion of the yard, and b. That the four storage trailers and the kiosks be removed on or before December 18, 2003, as required in the original Planning Board approval. 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. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Sketch Plan for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision, rezoning request, and associated site plan for the development project located at the corner of West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -17.1, Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 6 lots for single - family residences, one 2.1 +/- acre lot for 16 apartment units in four buildings, and reserve the remaining lot along Danby Road for future commercial development. David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E., Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Brian Klumpp, Groton NY — I work for Gary Wood and Regan Landscaping. As you just stated, Mr. Auble is looking to subdivide his 15 acre property located at the intersection of West King Road and Danby Road into eight lots. Lots one through six as residential single - family homes on approximately one acre each lot. Lot seven will consist of sixteen apartment units configured into four buildings. Lot eight will be reserved for future commercial development. The existing zoning for the parcel, as you see in appendix II of the engineer's report, is mostly business c with a small parcel zoned business d located right at the intersection of West King Road and Danby Road. Another small parcel is zoned MR, located in the northwest portion of the lot. Mr. Auble's proposed zoning would make lots one through seven MR and lot eight as is, mostly business c and the small business d. Mr. Auble's proposed zoning for the fifteen acre piece very closely resembles the Town of Ithaca's proposed zoning. Site utilities... there are an existing sanitary sewer line running south to north and onto an adjacent parcel. There is an existing water line on the north side of the West King Road. These two lines will be tied into by the necessary sanitary sewer line and water line extensions. There is a proposed road approximately 800 feet in length, which will be constructed to Town specifications with the intent of being dedicated to the Town. Storm water management... there exists a swale running more or less through the center of the property from east to west. It is our intent to leave that swale as is. We will create a storm water management pond on the west side of the proposed road... downhill side of the property to mitigate any storm water quality and storm water quantity issues. It appears on our 15 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED sketch plan as though the storm water pond is on lots three and four. Since we submitted this proposal, we've discussed making that lot a lot unto itself. Another item that doesn't show on the sketch plan is a proposal to create a walking easement along the front of all the lots as well as between lots six and seven for access to lot eight. Until lot eight is developed, we would create some sort of walking path on lot eight and at the point when lot eight does get developed, any site plan for that lot will need to take into consideration that walking space, whether it needs to be moved or what needs to be determined. I'd like to go back and talk about lots one and six. Mr. Auble would like to reserve the option for those two parcels for possible apartment units. Lots two, three, four and five make very nice, private lots. There is some brush and trees and they just make nice single - family homes. Lots six is more or less located on the westerly portion of the field that extends all the way up to Danby Road, which may hinder its attractiveness for a single family home. Lot one is again, it doesn't make for as nice a single - family home as lots three through five. It may be more appropriate to put some sort of apartment building on that lot also. Dave Auble, North Carolina — As you folks know, I have been the owner of this property for twelve years. I recently sold a major portion of this property to the State Park. Included with that sale was an agreement that they would be cooperative with any development that was approved by the Town based on Town requirements. I think that should be a factor in consideration in terms of asking for requirements for setting aside parkland on a site. We are adjacent to a major State Park and we have already basically conceded a major portion of the site to the State Parks. Chairperson Wilcox — Where do we start? Board Member Mitrano — (Comments not audible). Mr. Auble - The site was zoned for over 310 apartment units and a 151,000 square foot shopping center and 25 single - family lots and a service station. It was purchased as an investment based upon the preliminary site plan approval that had been approved many years ago. At the time, I had purchased it with some partners originally; it was just prior to major drop -off in real estate activity and major recession that occurred soon after that. Board Member Mitrano — (Comments not audible). Mr. Auble — That will be one of my first tenants. Board Member Hoffmann — I thought we had some very good comments from Jon Kanter. We also ... (not audible). Mr. Kanter — We got a letter from State Parks and a letter from the County. Board Member Howe — Jonathan, I see you're saying that perhaps we should talk about that front parcel still being neighborhood commercial. 101 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Mr. Kanter — I think that before we talk Ed Marx's comments we should get straight in our own minds what the proposal is and what the Town's proposed zoning is. I think the County letter is a little bit misleading and I don't think they quite understood the situation. In talking about the current rezoning proposal, my understanding is that Mr. Auble is not currently proposing any changes in the commercial zone except for in the engineering report it did mention that they anticipated requesting in the future that the remaining commercial part of the property be in our new category be in community commercial, which is the larger scale of the commercial zone. It is basically comparable to what is at East Hill Plaza. The inconsistency is that our proposed revised zoning is proposing this remaining commercial site as neighborhood commercial with these smaller scale buildings somewhat more limitations in the types of uses that can be there. One thing interesting, Mr. Auble commented about the limitation on hours of operation that might be too restrictive. The Codes and Ordinances Committee decided in the current revised proposal that hasn't been released yet to do away with those hours of operation. The committee felt that it could not be appropriate for certain types of uses like motels where it is hard to have hours of operation limitations on that. The theory was to withdraw that proposal and to make that part of the site plan and special permit process, which we have actually done on occasion with certain proposals. tried reading the County letter and I couldn't really understand it myself. We might want to talk about that a little later. Board Member Howe — How do we factor in that ... (comments not audible)? Mr. Kanter — I think so. I think it is a separate issue, but at the same time in my memo I mentioned we might want to consider the rezoning of the business c portion, the very small piece at the corner. That would parallel the Codes and Ordinances Committee recommendation. Mr. Klumpp — If you are going to do that, why not wait until that change takes place. We would rather leave the zoning of lot eight as is. Mr. Kanter — That is something that the board can consider. There are options available. There are no reasons to necessarily do that. The other part of the suggestion was to rezone a small parcel ... (comments not audible). Right now there are no structures on the parcel. Mr. Klumpp — What is the proposed zoning? Mr. Kanter — The most current Town proposal is to make that part of the neighborhood commercial zone. Mr. Klumpp — I would think for this proposal we would like to avoid any conflict and keep lot eight clean. I doubt very much that anything will be built on lot eight before the Town does their rezoning. It would make sense to us just leave that alone and the Town's proposed zoning when that goes through will take care of both of those issues. Mr. Kanter — Obviously, that is not part of the applicant's proposal. Those are just preliminary thoughts that we had. 17 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Board Member Mitrano — (Comments not audible). Chairperson Wilcox — That subdivision has already occurred. Mr. Klumpp — It is the land to the south and to the west. Mr. Kanter — The subdivision came before this board and was approved. Chairperson Wilcox — The subdivision was approved post the subdivision having occurred. I take it by your comments that you wish to not go to the Town Board and ask for a zoning request at this point. Mr. Klumpp — We had a meeting with the Town Board. I am not exactly sure how the process works. Chairperson Wilcox — Any change in zoning will be granted by the Town Board. Mr. Kanter — They did go and request a rezoning from the ... they are trying to avoid zoning changes of the remaining business portion. In order to build residential on lot one through seven, they need a rezoning from business c to something. Not to slight it, but as Mr. Barney represented to the Town Board, his thoughts are that a Special Land Use District is another thing for the Town Board to consider for the overall development of the property, both commercial and residential. Chairperson Wilcox — The problem with that is that we have no plans for lot eight at this time. A Special Land Use District generally involves a specific application. The applicant has requested MR zoning for lots one thought seven. That certainly raises the issue of and was pointed out by Mr. Klumpp that the option of putting an apartment on lots one and six as well as seven, but by having MR zoning on the back lots, it opens them up to the potential for multi -unit structures in the area that is closest to the State Parks. How multiple are we talking? Lots two, three, four and five as shown here total 4.3 acres. Mr. Kanter — I did some rough calculations and realistically, in there you could probably get 50 to 60 apartment units if you assembled lots one through six as one parcel. It is a good number of apartment units. Mr. Klumpp — I would just like to make that point that when we do that all as MR, we were following the proposed Town rezoning for that parcel. Mr. Kanter — That is correct. If you recall the Codes and Ordinances Committee's most recent revised proposal, the front part of the site would be neighborhood commercial and the back part of the site would be multiple residences. There was some debate about that and it certainly wasn't unanimous, but the earlier proposal called for low density residential in the rear most portion. Chairperson Wilcox — It may have been that with the additional ... (comments not audible). Mr. Auble — The land was sold at substantially under its development value. It wasn't exactly donated, but it was well below... IR] PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I think all of this started when there were some development plans approved ... (comments not audible). I think we all started thinking much more about how ... (comments not audible). I must say from a planning point of view, it makes sense to not have a gas station there. There are already two gas stations on Danby Road. The other thing is if there was to be a gas station there, it is very close to a tributary. Mr. Klumpp — Right across the street, Big AI's was recently approved. I believe that they even moved that creek. There wasn't a terrible concern at that point about the closeness. Board Member Hoffmann — We have gotten more aware over the years. I think that also ... (comments not audible). Board Member Mitrano — I think it would be adverse to have three gas stations in a row. Board Member Howe — Aren't we getting off the topic at hand a little bit? Chairperson Wilcox — A little bit. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to see some residential development here. I am not against some multiple residential areas, but I think we have to be careful about how many residences there are just because of the closeness to the parks. Otherwise it makes sense to develop here along the road. Mr. Kanter — I was talking to Brian earlier today and we haven't really analyzed lot seven too closely yet. I'm kind of thinking that even those four buildings might require some additional space for development of that site once you look closer at setbacks and parking lots and spacing between buildings and landscaping. I'm not sure of the exact configuration of these lots. Board Member Mitrano — It sure seems to me that we are always on the precarious edge of some kind of a balance given Ithaca College... it feels to me that (comments not audible). Board Member Howe — Did you say in the most recent version of the zoning that this is MR? Mr. Kanter —Yes. Board Member Howe — I would be interested in maybe a section of this being MR and the back being R30. Board Member Thayer- Lots two through six could be single family. Chairperson Wilcox — Or two through five. Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing to think about is that in the proposed Zoning Ordinance it would allow residential uses with commercial uses. Iffle7 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Does anyone else, besides Tracy, have an issue with the proposed multi -use structures? Okay. It seems to be a reasonable location. It has more buffers from the State Parks. It's located between single - family lots. One and six are still open. I think what you said is that the proposal is for one and six to be single family, but... Mr. Klumpp — I strongly feel that lot six should be MR just from walking the site. There really is a separation between field, brush and trees between lots five and lot six. It makes sense for lot six to be included in the same type of development that would occur in lot seven. Chairperson Wilcox — It would also be nice to make lots two, three, four and five a little smaller to give lot one a little bit more room. The back lots are all one acre and lot one is... Board Member Hoffmann — Jon also suggested in his letter that we might want to look at clustering the single - family homes. Chairperson Wilcox — Comments on clustering? Mr. Auble — I would just like to give my basic approach to this. First, I'm planning to build my own home; very likely I'm looking at lot three. Again, I really felt this would be an optimum situation where we had low density residential up against the park and then the higher density between the low density and commercial transition zones. I'd like to have the apartments to look like big houses... have it be a real neighborhood. I'm definitely not looking at student apartments. There is very little that has been built in my lifetime as an Ithacan to my knowledge for working people. That is the market that I intend to go for. I plan to live there and maintain this as my retirement job. I feel fairly strongly about...I really feel that it is a large lot. If you walk the site you'll see that these lots are buffered by a large hedgerow. There are quiet single - family lots that suit the type of lifestyle that I like. I was involved with building the Chase Farm subdivision and it think the subdivision was nicely done and the people who live there are very happy with their neighborhood. I would like to recreate something that sort of fits into that same mold, but yet still have the economics of it work. Looking at the feasibility aspects of it and the lifestyle aspects of it, personally, is the reason I came up with this plan. Some of the other ideas about clustering... I'm not sure how that ... to me that would disrupt the basic concept I'm trying to achieve. Board Member Mitrano — I admire the intentions you have. Given that students live in this area, when you say working families, how do you scale the economics such that this doesn't become student housing? Mr. Auble — I think as an owner you have some choice about who you rent to. You take rental applications and you design the units in such a way that you appeal to a certain market and you have rules for your units that appeal to certain people and don't appeal to other people. I've spent my life coaching university students, so I have a feel for their lifestyle. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other general comments? Board Member Mitrano — (Comments not audible). 01 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — We might want to have some nice, larger rear yard setbacks to ensure the homes are not all the way to the west side of the lot. Mr. Kanter — I was using the term clustering really as more of a benefit to the applicant and the Town in terms of providing flexibility in the lot. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right. We can declare it to be clustered, and then wind up with something that looks like this, but have more opportunity for larger rear yard setbacks. It may look like a typical single - family lot subdivision. Mr. Kanter — Say that the back lot is R30, you could have 29,000 square foot lots and not have to go to the Zoning Board. There might be other issues with lot width or frontage on the road that could be handled that way as well. At the same time, you could use that to require the 30 -foot buffer that is required in clustering. Chairperson Wilcox — We haven't seen anything yet with regard to the frontage lot acreage on Danby Road. My initial reaction is one of I like the proposed site, single - family homes nearer the State Park, and multiple residences in the middle, commercial out on the road where it belongs. Some comments about, using the terms of the new Zoning Ordinance, community commercial versus neighborhood commercial. It really speaks to the scale of the establishment. My preference is neighborhood. This is a neighborhood shopping area that will serve he people who live on south hill and the people who are driving on their way to Danby or back into Ithaca. I'm not sure I want to see a grocery store or a 30,000 -foot store. I'm not sure I want to see a gas station there either. We don't have any details on that yet. I would prefer the smaller businesses, the bakery, the dry cleaner, which you don't need 30,000 square feet. Board Member Thayer — It fits neighborhood commercial very well. Chairperson Wilcox — Technical issues have been brought up with regard to the detention pond. You have now said that it would be a separate parcel. There is certainly an issue with regard to whether there is a requirement for any sort of set aside of land for recreational purposes. The sketch plan has sixteen multiple units and six single - family homes with the option to turn lots one and six into multi- family. We may wind up with twenty -four or thirty units. It certainly raises the potential for some open space that could be used. Board Member Mitrano — I would be more open to ... (comments not audible). Board Member Hoffmann — I think when you are talking about recreational area, are you talking about putting in a children's playground for the residents. Chairperson Wilcox — At this point I'm thinking a wooded area to walk in. I'm not sure I'm talking structures. I'm certainly not talking ball fields. We don't have enough room. I'm not sure I'm talking structures for kids or children. We don't know that there is going to be a lot of children. If indeed the profile you are looking for is children, then maybe some play structures amongst the multiunit structures in lot seven might be appropriate. 21 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Mr. Klumpp — One of our proposals was to have a walkway around a good portion of the site. I think any play structures that are created are going to be competing with the State Park right down the road and the facility won't be as nice. It is a matter of a few minutes walk down to the State Park where they have all kinds of picnic tables and recreational facilities. It is more than likely to be used by the residents. Chairperson Wilcox — Maybe, I'm not sure. Mr. Kanter — I think that is an issue. I think State Parks has an issue with providing direct access to the State Parkland from residential development. Right now the Town does not have any sidewalk on West King Road so there certainly are safety issues with that. Normally, this would be reviewed under the multiple residence provisions aside from the question of park set aside, the Planning Board is supposed to look at the need for some play facilities directly needed for that particular park development. That is even beyond the normal subdivision set aside issue. You'll have to decide whether you think there is an actually need on site for something. Board Member Hoffmann — If you are trying to attract working families, there are going to be children there. Most families are not going send young children over to the State Park to play. They want them to stay right nearby where they live. Mr. Auble — One of the discussions I had with State Parks is that they are concerned about children and pets walking into the park. I had mentioned to them that I had planned to put restrictions on pets in the apartments. Again, the clientele to the extent that is allow by State Law and Federal Law, would prefer a clientele of single working people, older retired empty nester type people. Those are the people that I'm trying for. Obviously you can't control totally your selection. In general, I don't envision a large number of children. That is not the direction that I'm looking. Board Member Mitrano — Aren't there anti - discrimination laws? Mr. Auble — Those are all things that will have to be considered. A lot of that is influenced by the style of the apartments, the character of the neighborhood. I'm not saying it is totally controllable. It's just that it would be a consideration. We are not interested in having people have access to parks... Board Member Mitrano — I withdraw my previous objection. Mr. Auble — We are not the only property that borders the parks. There are plenty of other single family and other types of structures. Chairperson Wilcox — The issue of single - family development in an MR zone still bothers me a little bit. Mr. Kanter — Zoning is not permanent. Chairperson Wilcox — The question is that I want to make sure that those lots, two, three, four, five are single - family lots and that they stay large. 22 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Mr. Klumpp — Zoning is the best way to handle it. Chairperson Wilcox — I kind of get the feeling that in general the plan seems to draw favor from this board. We all have our specific issues with it. I think we have given you a flavor for what we like and what we don't like. I'd like to know what is going to go on the front parcel along the road, but that will come down the road. Mr. Auble — What I'm looking for on the corner is a small retail service... Mr. Kanter — The 10,000 limit is only per building. There is no restriction in terms of... Mr. Auble — Down on the remainder of the parcel to the south, I'm going to start searching out ... (comments not audible). I don't know how restricted it is for that kind of structure. My interest is in a neighborhood type commercial, the bakery, the dry cleaner, the things I want to access myself. Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else you need from us this evening? Mr. Klumpp — I don't believe so. Mr. Kanter — I think after the discussion we want to address the lead agency resolution that I've prepared. I'd also suggest, if the board is willing to consider, keeping the MR zone on lots one and six. The site plan review will have to show pretty good details of what is being proposed there. Chairperson Wilcox — Good point. You may want at this point to have lots one and six be single family residences and have the option... if you want the option, then we are going to have to see it and approve it in terms of what is being proposed. Does anyone have a problem with multiple residences on one and six? Board Member Hoffmann — It seems to me that lot one is adjacent to other residential single - family residences along King Road. Mr. Auble — I said it might be a possible location for a duplex. It would essentially look like a single family home. Chairperson Wilcox — Six would be a more traditional multiunit structure. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I would be inclined to prefer to keep lot one staying as a single family. I'd like to see more detail. Chairperson Wilcox — Obviously. Jon, are you okay at this point? Mr. Kanter —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other comments? Staff? Before us is a resolution that the Planning Board hereby establishes itself as lead agency for the environmental review. I will move the proposed 23 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED resolution. Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. If there is no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — The motion is passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:38 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -121 - Lead Agency Designation, Auble Subdivision and Site Development, Tax Parcel No's. 37 -1 -17.1 and 37 -1 -18, Danby Road and West King Road. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. WHEREAS. 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the proposed Auble Subdivision and Site Development, consisting of an 8 -lot subdivision, rezoning request, and associated site plan for the development project located at the corner of West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -17.1 (and possibly also Tax Parcel No. 37 -1- 18), Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 6 lots for single- family residences, one 2.1 +/- acre lot for 16 apartment units in four buildings, and reserve the remaining lot along Danby Road for future commercial development. David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E., and Brian M. Klumpp, L.S., Agents, and 2. The proposed actions, which include subdivision approval and site plan approval by the Planning Board and rezoning by the Town Board, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca, and 3. A Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, has been submitted by the applicant for the above - described actions, along with other application materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed subdivision approval, site plan approval and zoning modifications for the proposed Auble Subdivision and Site Development, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies. 24 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED 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. AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and update regarding Cornell University's proposed athletic fields which are being relocated into the Town of Ithaca due to the construction of Cornell University Life Sciences Technology Building in the City of Ithaca. Cornell University, Owner; Peter Paradise, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Peter Paradise, Cornell University — I am the project manager for the field relocation project. I ask that questions be held to the end as we go through our presentation. On October 15th we came in front of the board and the public for sketch plan review of the project to relocate two fields, Alumni Fields that are going to be displaced with the construction of the Life Sciences and Technology building. During that presentation, our Vice Provost for Research, Craig Adler, gave a presentation identifying the needs of the building, the siting, discussions of the program and the necessary adjacency and that requires the relocation of Alumni Fields. Basically, the building takes Alumni Field, number 1. The second Alumni Field will be used during construction for staging activities. Following that is the intention to put the second field back into field. However, it will be out of service for at least five years to be revegetated. So, because of that, there are two fields that immediately need to be replaced. We also intend to build three unlit fields to satisfy the unmet needs of the Athletic Department. There will also be associated support facilities, changing room, equipment storage. We anticipate a small building less than 5,000 square feet. At sketch plan we heard the board and public comments and concerns loud and clear. It was certainly an informative evening for us. We would like to thank you for your comments and your thoughtful planning questions. We also heard at that meeting more interest and more detail on site selection process and alternatives to consider. We are here tonight to present that site selection discussion to the board. We are also here to propose an alternative to the Paddocks location. To prepare for this, we basically went back and revisited the siting process from the start. The initial site selection used a study prepared as part of the Life Sciences Building siting process. When the siting for the building was done it was also simultaneously a siting exercise to find a location for these fields. It formed the basis for our decision to look at the Paddocks area. Since that time, we have used the study as a basis. We also used the feedback that we heard from the Town Planning Board and public. We also had the benefit of new team members on our Cornell project team. We have a new university planner, Mina, who was not involved in the original project. Kathryn Wolf of Trowbridge & Wolf was involved along with the other project team that has been assembled with our full responsibility is to execute this field project, not the Life Science Technology Building. A whole 25 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED new team was assembled. We basically went back and started again on this exercise. We went back and revisited the original work and did additional work. Basically, what we are going to do, Mina Amundsen is our university planner. She is going to walk you through the site selection criteria process. Then I will come back and present the alternative site to the board with some discussion and feedback. At this point, I'm going to turn the floor over to Mina Amundsen, our university planner. Mina Amundsen, Cornell University — I'm going to walk you through in a fair amount of detail through the site selection process and explain the criteria to you and do a site -by -site evaluation for better understanding of how we arrived at our decision and where we are now. The board to the left has the site criterion. I will walk you through the site criteria and also a few details as to why and how we use these. The first is the program fit. As Peter mentioned earlier, the program that we decided upon was to light Alumni Fields and three unlit practice fields that were needed to accommodate an existing unmet need for women's practice and sports. So in addition to the five fields, the program would also have a small changing facility and a limited amount of parking. Another important criteria for us was walking distance from the campus, especially since all of our Varsity facilities are concentrated in Central Campus and the preference was to have these fields as close to the classrooms and residence halls as possible. The third criterion that the fields be adjacent to athletic facilities. Once again for obvious reasons, we would like a cluster. The other reason was also for the needs of the athletic staff to maintain and operate the facility. Clustering allows much easier maintenance. The next is conflict with other university users. Central Campus, as you can see, the entire campus is entirely used and occupied by a whole variety of different uses. It was important for us to accommodate all possible... In the sites that we examined we had to make sure there was no conflict with any existing use, which leads us to the next criterion, which is relocation of existing uses. So what would the relocation of an existing use entail? Would it be something that would disrupt a lot of existing research, be expensive, a whole lot of other issues? The last one, but not the least, is site constraints. It is a broad category. We include both the physical features of the site as well as the adjacency. That would include the site, what activities were on the site. I'm going to walk you through the sites now. The first site that we looked at was Hoy Field. (Comments not audible). As you can see the program does... it's a small site. However ... (not audible). Ms. Amundsen described the sites considered to the Planning Board. Comments were difficult to transcribe due to Ms. Amundsen not speaking into a microphone (about 10 minutes of tape). Mr. Paradise — As you can see, when all that was said and done, we had three sites that fit the program that would be the Orchards, Precinct 8 and the Paddocks location. As Mina went through, 1401 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED the Orchards were really not an ideal location for multiple reasons for us to put the program. The Paddocks is where we came forward and heard and your concerns. That put us back to really looking at the Precinct 8 location. The Precinct 8 location is a very large parcel. It is about 75 acres. It is bi- sected unfortunately by this high voltage power line. It really fragments the site. It is currently used by farm services. We really felt it was necessary to really take a closer look at the Precinct 8 location. When we went through the criteria, the program fit clearly. There is more than enough space there. The walking distance from campus is certainly not ideal, but when you compare it to original site on the Paddocks, there really wasn't a lot of difference. The relocation of existing uses ... if we were to do something on this site we would have to provide farm services with similar property. The site constraints are fairly similar. There is a little more topography, but in general... We met with Jonathan, Sue and Fred over the past week and talked through where we were. We continued to pursue ... what we have done is basically took a footprint of the fields and the programs and showed it on two different locations of Precinct 8. We showed two different locations on the site. We were intrigued by the northeast corner for multiple reasons. It seems to be an area that we might be interested in exploring. Fred and Sue and Jonathan suggested that we show something on this side of the power lines as well. We are thinking, it appears to us that as you move northeast on the site, there appears to be lesser impacts to the area. What we heard was lighting impacts, noise impacts, neighborhood impacts, and drainage. It appears that if you go from the Paddocks to this site and as you go from this site to the far north the impacts are reduced more. There is significant drain on the site. There are the high voltage lines through the site and they are 70 to 75 feet in height. Looking at light poles, they are not going to be a lot higher than 70 or 75 feet. You've already got significant vertical structures through the site. As far as noise, the separation is much greater. The neighborhood impacts seem to be reduced. There was concern about the neighborhood impacts. As you come down here to this corner, I believe the neighborhood impacts would be reduced as well. As far as drainage, that was another one that was a big issue. There was concern over the intersection here. We knew that that was going to be a challenge for us to design with the drainage patterns. If you look back here, it is an agricultural field. There is not a history of drainage problems ... (comments not audible). We would need to go through and do a study on this parcel to determine the exact location of the site. We have to look at the topography. There is pretty steep sloping up on this southeast corner. The user preference will come into focus. The feel of the site is very different. It is so large ... (comments not audible). We really need to go back and look at this site with all its factors and determine if indeed this is a good program. The impacts decrease as they move to the northeast, but our adjacency gets worse. The impacts seem to be reduced as we look here, but we are also thinking that perhaps an environmental impact statement might not be warranted. That is to be determined later. Basically, at this point, we would like to hear comments from the board and anyone who would like to comment on this change. Things that we should consider that we haven't seen. Good points, negative points, points of interest... things we might consider when we go back and get into the design and planning on this site. At this point, I'm going to turn it back over to the board for discussion and feedback on this proposal. Board Member Talty — Is there anything else that is on the preliminary desktop that you see as additional need? In other words, is there anything else that is going to be torn down, built on the campus that is currently another field or recreation area that is going to be needed? 27 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Ms. Amundsen — At the moment there is nothing else being planned. There isn't anything on the desktop that I know of. Board Member Howe — I guess my gut reaction is that it seems more plausible to me than the previous proposal. Board Member Thayer — I am certainly very happy that they are listening. I would like to see if there are any houses in that area... certainly, it is a step in the right direction. Board Member Mitrano — I agree. Board Member Conneman — I want to follow up on what Kevin said. I think it is a much better location. Cornell has a new president who indicates he wants to work with the communities. How far is that site from Route 13, 1 mean Route 366? Mr. Paradise — (Comments not audible). Board Member Hoffmann — The area on the lower portion of the alternative site is very close to Summerhill Apartments. It would be just the same as having it on the Paddocks. Chairperson Wilcox — I agree. Board Member Hoffmann — The northeast corner is definitely, better but ... (comments not audible). Ms. Amundsen — We did think about that, but we also drew our line to how far we could take the students. We felt this distance was long enough. We did think about other sites in the northeast area, but they were even more distance than half an hour. It was too much of a stretch for us to consider. With the existing athletic facilities we already do have some expansion in the southeast. So for us, it was more of a natural direction to go in. Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing I was reminded of when I read the papers that you brought was that you only had two lit fields ... (comments not audible). The fields behind the tennis center are being used or created for summer camps. Is that really an educational purpose of university fields? Ms. Amundsen — The real reason for having those three extra fields is that we have an increasing number of women in sports. The facilities have not been designed to include the number of women that are now in varsity sports. We have a couple of teams that are doing extremely well, but they do not have any extra fields to practice in. The real reason for those three other fields is for practice for the women's sports. The soccer camps happen just two weeks in a year. It is a minor use compared to the need for the women's practice. That is the real unmet need at this point that we need to fill. Mr. Paradise — Clearly, the two lit fields are the ones that are being displaced that we need to build. However, we also have the unmet need of three fields. Basically, as Kevin asked, what else is on the table ... well, we could come forward with two lit fields, but we would be coming back with three unlit fields at some point in time in the future. It just makes sense for us to put them together and do a U:3 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED planning exercise, design and approval that considers everything rather than fragmenting it. That was our intent here ... to put those three unlit fields on the table up front so they are all being considered together. That is what we are somewhat criticized for doing or questioned for doing and so we try to put it on the table and we are being questioned for that. It is almost a no win situation. We believe it is the right thing to do. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to remind everyone about the time. I would like to give the public a chance to speak very briefly. We do have some other agenda items to deal with tonight. Board Member Conneman — (Comments not audible). Board Member Mitrano — Why? Board Member Conneman — (Comments not audible). Ms. Amundsen — The Orchards, especially since they are adjacent to the main university campus and right across route 366, we feel the proximity as giving that area priority for academic and resource development. There is a real pressure for space on central campus. Some things just have to move out. Board Member Talty — I think that there is a stigma with Cornell University just because everything is kind of piece meal and the public is last to know. I'm not saying it is your fault. If you guys were to come out with a master plan, this is what our plan is, it would be much more plausible and acceptable to the public. I think that was the point I was trying to make before and that George backed me up on. There is a perfect case and point. George saw right through that. Board Member Conneman — Some of the facilities could be moved to other places. There are lots of facilities that could be moved. Ms. Amundsen — What we had done back in 1993 was a GEIS for the entire precinct 7. At that time, there was a comprehensive list of the different academic research and accessory uses that the precinct could accommodate. That was the closest we got to a plan. I don't think at the moment there is a master plan for the entire university. It is a tough process to get a bunch stakeholders to even plan anything individually in groups. I wish there was a master plan. The GEIS did a good ... I think the Orchards has enough room for us to expand ... that makes more sense for us. We do have guidelines in place for growth. We felt that was adequate. Chairperson Wilcox — As you heard, I was involved with the meeting between Cornell and members of the staff last Monday. They made no commitment at that meeting to which plan they would come in with. I certainly left with the hope that they would change their preferred site. Based upon my knowledge of the site, I think the ability to mitigate some of the issues with lighting, drainage, the character of the neighborhood issue may just disappear as an issue. You've got peacocks and weather stations and open space and I'm not sure what sort of residences there might be out there. If there, there aren't that many. IY6F1"i01ONIAi, ST4aIm15fii r,� 110M. -0 •'7 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — There are certainly a few. Drainage will certainly have to be dealt with. We are close to the creek over there. Board Member Conneman — My point, not that I don't like the site, but ... (comments not audible). Chairperson Wilcox — I was asked by a gentleman from Channel 7 this afternoon about the specific information. Though I had information about it, I didn't want to make that available to him because that gives some people access to the information before others. I certainly want to give information piecemeal. Here is really the first unveiling to everybody at the same time. Are they headed in the right direction? Board Member Talty — Certainly. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we have a preference in terms of location on the site? Board Member Mitrano — The top. Board Member Howe — Above the power lines. Chairperson Wilcox — There are members of the public who I would like to give a chance to speak. You have to make it brief because we are going to run out of time. Board Member Conneman — The only other comment that I have to say is Peter, even if you don't have to file an environmental impact statement, do. The public is more suspicious if you don't. File it because you might be better off. Board Member Thayer — Do you agree with that, Jon? Mr. Kanter — Obviously, that is a board decision, but I don't think we can make that decision yet. We don't have any information about it. Board Member Conneman — There was a case in Cortland County where they didn't have to, so they didn't and that got the neighbors more upset than if they'd done it. Chairperson Wilcox — I agree with what Jon Kanter said. I remind the board that there has been occasions where we have required a full environmental impact statement and there have been occasions where we haven't, but we require essentially the same information whether it is drainage, study of the lights, traffic study. We wind up requiring almost as much information through a series of studies. If we think we need that, then we will just tell. We need some more detail. Mr. Paradise — I would agree with that. I just want to thank you for your comments and input and our intention will be to go back and do additional work on the precinct 8 site. We will be coming forward with another sketch plan review presentation to the board. 9111 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Again, I will ask you to be brief. We have ten, fifteen minutes at the most because we have some other agenda items. Vinay Ambegaokar, 3 Sugarbush Lane — I overlook the Paddock site. I know this area like the back of my hand because I bicycle and jog there. The reason that I do that is because it is quite under populated. There are some houses further up. This area is an open field... it seems to me quite under used part of the neighborhood of Cornell and a good site. I think this is a much better site than the Paddocks. Harry Ellsworth, 152 Honness Lane — I would like to encourage Cornell to this site for several reasons. One is the big open area. There are a few houses along Ellis Hollow Road. There is a little development in here. I think Cornell needs to develop a master plan for the site. Ithaca College has just developed a master plan so everyone knows where everything is going. What happens is with the public, Cornell ... (comments not audible). I think there is no reason why Cornell can't develop a master plan for this location. This location should have one. They have one for the Orchards. Keep in mind that at East Hill Plaza, Cornell ... (comments not audible). There is public transportation to East Hill Plaza. Game Farm Road ... (comments not audible). There is a lot of acreage on this parcel. Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road — I am delighted to see that Cornell's planners are trying to listen to what the neighbors said at the last meeting. The bottom site is undoable. The concern is all the residences down in there; in addition there are houses and apartments. My concern remains even the lighted field for them. The drop in elevation might assist in mitigation. There is lots of room here for numerous intramural fields for future expansion. My concern remains the lighted fields and putting them anywhere where private residences have a chance at being affected by them. I still have not heard a reason for these two lighted fields not to fit here between the green houses and the barn on Caldwell Road, which would be nothing more than a jog or bus. The closest private residences to those two lighted fields would be the homes here and here. They are the only ones with the chance of seeing those lights. In between them are the barn and the Cornell garage. The other place I still ask about for the two lighted fields is ... (Ms. Erb showed the location on the drawing). Put five intramural fields here. That is fine. In fact, there is a huge big flat, gravel space right now already existing. I think this is a wonderful idea for an expansion. My concern remains the lights and adjacent buildings. Thank you very much. (Please see attachment #1. Email from Ms. Erb to Mr. Kanter). Chairperson Wilcox — Would anyone else like to speak this evening? Okay, let me thank Cornell University, members of the board, and members of the public. Any other comments from the board? Okay. We are all set. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:39 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Concurrence regarding the City of Ithaca's request to be Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Cornell University Life Sciences Technology Building Project to SEQRA. 31 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:39 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — You have a proposed resolution in front of you. I think the key here is that if you vote in favor of this that you believe that the segmentation of the part of the project in the City, which is building the research facility and the proposed part of the project in the Town is the proposed athletic fields that they receive separate environmental review called segmentation that the review will be no less protective of the environment as a result. Any comments from staff? Would someone like to move the proposed motion? So moved by Eva, seconded by Larry. Any further discussion? There being none all those in favor please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — The motion is carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:40 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -122 - Cornell University Life Sciences Technology Building, SEQR Lead Agency Concurrence, Tax Parcel No. 31- 1 -1.2. MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS 1. Cornell University is proposing to construct a Life Sciences Technology Building on the University's central campus in the City of Ithaca. The building will be up to 300,000 square feet in size, and will be used for laboratory spaces, offices, and support facilities, and 2. Construction of the new building will result in the loss of two existing athletic fields from the area known as "Alumni Fields ". Because these field are considered significant to the University's athletic program, the University is proposing to relocate the fields in the Town of Ithaca, and 3. While the request to relocate the athletic fields in the Town of Ithaca is a direct result of the proposed siting of the Life Sciences Technology Building, the athletic fields is considered a discrete project that will not be dependent upon any further phases of the Life Sciences Technology Project, and 4. If the Athletic Fields Relocation project is approved by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, the Board is not committed to approving any future phases of the Life Sciences Technology Building project, and 5. Because each project is considered a separate element, with potential environmental impacts independent of one another, segmentation of the environmental review for the two projects is considered appropriate, and such a review will in no way be less protective of the environment, and 6. Because construction of the athletic fields is wholly within the Town of Ithaca it is appropriate for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to be lead agency in the environmental review and site plan review for 32 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED the athletic fields replacement project, and because construction of Life Sciences Technology Building is wholly within the City of Ithaca, it is appropriate for the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board to be lead agency in the environmental review and site plan review for the Life Sciences Technology Building, and 7. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has declared its intent to serve as lead agency to conduct the environmental review for the Athletic Fields Relocation project, and 8. The City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board has indicated their intent to serve as the lead agency for the environmental review of the Life Science Technology Building project. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board concurs with the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board that segmentation of the environmental review for the two projects is appropriate, and will be no less protective of the environment, and AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby concurs with the designation of the City of Ithaca Planning and Development Board as lead agency under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the purpose of overseeing the environmental review, including if deemed appropriate preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement, for the proposed Cornell University Life Sciences Technology Building. 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. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Approval of 2003 Planning Board Meeting Schedule. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Any comments of the proposed schedule? It is simply the first and third Tuesday of every month. Comments? Mr. Kanter — As usual, we continue to show Election Day as a scheduled meeting date. You always have the option of postponing or canceling it. Chairperson Wilcox — I will move adoption of the proposed schedule of meetings for 2003. Second? Seconded by Kevin. All those in favor... Board — Aye. Ky.3 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — The motion is passed unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:42 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -123 - Town of Ithaca Planning Board, 2003 Schedule of Meetings. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does adopt the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 2003. Unless otherwise notified, all meetings will be held on the first and third Tuesday of each month, commencing at 7:00 p.m. and ending by 10:00 p.m. FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH January 7, 2003 February 4, 2003 March 4, 2003 April 1, 2003 May 6, 2003 June 3, 2003 July 1, 2003 August 5, 2003 September 2, 2003 October 7, 2003 November 4, 2003 December 2, 2003 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH January 21, 2003 February 18, 2003 March 18, 2003 April 15, 2003 May 20, 2003 June 17, 2003 July 15, 2003 August 19, 2003 September 16, 2003 October 21, 2003 November 18, 2003 December 16, 2003 AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 9n, PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Recommendation of Planning Board Chair for 2003. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Before we go there, I should just for the record, my seven year term ends this year. I have asked to be reappointed to the Planning Board. We can't assume anything, but we will find out on the 31St Mr. Kanter — Right. The Town Board at their year -end meeting is going to consider your reappointment and I think they would like to hear from the board ahead of time so they can make a decision on the Chair position as well. It is a little unusual to do it ahead of the Town Board... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, no. We usually recommend. Mr. Kanter — It is unusual to do it at the year -end meeting, but the Town Board has decided to go ahead and do it for the Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Conservation Board. How about a nomination? Board Member Mitrano — I'll nominate Fred. Board Member Conneman — I'll second. Chairperson Wilcox — All in favor... Board Member Hoffmann, Board Member Conneman, Board Member Mitrano, Board Member Thayer, Board Member Howe, Board Member Talty — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll abstain. The motion is passed. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:44 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -124 - 2003 Planning Board Chair, Recommendation To Town Board. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that Fred Wilcox Ill, be appointed as chair of the Planning Board for the year 2003. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Wilcox. The motion was declared to be carried. 9M PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED- JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES — November 5, 2002. Chairperson Wilcox — I move approval of the minutes. Board Member Thayer — I'll second. Board Member Mitrano — I did find my card. Chairperson Wilcox — Does anybody have an objection to taking out those comments on the first page? Board — No. Chairperson Wilcox — With those changes, all those in favor of approving the minutes of November 5t" please signal by saying aye. Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — The motion passed unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -125 - Approval of Minutes — November 5, 2002. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the November 5, 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, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox — Any other business? Mr. Kanter — The only other thing I was going to mention was a cancellation possibly. January 7 th which would be the first meeting that we scheduled, I am proposing that we consider canceling it. However, it depends on what Cornell decides to do with coming back with their sketch plan. Otherwise, we have nothing else slated for the meeting. There is a potential sketch plan review on January 21St regarding the Briarwood II property, which is setback off the developed lots off Sapsucker Woods Road. It is a pretty large property... about 30 acres. KZ01 PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 17, 2002 MINUTES APPROVED -JANUARY 21, 2003 -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — We can move to cancel the meeting or we can move to allow Jon to decide. Board Member Thayer — Allow Jon to make the determination. Chairperson Wilcox — We've done this before. Motion to give Jon the authority to cancel the January 7, 2003 meeting if there are no agenda items. Second? Seconded by Kevin. All in favor... Board — Aye. Chairperson Wilcox — The motion is passed unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2002=126 - Pending Cancellation of January 7, 2003. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Tally. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby authorize the Director of Planning to cancel the January 7, 2003meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board if he deems it appropriate. THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — If there is no further business, a motion to adjourn. Board Member Mitrano — So moved. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the December 17, 2002 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted: /I Udk 17VA Carrie Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk 37 Jonathan Kanter. From: Fred Wilcox [fred.wilcox @verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 5:48 PM To: Jonathan Kanter Subject: Fw: horse pastures Jon, If you see this before tonight's meeting, you may want to make copies for every Board member. I do not have a printer. Thanks. Fred - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: "Hollis N. Erb" <hnel @cornell.edu> To: <fred.wilcox @verizon.net> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2002 12:03 PM Subject: horse pastures > Fred, Hello! �> I worked for weeks to set up a retirement dinner for my best friend ... and > of course, it's tonight. I hope to make the Town Planning Board meeting by > shortly after 8PM, but I will not hurry her dinner. • Please do not take as disinterest, my absence at the start! • * * * * *Mr. Wilcox, I am very concerned that LIGHTS and a building and dozens • of paved parking spaces are inappropriate to the character of the • neighborhood. Even that much parking just for intramural fields is • unnecessary; it would NOT be a burden to require athletes to use the • extensive, available parking at East Hill Plaza. > Furthermore, I do not trust that Cornell University has its long -term plans • on the table. CU gained many additional intramural fields and courts • recently at North Campus, gained two already below /behind the Reis Tennis • Center, and now wants more than three additional fields. I heard no • compelling argument for all to have to be in the same location. I have > driven around "Greater Campus," and there are other places to wedge in two > lighted fields: Game Farm Road around the poultry facility (would not be > visible directly from any residence) or Rt 366 on the north side between *about > the greenhouses and the McConville barns (would be visible to only 4 > residences) immediately come to mind. > Respectfully, Hollis Erb 118 Snyder Hill Road, Town of Ithaca ATTACHMENT #1 1 • Hollis N. Erb • Department of Population Medicine and Diagnostic • College of Veterinary Medicine • Cornell University • Ithaca, NY 14853 > USA • phone: 607 - 253 -3573 (office) > 607 - 272 -2440 (home) • fax: 607 - 253 -3083 is 2 Sciences TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 . Tuesday, December 17, 2002 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Telecommunication Antennas on a Cornell University Water Tank, Dryden Road. 7:15 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 telecommunications antennas on a Cornell University Water Tank located off Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1-5.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching 9 panel antennas on an existing water tank approximately 74 feet high and the installation of an 11'6" x 20' equipment shelter to house the radio and computer equipment. Cornell University, Owner; Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, LLC d/b /a Cingular Wireless, Applicant; Eric Murray, Agent. 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Quick Cash Auction — Trailer Relocation, 635 Elmira Road. 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the approved site plan for Quick Cash Auction located at 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -21, Business District "C ". The proposed modification includes relocating two of the trailers from the southwest corner of the property to a better screened location closer to the building behind a fence. The original plan was approved on June 18, 2002 by the Town Planning Board. Randy Hall, Owner /Applicant. �0 P.M. Consideration of Sketch Plan for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision, rezoning request, and associated site plan for the development project located at the corner of West King Road and Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 37 -1 -17.1, Multiple Residence and Business Districts "C" and "D ". The proposal is to subdivide the 15 +/- acre parcel into 6 lots for single - family residences, one 2.1 +/- acre lot for 16 apartment units in four buildings, and reserve the remaining lot along Danby Road for future commercial development. David C. Auble, Owner /Applicant; Gary L. Wood, P.E., Agent. 7:55 P.M. Discussion and update regarding Cornell University's proposed athletic fields which are being relocated into the Town of Ithaca due to the construction of Cornell University Life Sciences Technology Building in the City of Ithaca. Cornell University, Owner; Peter Paradise, Agent. 8:10 P.M. Consideration of Concurrence regarding the City of Ithaca's request to be Lead Agency for the environmental review of the Cornell University Life Sciences Technology Building project pursuant to SEQRA. 9. Consideration of Approval of 2003 Planning Board Meeting Schedule. 10. Consideration of Recommendation of Planning Board Chair for 2003. 11. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 12. Approval of Minutes: November 5, 2002. 13. Other Business. • 14. Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, December 17, 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, December 17, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:15 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 telecommunications antennas on a Cornell University Water Tank located off Dryden Road (NYS Route 366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Residence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching 9 panel antennas on an existing water tank approximately 74 feet high and the installation of an 11'6" x 20' equipment shelter to house the radio and computer equipment. Cornell University, Owner; Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, LLC d/b /a Cingular Wireless, Applicant; Eric Murray, Agent. 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification to the approved site plan for Quick Cash Auction located at 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -21, Business District "C ". The proposed modification includes relocating two of the trailers from the southwest corner of the property to a better screened location closer to the building behind a fence. The original plan was approved on June 18, 2002 by the Town Planning Board. Randy Hall, Owner /Applicant. 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. Dated: Monday, December 9, 2002 Publish: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 • Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 11 • 0 The Ithaca Journal - Wednesday, December 11, 2002 TOWN OFrITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, December 17, 2002 By direction of the Chair - person 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, December 17, !2002, at 215 North Tiogo Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following, times and on the following matters: 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Approval and a recommen- dation to the Zoning Board .of Appeals regarding Spe- cial Approval for the pro- , posed telecommunications antennas on a Cornell Uni- versity Water Tank located ;off Dryden Road (NYS Route ,366), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 65- 1 -5.2, Resi- dence District R -30. The proposal includes attaching 9 panel antennas on an ex- isting water tank approxi- mate)y 74 feet high and the 'installation of an 11'6" x 20' equipment shelter to house the radio and com- puter equipment. Cornell University, Owner; South- western Bell Mobile Sys - Items, LLC d /b /o Cingular 'Wireless, Applicant; Eric ,Murray, Agent. 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the pro- posed modification to the approved site plan for Quick Cash Auction located at 635 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35- 1.21, Business District ".0 ". The proposed modification includes relocating two of the trailers from the south- west corner of the property to a better screened location closer to the building behind a fence. The original plan was approved on June 18, 2002 by the Town Planning Board. Randy Hall, Owner /Applicant. 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. Indi- viduals with visual impair- ments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance I 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, December 9, 2002 • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGWIN SHEET DATE : December 17, 2002 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION I� CICLvl �lumo,13 106 21 C.VI cin CLrc q zGrotojej hoWe , f , All000 Moe kjt�j\RtV:eE S tR\6 &PJ7. 4, Sy r-,l�o 0 44=a 1-4T, I w Vlw f..s Frio lku R4 g n • 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, December 17, 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: December 9, 2002 December 11, 2002 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11 th day of December 2002. Notary Public Danl 1. Holford 'ft"N b01 06 52879s* Seneca County My Commission Expires Dec. 26, o r