Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2003-09-0211 .® rr TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 4w]/ 1.J The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, September 2, 2003, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member, Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning, Mike Smith, Planner; ALSO PRESENT: J. David Ferris, 5 Belvedere Drive; Dave Schlosser, Schopfer Architects, 1111 James Street, Syracuse; Scott Flatt, 660 Sterling Park, Cortland; Roger Williams, 114 Woolf Lane; Joyce Williams, 114 Woolf Lane; James Henry, 1118 Autumn Ridge Lane; Stanley O'Connor 617 Highland Road; Deborah Cowan, 1022 Hanshaw Road; Ellen Hartman; 1018 Hanshaw Road; Carl Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Road; Rick Couture, 104 West Haven Road; Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design, 450 South Salina Street, Syracuse; David Harding, QPK Design, 450 South Salina Street, Syracuse; Bernie Hutchens, 1016 Hanshaw Road; Larry Hoffman, HOLT Architects; Paul Levesque, HOLT Architects, Joe Fitzgerald, Vice President, Cayuga Medical Center; Dave Ferris, 5 Belvedere Drive; Kimberly Michaels, Trowbrige and Wolf Landscape Architects; Dr. Steve Randall, Radiotherapy Associates of Ithaca; Joel Harlan, Newfield, Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepted for the record, Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on August 25, 2003 and August 27, 2003, 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 August 27, 2003, Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome everybody. I hope you had a good weekend. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:05 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — The first item on the agenda, as always is Persons To Be Heard. If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an issue, an item, a topic or whatever that is not on this evening's agenda, we ask you to please step to the microphone, have a seat, give us your name and address and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. There being no one, we will move onto the next item. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Williams Subdivision Setback Waiver, 114 Woolf Lane Chairperson Wilcox — Is Mr. Williams here this evening? Good evening sir. Could ask you to have a seat? We have the table tonight, instead of the podium, I'm not sure why. I'll ask that you give us your name and address and a brief description of what you are proposing this evening. Roger Williams, 114 Woolf Lane — We recently purchased the property at Woolf Lane. My eldest son purchased it from my youngest son Dan. We purchased it on a mortgage foreclosure from Norwest Mortgage. When we got ready to close, they said, "By the way, there's a small problem, the former owners never obtained the variance required because the house was inadvertently placed two feet too close to the road." I believe it's a foot and a half too close to the road for the required setback. Chairperson Wilcox — A foot and a half on one side and two point two feet on the other side. Are you aware of any environmental concerns with regard to this? Mr. Williams — Not to my knowledge. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Members of the Board. Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEAR. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Larry Thayer. Seconded by Rod Howe. Any further discussion with regard to Environmental Review? There being none, all those in favor please signal by saying "aye ". Is anyone opposed? No one is opposed. The motion is passed. Please stay right there. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -067: SEAR: Modification of Condition of Subdivision Approval, 114 Woolf Lane, Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.123 MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe. 2 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of a request for a waiver of Section 32, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and a waiver from the final plans for the Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Condition 2(b) which requires a thirty foot minimum distance for the front yard, to permit the existing house at 114 Woolf Lane to remain 2.2 feet within the front yard setback. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.123; Residence District R -15. Christopher Williams, Owner; Roger D. Williams, 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, and 3. The Planning Board, in granting Final Subdivision Approval for the Westwood Hills Subdivision, on October 6, 1987, imposed certain conditions of approval, including Condition 2(b) that states there be at least a 30 foot wide buffer zone along the entire perimeter of the property, and 4. The applicant has submitted a request for an existing home to be permitted to encroach 2.2 feet within the required 30 foot buffer area, said home has already been constructed within the buffer zone, and 5. The Planning Board, on September 2, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, prepared by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey Map, Lots 10, 11, 12, Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T. G. Miller P.C. Engineers & Surveyors, dated October 31, 1996, and most recently amended December 15, 1998, and other application materials, and 6. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Condition Modification; F, OT101 Fk W1 r, WMIZ FZ42 190 72 ff y01FrZ42PrOJAk9a103 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of 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. 3 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe NAYS: None. ABSENT.- Mitrano, Talty The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for a waiver of Section 32, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and a waiver from the final plans for the Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision showing the typical cluster layout, which requires a thirty foot minimum distance for the front yard, to permit the existing house to remain 2.2 feet within the front yard setback at 114 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.123, Residence District R -15. Christopher Williams, Owner; Roger D. Williams, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7:08 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Does anybody have any questions for Mr. Williams at this time? Board Member Hoffmann — I'm just curious as to when that house was built. Mr. Williams — The house was built in 1998 and there was a Certificate of Occupancy issued for it. It was occupied for a period of time. It was built on speculation and the lady that built it never made a mortgage payment. Actually I'm not sure whether the variance was discovered as an easement variance or discovered at the time it was built or at the time the survey was done to transfer the property. I'm not sure. It was lived in on a rental basis for approximately a year, I believe. Board Member Conneman — I guess what disturbs me is that if you were six inches over or a foot over, but we all have rulers and two and a half feet is more. Suppose it was three and a half feet or four and a half feet, what's the limit? guess my point is that I hope this doesn't set a precedent because the last time we tackled this issue, we were up to a foot and now we're up to two point two and I feel that there are rules. I realize that you didn't do it, but somebody did it. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. I think we should also take into account the fact that it's two point two feet out of 30, rather than two point two feet out of 15. Alternatively, is the two point two feet noticeable, important, clearly a setback is important, is the two point two feet important and two, what's the ramification if our request for a waiver isn't granted? Tear the house down over two point two feet, I don't think so. 4 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Conneman — I don't think so, but it seems to me that there ought to be that we addressed the issue, but the fact that this is it. I would never allow more than two point two feet. Mr. Williams — I can't image how the builder messed up. Board Member Conneman — Not every builder is that smart, but they ought to be able to measure with a ruler. Board Member Thayer — I was wondering, the road is arched there, so where do you start? Board Member Hoffmann — Well, it's easy enough to stay within the line, I think. Board Member Thayer — Somebody goofed obviously. Board Member Conneman — We know how to measure Larry. Board Member Hoffmann — I think that I agree with you, Fred, that it's thirty feet setback here, whereas typically it's maybe less, but there is a special case here because the lots are much smaller and the houses are closer together and there was a reason for having that thirty foot setback, I am sure. And we have had some problems with other houses in this particular subdivision earlier with people building things over the boundary. It's unfortunate for you that you have gotten stuck in this situation. I don't see it as a big problem. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the draft resolution that has been prepared for us? So moved by Eva Hoffmann. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kevin Talty. Good evening Kevin. Is there any further discussion? Board Member Conneman — I would just like to go on record that this is not precedent setting. If the next time it is two point three, I will vote against it. Even if they've got to move the house. Chairperson Wilcox — There being no further discussion, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is there anyone opposed? And there are no abstentions. The motion is passed. Thank you sir. PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -068: Modification of Condition of Subdivision Approval, 114 Woolf Lane, Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.123 MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of a request for a waiver of Section 32, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and a waiver from the final plans for the Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Condition 2(b) which requires a thirty foot minimum distance for the front yard, to permit the existing house at 114 Woolf Lane to remain 2.2 feet within the front yard setback. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.123; Residence District R- 15. Christopher Williams, Owner; Roger D. Williams, Applicant, and 2. The Planning Board, in granting Final Subdivision Approval for the Westwood Hills Subdivision, on October 6, 1987, imposed certain conditions of approval, including Condition 2(b) that states there be at least a 30 foot wide buffer zone along the entire perimeter of the property, and 3. The applicant has submitted a request for an existing home to be permitted to encroach 2.2 feet within the required 30 foot buffer area, said home has already been constructed within the buffer zone, and 4. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on September 2, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, prepared by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Planning staff, a survey entitled "Survey Map, Lots 10, 11, 12, Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T. G. Miller P.C. Engineers & Surveyors, dated October 31, 1996, and most recently amended December 15, 1998, and other application materials, and 5. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on September 2, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 6 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants the requested waiver from the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations and Condition 2(b) of the previously approved Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, to allow an existing home at 114 Woolf Lane to encroach 2.2 feet within the required 30- foot buffer, as shown on the survey entitled "Survey Map, Lots 10, 11, 12, Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C. Engineers & Surveyors, dated October 31, 1996, and most recently amended December 15, 1998, subject to the following condition: 3. That no further encroachment into the required 30 foot buffer zone, other than he existing home, shall be permitted. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty NAYS: None. ABSENT. Mitrano The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Flatt 2 -Lot Subdivision, 1020 Hanshaw Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:13 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Is Mr. Flatt here this evening? Good evening sir. Could I ask you to take a seat. Once again, name, address and a brief description of what you are proposing this evening. Scott Flatt, 660 Sterling Park, Cortland — I'm proposing to purchase a parcel of land known as 1020 Hanshaw Road and to date, my knowledge is that in 1961 the lots in that neighborhood were created and, I guess, they were a little remiss in their responsibility to come before the Board of the Town of Ithaca to get approval, at that time the County gave them a tax map number and the lot has been existing with it's own survey and tax map number for all these years so it has fallen in my lap to get it legalized if I want to purchase it and build a house on it. Chairperson Wilcox — The short Environmental Assessment Form that you filled out indicates that you want to construct a two - family residence? Mr. Flatt — If allowed, yes. Right now, I guess the first step is to get the subdivision approved and then go before the Zoning Board and find out what is going to be allowed at that point. 7 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — This is an R -15 zone, which does allow two - family residences. There are restrictions in terms of the size of the second one, for example. Any environmental impacts that you are aware of? Mr. Flatt — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Planning Board members, questions with regard to the Environmental Review? Would someone like to move the SEQR motion then? Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Seconded by Larry Thayer. Any further discussion? There being none, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is anyone opposed? There is no one opposed, the motion is passed. Please stay right there. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal involves subdivision approval to match the existing lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C ") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner; Scott W. Flatt, Applicant Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 7: 16 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we have any questions for Mr. Flatt at this time? Ladies and gentlemen this is a public hearing, is there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Board this evening, we ask you to please come to the microphone, have a seat and give us your name and address and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. Can I ask you to just move the microphone back over so that we can pick everybody up a little bit better. Bernie Hutchens, 1016 Hanshaw Road — The back portion, the back 250 feet of my land is adjacent to this. My concern is this subdivision, if it is approved, what happens to the rights -of- way? There is a ton of rights -of -way that have been granted over the years. Nobody, that I know of, really understands who or what they are to, but our deed have several rights -of -way, I presume other peoples do. When we asked our attorney, at closing, what that was for, he said that that was a 50 foot right -of -way to the Town of Ithaca in case they wanted to build a road. So, I need to know whether that is included in what's being considered here or what's going to happen to our rights -of -way. They are not the same. One side, my side and Hartman's side has these big trees that were planted there, probably around 1960 and they were intentionally planted there. That is the only concern I have. The question I would put is I would like you folks to consider what happens to the rights -of -way. 8 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — When you say rights -of -way, in your deed for example, you have rights to that parcel in some way? Mr. Hutchens — I have a right to, according to what I read in the deed, I finally got around to reading it, what it says is, yes there is 25 feet into Henry's parcel. Correspondingly, there is apparently 25 feet coming the other direction and apparently the way it was done when the Hartman's lot was subdivided off, was that we ended up also with a 50 foot right -of -way all the way up to Hanshaw Road, in other words, 25 feet additional of Henry's going up to Hanshaw Road and 25 feet of Hartman's. That's all. Chairperson Wilcox — We'll let the other person speak. Anybody else this evening? James Henry — Attorney for and husband of Sheri Johnson Henry, the owner. Mr. Barney — In which capacity are you speaking tonight. Mr. Henry — I guess it would be as attorney, well it could be either. Mr. Hutchens concerns is that- I can answer, I think, his question. This parcel, you see this three lot piece here, Henry, Cowan, Beyenbach that's the map that was done in 1961. It was owned by a man and his wife, their names were Underwood. Underwood's owned all of that. They owned a very large parcel originally. From this line kind of east and north, that whole area of Sienna, which is north of this, was originally part of theirs. They sold off the parcels and they were developed this 50 foot wide right -of -way, there is 25 feet belonging to my wife that goes in, you see that's the leg of the flag lot and there's another 25 feet on Hartman's and Hutchens that goes back. It was apparently originally laid out when the deeds were done to provide the possibility for a 50 foot wide road, which could be dedicated to the Town going back into what is now the Sienna Subdivision back there and so there was never a road built because Underwood sold off the parcel, it was developed otherwise, they brought the road in way over to the east, back in around Sienna. That 50 foot right -of -way will continue to exist, it is just reserved in the deeds. That is that the people that have a right over that are Henry, Hartman and Hutchens and that would continue. Mr. Hutchens could use that 25 feet of Henry, 25 feet of Hartman to get back to his property should he wish to. The Hartman's use it currently as a driveway, the currently driveway that sits there straddles that line and that curves over to Hartman's and goes into the Henry lot. That's basically what I am speaking about to answer Mr. Hutchens' question, the right -of -way, he continues to have the right -of -way. It was not ever dedicated over to the Town. The Town does not have rights in this case. It's just a private, right -of -way reserved to those parcels. 9 Chairperson Wilcox — It would appear that, that serves the Hartman's residence may parcel? PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 potentially, the part of the driveway actually encroach upon the Henry Mr. Henry — It doesn't encroach because it is permitted by the deeds of each of those parcels. Each of the parcels, Henry, Hartman and Hutchens, each one is entitled to use a 50 foot wide right -of -way, which the center of that right -of -way is the line you see on the tax map. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm trying to look at that with the old survey over here. They're not restricted to their 25 feet on the western side? Mr. Henry — No. They have the right to use their 25 feet and the 25 feet. Yes, the old survey, what you see there, you see the 50 foot wide right -of -way. The parcel, Parcel C has 25 feet of that. Hartman's, in fact, they have a picket fence along that 50 foot right -of -way. There is a row of trees, old pine trees along the 50 foot right -of -way between the leg of Parcel C and Cowan's property. Mr. Barney — On Cowan's property or on the right of way? Mr. Henry — Are the trees on Cowan or on Henry? I can't say for sure, they're either on the line or they might be inside. Mr. Barney — They're not in the middle of the right -of -way? Mr. Henry — No. There are, I'm trying to think whether there are trees in the right - of -way. There are trees in the right -of -way back on Mr. Hutchens' property because I think his trees- Your trees go right to the line? Mr. Hutchens — They're twelve foot back from the line. Mr. Henry — You've got the fence along the line ? He's got a deer fence. So some of his trees are in that right -of -way. Chairperson Wilcox — Those easements would continue? Mr. Henry — Yes, absolutely. They're in all the deeds. Mr. Barney — Those trees are back far enough that it's not going to obstruct the ability to get to the back side of the Henry property. Mr. Henry — Right now there is a driveway straddling that line that goes in and curves over to Hartman's garage and you can drive straight into the lot. You just drive down the driveway, it straddles and you can either go to the right and to the left or go to the left into a little drive into their garage. You can see they have an attached drive, which you see on the tax map. 10 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney are you all set. Mr. Barney — Yep. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. Mr. Henry — Just so the record is clear, let me make one other comment. When Parcel C was deeded out in the sixties, they moved the line on the east side 4.6 feet over to the west and I believe they probably did that in order to get more clearance, more setback distance to the little cottage that is shown on the old map. Well, you see it also, it currently is a secondary residence on Beyenbach. I think probably that is the reason that the actually deed has 4.6 feet less on C and more on B to give more clearance around that. Chairperson Wilcox — It explains the jog. Mr. Barney — So it's 9.5 feet? Mr. Henry — 9.6 feet. Mr. Barney — 9.6 from what would be the northeast corner of what's Cowan now? Mr. Henry — Right. So that doing a new plat or final subdivision approval if the Planning Board approves that the new map will have the line over 4.6 feet because that's the way the deeds actually are for Beyenbach. Chairperson Wilcox — John, the Board is being asked to approve a subdivision without a map, which is a bit unusual. My question is, 1. Are we comfortable approving it without a new survey map, with the condition that one would be provided for my signature. The other issue is what language do we put in, potentially, to the resolution to indicate that the new survey map that would be signed, is sufficiently similar to the one that we are looking at and using to make our decision. Mr. Barney — Well, aren't you really approving the subdivision as shown on the Underwood map with the exception that the east line of Lot C is going to be 4.6 feet further to the west than it is shown on this map and that we are going to get a revised and updated map. Chairperson Wilcox — That is going to reflect that, yep. That's what we are approving and if it deviates from that, then it's got to come back. Mr. Henry — How about substantially deviates? You have a boundary line that is on the creek, you know that the creek is going to change. PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Barney — I don't have a problem if it's off a little bit on the center of a brook. Chairperson Wilcox — My response is that whatever insignificant means, if they're insignificant differences, I don't care. On the other hand, you and /or the purchaser took the risk of not coming before us with a new subdivision map and if you come without the new one, you take the risk that the eventual survey may show something substantially different and render this approval null and void. Mr. Henry — Yeah, I'm comfortable with that, but I did want to mention that 4.6 because I didn't want that situation to say "well wait a minute, this line is actually 4.6 over." The current properties are 4.6 over. Chairperson Wilcox — Alright, thank you sir. Anybody else this evening? Yes ma'am. Good evening. Deborah Cowan, 1022 Hanshaw Road — I just wanted to address, you brought up the issue of the pine trees. Since you brought it up, I thought I should tell you what I know. When I purchased the property from the Henry's they had a string surveying line up to show that those pine trees were on the 1022 property and were not part of the right -of -way and they said that they had a previous person interested in buying and it was a big point with them and they wanted to assure us that the pine trees were there and they were going to stay there. So, whatever relevance they have, that's what I know about it. My other question I ask the Planning Board this morning and, again, I don't know if it's relevant to you, but it's a question, is that my lot is part of this subdivision, so I don't know, if you decide tonight to certify this subdivision whether that would include 1020 and 1022, since it was the two lot subdivision of that parcel. Also I'm not sure, I asked about 1024, 1 guess I talked to you, wasn't clear whether that was part of this whole unknown thing that happened in 1961, that I guess is not legal. So, I just was unclear about that. If there was some direction of what we might need to do. Then, I guess my last question was what you were just discussing about the map and I guess I didn't completely understand that, but perhaps, when you're done. If there's something that you can say so that I understand what you mean about it possibly being revised or this being null and void. Chairperson Wilcox — Actually, I'll repeat it while you're here, just in case I mumble. Normally, when we are asked to approve a subdivision, we are provided with a recent or new survey. In this case, the applicant has elected to provide as with a survey map dated October 21, 1986 with the Planning Board condition that, if approved, they would provide us with a new survey map. These must be filed with the Tompkins County whatever, Assessment Office, I believe. The Clerk. What would be certified is that the lines which designate parcel 71. -1 -56.2, which is Mr. Henry's parcel, are correct. My comment was, is that normally we have a new survey, not one that is, in this case, 17 years old, and that we make our judgment, approval or disapproval based up that map. We're being asked to make tonight on a map, which is, hopefully, accurate, other than the one change, 12 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 the one discrepancy that's already been brought to our attention by Mr. Henry. I'm a little bit uncomfortable being asked to approve a subdivision based upon a map, which map be right, but then again, if we approve a specific subdivision and the survey map shows something different than what we approved, significantly different, let me leave it at that, then the applicant would have to come back before us and go through this again. Mrs. Cowan — So, it would be required to get the Town surveyor — or Chairperson Wilcox — No, they have to hire their own surveyor, whoever they choose to hire. Alrightly? And with regard to your parcel, I look to Mr. Barney, but I believe you should check with your attorney should you feel so inclined, to see if Mrs. Cowan — So, in other words, this is just for the 1020 property. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, 1020 is being subdivided off. Mr. Barney — Off of what? That was my question. Mr. Walker — It looks like the original subdivision was in 1961, not in 1986. Chairperson Wilcox — Right, I'm just going by the date of this- Mr. Walker — Which pre -dates our subdivision regulations, right? Mr. Barney — We've done a little looking and we can't determine that. We've had subdivision regulations since, I think it was back in '54. Chairperson Wilcox — It's not clear what we are subdividing this lot off from, is it? Mr. Smith — No, going by the numbers, you have 66.2 and 66.1. It looks like those two are — Mr. Walker — Plus the 66.- Mr. Barney — Beyenbach looks like it came off at an earlier time. Mrs., Cowan — I don't know, the history, as I understand is that the Underwood's lived at 1022, which is currently my house and that they divided off the parcel, which is now the Beyenbach's to move, as they aged, into a one -story house and at the time that they split off the 1022, they also split off the back parcel into 1020, 1 don't know why, but that's my understanding of the story or the history. So, it seems like the 1022 is the original house on that land. Mr. Barney — Which is your house? 13 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mrs. Cowan — My house. Then the 1020 was, essentially, just past my back yard that was incorporated as a lot. Mr. Barney — And you think that was done when? Mrs. Cowan — I believe in '61. 1 read through last night and that seems to be the time. It's true, there was an awful lot done. It goes from the 1800s and there used to be 90 acres. I'm not practiced at this, but it is a little confusing. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me point out that the survey map is actually dated June 16, 1961, but the latest certification is October 21, 1986 on the map. Board Member Hoffmann — You know, in the memo that we got about this, it says the current owners have not been able to provide any evidence that the lot is legally subdivided and the Town does not have any record of the subdivision. That makes it feel very uncertain to me. I understand that the subdivision has to be done, but I would, personally, like to see a new subdivision map before making a decision to make sure that everything is correct because too much uncertainty exists already about these lots and I don't feel comfortable about going ahead with this. Mr. Barney — Eva, if you were presented with this map and it had a current date and it was approved subject to moving the line on Lot C westward 4.6 feet, we've done that many, many times in the past, moving the line slightly or something of that nature and conditioned which is signing by the Chair. I think that's really all we're doing tonight, is saying we are taking this map, even though it is more ancient than we are used to seeing and saying that we are approving this map with that one modification in it. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess, I feel a little worried that maybe that's not the only modification that we might find. Mr. Barney — Well, then, I think, your Chair has basically said that he won't sign it if there is any significant deviation from what this map shows. Chairperson Wilcox — Then they'll be back. They'll pay another fee — Board Member Hoffmann — Is there a hurry about this? Is there a hurry about doing this today? Mr. Flatt — Yes, actually there is. The architect could come back a month from now to do it over again, even though there is a slight risk in that. But, in constructing the house, when the snow starts to fly, the costs go up and the time gets thrown out of whack for the construction process. SO, for that reason, a setback of a month now would make a lot of difference. It might even put it off 14 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 until spring. I also would like to point out that the survey that I submitted to you tonight was done 1986 and the technology that T.G. Miller used to do that survey has not changed since then very much. It's not like it's a hundred year old survey, so I felt comfortable bringing that before you tonight simply because we may go out and re- survey that. If you guys turned it down tonight, I didn't want to incur the expense. When they go out to re- survey it, other than that four foot change in that property line, that they did for the neighbor, I don't see how it would be much different at all because all the properties around that the survey changed hands over the years on a regular basis without a huge problem. So, once you look at them changing hands and going to closing, etcetera and banks, of course, checking into these things very closely, you get a feeling that this vacant lot in the middle has somehow remained intact the same over the years. By virtue of what's been going on around it, this lot has remained in one piece and stayed just about the same. Another point, also, this is a one point seven acres lot only being approved for one house, so the house would be way out in the middle of a large area so it's not like we're crowding it into corner. That back line could have moved 14.6 feet and no one would have even noticed. Board Member Hoffmann — It's not a question of whether the lot is large enough, it is plenty large enough for the house. It's just a question about some of the lines, not being exactly where they are. Was there a question about those trees and on whose lot they were? Mrs. Cowan — I said I was told specifically by the Henrys that they would remain on our property, but he just said a few minutes ago that he didn't know. The other thing that struck me when Mr. Flatt was talking, that despite all of the lawyers and all the surveys and everyone else looking at this through the forty years, no one has picked up that this is, essentially, an illegal or not appropriate subdivision so that came as a surprise. Chairperson Wilcox — The applicant will have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance, two variances, both having to do with the fact that it is a flag lot and doesn't have the required frontage and also doesn't have the required width at the setback, so they will need another approval. We're well aware of that. Mrs. Cowan- The lot is not flat, it's high and it slopes a great deal down to the sewer, so it's not like a level lot where you can put the house anywhere. You have to put the house on the top. Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, you want to ask her a question? Is there anybody else who wishes to speak this evening? There being no one, I will close the Public Hearing. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 7:41 p.m. 15 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, Eva, I am sorry. Board Member Hoffmann — We did something unusual in that we didn't ask Mr. Flatt, I believe it is, when he was speaking. Chairperson Wilcox — We picked him up. I was checking the sound levels. We got it. John, are you comfortable with that? Mr. Barney — Yes. I have to take issue with Mr. Flatt in that actually the technology today on the surveying is far superior than it was in 1986 and even more superior to that in 1961, which is what the basic dimensions were. I'm fairly certain that you're going to see a line that's not going to be 204.6 feet, it is going to be 204.63 feet because they now go to hundredths of a foot. So, I would assume that allowing with the Chair's discretion is not terribly significant. Mr. Walker — One other thing too, you notice there's a sewer line running from 1020, back to the sewer main. You ought to make sure that there is an easement to have that sewer on the property of 1020 for the purposes of sewage from 1022. Board Member Thayer — It's not a septic, is it? Mr. Walker — No, there's sewer, a sanitary sewer line in the back. Mr. Barney — So take the line from where to where, Dan. Mr. Walker —It says sewer with a little arrow. Mr. Barney — And it's not located, you're right. Mr. Walker — It's not located, but we do have a better idea of where those laterals are now because we just replaced last summer. Mr. Barney — Yes, that probably should be a condition, that the new subdivision map show the location of the sewer line and that there be an appropriate easement for that line. Chairperson Wilcox — Given to the Cowan's for their connection across the lot to be purchased by the Henry's. Mr. Walker — 1022. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, thank you Dan. Any further discussion. 16 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I still feel uneasy, but I guess you have reassured me that it's alright to do this, we have done it before. I wouldn't want to set a precedent of doing something that might come back and haunt us later on. Board Member Conneman — Ordinarily Mike and the staff would have said they had to have a recent survey. Is that right? Mr. Smith - Yes. In this situation, it was a little different because the applicant wasn't the owner of the property and was interested in purchasing it and didn't want to spend the money up front before he purchased it and they did have a survey available that showed what we are looking for. It showed the boundary lines, we weren't creating a new lot with new boundary lines, it was matching existing boundary lines. Chairperson Wilcox — We're certifying existing lines? Sort of? If there is no further discussion — You had your chance, I looked right at you. Come up to the table. The Public Hearing is closed, I looked right at you knowing you wanted to speak when I saw you this afternoon. Have a seat. Ellen Hartman, 1018 Hanshaw Road — The one that shares the right -of -way that we are talking about with the driveway and my question, that I didn't have before, that I just thought of is, when they re -do the survey, its boundary lines, will that include the right -of -way boundary line? How will we know what the survey comes out to be, if you guys are certifying something tonight that we have never seen? Mr. Barney — It will be as shown on this map. If it shows something different, then it won't be approved. Mrs. Hartman — So, that will come up at another hearing then? Mr. Barney — Well, it won't come up at another hearing. You have the 50 foot right -of -way shown on the map that they have here tonight, which I assume you have a copy of. Mrs. Hartman — Right. Mr. Barney — If the new survey shows that this is located elsewhere than as shown on this map by a significant amount, if it's a quarter of a foot or a foot, it probably won't matter, but if it's something like five or ten feet or something of that nature, then the whole thing has to come back here for another look. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me just state right out, when a new survey map is provided, I have to sign the survey before it is submitted to the County Clerk's Office. If there is a substantial deviation in the new survey, except for the 4.7 feet of the easterly line being moved to the west, I won't sign it and therefore the applicant will have to come back. 17 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Do you have to say something? Please come to the microphone. Mr. Flatt — The gray area now is a margin of error. If you have a 200 foot stretch of a boundary line, when you and I are faced in the office and none of these other folks are around and I am asking for your signature, what is the percentage that we're dealing with? A ten percent deviation from the 200 feet, would be anything up to 20 feet or are we talking a two percent deviation? Mr. Barney — I think we're dealing with hundredths of a percent, quite frankly. If you're talking a 20foot deviation on a 200 foot line, particularly this 204 foot line in the back, that's quite a substantial difference than what is shown on here. So, we would have to take a look at the whole thing. On the other hand, if it comes back and it's 202.3, it's probably less than a percent difference and we could probably deal with that . It depends too, if it's a difference in the back, we show 315 feet along the center of a brook and that comes out to be 300 feet, that is a dimension that's of less concern. So, it really depends on which dimension are different and what the amounts are. I have a feeling that if Mr. Wilcox has a doubt at all, he's going to do one of two things, he's going to pick up the phone and call me, at which point I `d probably going to tell him to bring it back to the Board to take a look at it, but that's the risk of not bringing a current survey. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? Board Member Mitrano — Just a comment. I'm prepared to vote for it this evening, but I do want to echo Eva's concerns and we can see the additional time that we need to spend going over these kinds of matters that really should be the responsibility of the applicant. So, while I will vote for it tonight, I hope that staff and hereafter we will aire on the side of having that kind of thing worked out. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the proposed resolution as drafted? So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by Kevin Talty. We will wait for Mr. Barney for just a second. Mr. Smith — I'll mention that condition "a " has been met. The owner's certificate has been provided to us. Mr. Barney — From Mr. Henry? But not, I take it, from the other two lot owners. Board Member Hoffmann — Could you repeat what you said about condition "a ", had trouble hearing you. Mr. Smith — We got the owner's certificate from the owners. Chairperson Wilcox — So condition "a" has been met and therefore can be eliminated. 18 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — I actually had a question about some of the other language here and that is that he makes the dedications indicated on the plat, what are those dedications? Mr. Smith — This is the owner's certificate letter that any applicants doing a subdivision sign, just stating a general statement that they have seen the subdivision map, it's their land that is being subdivided. Chairperson Wilcox — Those are the dedications? Mr. Smith —Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — It says that the dedications are indicated on the plat and I thought that this would be the plat, this map. Mr. Smith — Right, if there are any, it would be indicated on there, if they are aware of them. Board Member Hoffmann — And are there any indicated on this map? Mr. Smith — I don't know. Mr. Barney — Well there is actually a sewer line dedication that is part of the easement. I think we already have an easement for the sanitary sewer line running across the northerly side of these two parcels because we just really recently put a new line in, but we don't, I don't believe have an easement and I'm not sure that Mrs. Cowan has an easement for the line running from the rear of her property to connect to that. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I just ask because the language in "2. a." is not what we normally see and so I'm not used to seeing this. Mr. Smith — Most of the time the owner's certificate is submitted to us with the rest of the application. It just wasn't because it wasn't the owner submitting the application to us. Mr. Barney — I'm would suggest adding to "b" after the phrase " three dark line prints" the phrase "substantially identical to the 1961 map presented to this meeting except showing the east line of Lot C being moved 4.6 feet further west, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department." And then adding a new "d" which would be "marking on the final map the location of the sewer line running from Lot A northward to the sanitary sewer line running across the northerly side of Lot C" and then a new "e ", which would be "delivery of an easement from the owner of Lot C to the owner of Lot A granting the right to maintain the sewer line referred to in clause "c" above ". 19 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — And those get all re- lettered down one, if you will, because we're eliminating "a ". Are those changes acceptable Kevin and Rod? Mr. Barney, are you comfortable at this point? All right. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is there anyone opposed? No one is opposed. The motion is passed unanimously. Thank you all. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -070: Preliminary & Final Subdivision Approval Flatt Two -Lot Subdivision, 1020 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Planning Board, September 2, 2003 MOTION by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal involves subdivision approval to match the existing lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C') which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner; Scott W. Flatt, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on September 2, 2003, 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, has held a public hearing on September 2, 2003, and has reviewed a plat entitled "Map of F. 0. Underwood Lots at No. 1020- 1022 -1024 Hanshaw Road'; prepared by T, G. Miller Associates, P. C,, dated June 16, 1961 and updated October 21, 1986, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 20 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, as shown on a map titled "Map of F. 0. Underwood Lots at No. 1020 - 1022 -1024 Hanshaw Road"; prepared by T. G. Miller Associates, P. C., dated June 16, 1961 and updated October 21, 1986, subject to the following conditions: a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of a current, updated plat and three dark -lined prints substantially identical to the 1961 map presented to this meeting except showing the east line of Lot C being moved 4.6 feet further west, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b. granting of the necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chairman, and c. marking on the final map the location of the sewer line running from Lot A northward to the sanitary sewer line running across the northerly side of Lot C, and d. delivery of an easement from the owner of Lot C to the owner of Lot A granting the right to maintain the sewer line referred to in clause "c" above. 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: SEQR Determinatio Paleontological Research Institution Drive and 1259 Trumansburg Road. is Cayuga Medical Center I Bus Stop & Path, 101 Harris B. Dates Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:55 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome. Kimberly Michaels, Trowbrige and Wolf Landscape Architects - As you received in your packet, the information is that the Museum of the Earth is about to open September 27t"- 21 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Let me stop you. You have a very soft voice, so I'm going to ask you to pull that microphone up close so that we can record you. I don't want you to belt it out, but do the best you can so that we can hear you and hopefully the people behind you can hear you. Ms. Michaels — Certainly. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Ms. Michaels — Part of the Museum of the Earth's program is to provide public transit to their facility and because they do not have a traffic light at the intersection of their driveway and Route 96, TCAT did not want to pull into their property and drop people off on property. Because the Medical Center is right next door, with a signal light intersection and with a Route that already goes into the Hospital, drops patients off and comes around at this point on you map right here. The buses come in from Route 96 and come down to this exit here through this intersection. Actually, they come right here at the end of this and go back out. TCAT and the Hospital and the Museum of the Earth have arranged jointly to add a bus stop on the hospital's property to service the Museum's property. We need to make a connection between the two properties for pedestrians to travel, provide a bus stop, provide some signage. Right now there is woods in between the two properties. It is kind of difficult to travel through there, there is a lot of underbrush, invasive species and there's two drainage ditches that will need to be culverted. There are some pictures of the property here. The first picture on the bottom left shows the driveway on the Cayuga Medical Center property, the approximate location where the bus would be stopping. The second photograph shows the quality of the woods in their current condition where the path would go. The third photograph shows where you would come out of the woods and hit the Museum of the Earth's property. The improvements include five lights, a bus stop, signage and an asphalt path. Chairperson Wilcox — And a couple benches. Ms. Michaels — A couple benches, which are made of solid blocks of stone and will match the bench detailing on the new Museum of the Earth and two culverts. Chairperson Wilcox — Environmental concerns, issues that you are aware of? Ms. Michaels — No. Chairperson Wilcox — There are some informal paths through there right now, aren't there? Ms. Michaels - There are. People do travel back and forth. I think some of the Paleontological research staff use the cafeteria at the hospital. 22 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — So, it would serve that usage as well? Ms. Michaels — Absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm pleased to see these two institutions working together to solve this problem. Board Member Conneman — You show that it is possible to have cooperation. All three of you. Ms. Michaels — They've done a very nice job. Chairperson Wilcox — Did they figure out who's paying for it? Ms. Michaels — Yes, they have. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you the third member of Trowbridge and Wolf now? Ms. Michaels — I am not a partner there, no. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, but you are an employee. Ms. Michaels — I am an associate there. Chairperson Wilcox — Nice to see you. That agency is quite respected by this Board. They do good work. Ms. Michaels — It's been a pleasure to work for them. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion regarding Environmental Review? Board Member Thayer — Just that we're taking down trees. Ms. Michaels — I could speak to the tree issue. A lot of the landscape currently in that wooded area consists of mostly some old pines, many of which are either dead or nearly dead. I would say the top three feet have green vegetation on them anymore. We are only going to clear trees that are immediately in the pathway and then any large trees that are a hazard because they are either dead or nearly dead. Peter Trowbridge and I will personally go out and tag the trees that are being removed. There will be no clear cutting of the whole area. However, the area, let me point to it, this area here. We have called for the contractor to clear all of the underbrush from that area. It is important that a pedestrian who is getting of the bus on the Hospital property, who is trying to get to the museum, be able to see through the woods to their destination and right now there is a lot of wild honeysuckle, wild rose, a lot of invasive species out there that make it difficult —it's not difficult, it is impossible to see the museum 23 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 building at this point. So, they will be clearing underbrush and they will only remove trees that we tag, a lot of which are already dead. Board Member Hoffmann — I had a question about that too. It seems that along the eastern edge of this corridor, closer to the PRI Building, it flares out and becomes wide and, just looking at the drawing, I don't quite understand why. It seems to me that since the path on the end is fairly close to Trumansburg Road that you would be able to see the building quite well without that clearing. Ms. Michaels — There is a significant amount of underbrush in, I'll show you the area. Board Member Hoffmann — After the underbrush is gone, I mean. Ms. Michaels — This area. We will tag the trees that need to come down otherwise. That whole hatched area will not be clear -cut. There will be trees left standing. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. Ms. Michaels — I'm not sure I understand your question. Board Member Hoffmann — It seems to me that, especially the flaring out towards the side that is toward the lake, I don't understand why that has to be cleared of brush quite so much. Ms. Michaels — That is in your direct sight line to the building which is in this photograph. If you're standing at the bus stop, when you get off the bus, your direct line of sight is right through that cleared area. Let me demonstrate. So, this is the building here, when you get off the bus, you turn and look and you're looking right into this. Board Member Hoffmann — But if you see the part of the building where the entrance is, which is closest to Trumansburg Road, it seems to me that that would be enough. You don't need to see that storage building that was added in the back. It's not that pretty to look at really. Ms. Michaels — We could pull that line slightly down if you have a concern about that. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I just think if it's not necessary to clear. Ms. Michaels — I think the more of a building that the pedestrian sees after they get off a bus at a location which is not their destination, the more comfortable 24 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 they feel, but we can certainly move that line back. We are not clearing beautiful landscape here. It's pricker bushes and underbrush and invasive species. Board Member Thayer — I assume you will mulch it with something. Ms. Michaels — We're calling for the contractor to chip all the down materials and spread it as mulch along the path, yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Not along the path, but how about where you clear the vegetation. Ms. Michaels — Starting at the sides of the path and then out. Sorry I was not clear. Actually, I have one more point. A cut sheet was included in your packet of a lighting fixture and we have developed a design since then and we've chosen a different lighting fixture. If it matters to you, I wanted to show it to you this evening. This matches the fixtures that are already on the Museum of the Earth site and we've had an electrical engineer take a look at it and the light spacing on the photo metrics keep a safe amount of light for the pedestrians. We still have five fixtures and they are still are in roughly the same locations, give or take half a foot. The pole height is the same. Board Member Hoffmann — Can you see the bulb? Ms. Michaels — No, this is actually a shield here and the light is directed up and then reflected down. There is no glare from this fixture. Board Member Hoffmann — I had a question. In the cover letter that we got from Trowbridge and Wolf it talks about some other plans than the ones we got. We got one plan that was L -101, but it talks about L -102 and SD. What are those plans of? Ms. Michaels — May I get my materials? Ms. Ritter — This is all we got. Ms. Michaels — That was a mistake in my cover letter, I apologize. I wrote the cover letter when I thought I would have two sheets and then it's a small project and it fit on one sheet and I apologize. That was my cover letter to Sue telling her the things that I would be including for her. SD was going to be a schematic design sketch , which was unnecessary because the plans were so clear and L- 102 was unnecessary because all the details fit on the first drawing sheet. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, well then maybe we should adjust the language in the resolutions to where it says plans, we should omit the "s" and just say plan. 25 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — You're covering for Peter Zahr, is that what you are doing here? Ms. Michaels — I am. Chairperson Wilcox — Because it's his signature at the bottom of that letter that you are referring to. Any further discussion with regard to the Environmental Review of this project. Good evening Jon, good to see you. Would someone like to move the SEQR Motion as drafted? So moved by Tray Mitrano. Seconded by Rod Howe. Eva, you would like to change "Whereas # 3." in some way? Board Member Hoffmann — Just to, in the third line, to omit the "s" in plans. Chairperson Wilcox — Plan titled "bus stop and path to PRI" ? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — No objections, I assume. There being no further discussion with regard to Environmental Review, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is anyone opposed? There are no abstentions, the motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -071: SEAR: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Cayuga Medical Center/ Paleontological Research Institution Bus Stop & Path, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive and 1259 Trumansburg Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.1 and 24 -3 -3.1 MOTION by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed bus shelter, lighting and 8 -foot wide pedestrian path located between the Cayuga Medical Center at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive and the Paleontological Research Institution at 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.1 and 24- 3 -3.1, Residence District R -30. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca and the Paleontological Research Institution, Owners; Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, 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 3. The Planning Board, on September 2, 2003, 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, plan titled "Bus Stop 26 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 & Path to PRI — Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca," dated August 18, 2003, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C. and Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, 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 Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. 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 for the proposed bus shelter, lighting and 8 -foot wide pedestrian path located between the Cayuga Medical Center at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive and the Paleontological Research Institution at 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.1 and 24- 3 -3.1, Residence District R -30. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca and the Paleontological Research Institution, Owners; Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions at this point, there being none, I will ask you to please take a seat. Mr. Barney — The only thing that I think we probably would want a copy of is the new lighting. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right. We will need a copy of the revised lighting at some point. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public hearing. If there is a member 27 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item. You know the drill, please come to the microphone, give us your name and address and we'll be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. With no one present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:08. Chairperson Wilcox — It's a good thing right. Board Member Conneman — I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Seconded by Larry Thayer. Board Member Hoffmann — We have to make the same change under the third "Whereas ". Chairperson Wilcox — We would also need to do it "Resolved" clause, "2 ", the last word on the third line. We need to add a condition, which would be submission of the revised lighting details. John, you want to phrase that any differently? Mr. Barney — No, that's fine. Chairperson Wilcox — The change acceptable? Alright. If there's no further discussion, all those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is anyone opposed? No one is opposed, there are no abstentions. The motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -072 : Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Cayuga Medical Center I Paleontological Research Institution, Bus Stop & Path, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive and 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.1 and 24 -3 -3.1 MOTION by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer. v.'IZj:4ZfA .*i 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed bus shelter, lighting and 8 -foot wide pedestrian path located between the Cayuga Medical Center at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive and the Paleontological Research Institution at 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.1 and 24- 3 -3.1, Residence District R -30. 28 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca and the Paleontological Research Institution, Owners; Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, 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 September 2, 2003, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 2, 2003, has reviewed and accepted plan titled "Bus Stop & Path to PRI — Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca," dated August 18, 2003, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C. and Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, 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 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 bus stop and path between the Cayuga Medical Center and Paleontological Research Institution, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.1 and 24- 3 -3.1, as shown on plan titled "Bus Stop & Path to PRI — Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca," dated August 18, 2003, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C. and Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, and other application material, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and b. submission of the revised lighting details prior to issuance of a building permit. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty 29 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM : SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Good evening and welcome. Paul Levesque — I'm with HOLT Architects and we're here to propose an addition to the Cayuga Medical Center to house radiation oncology. Currently the service isn't offered in Tompkins County and so the Medical Center is proposing to do this addition. The building gross square footage is about 10,000 square feet. The floor plans, basically line up with the existing Medical Center. There is a small group on the first level. This here, the second floor, which is at the grade level, houses the main clinic area. Then, on the third floor, there is an upper level, which will be a two -story atrium, plus the mechanical storage room up here. As indicated in your packet, the addition, that's the location up here on the northwestern corner of the existing hospital, there is a physicians parking lot. Basically, the design of the exterior presentation is, this is a little bright red, it is really supposed to be brick color. It very much matches the hospital. It blends with what is already up there. It is going to be prepadded concrete panels. This is the north elevation, and this over here would be the western elevation. This is what you would see, actually from the parking lot. The emergency department is actually located over on this side and this would be the north elevation, the medical office building is located over here, it's actually located in this direction. Board Member Hoffmann — What you have there is a drawing that is a little different from what we have. Mr. Levesque — It is slightly different. What we've had the chance to do since we've submitted that, we've been working on an accelerated schedule because of the fact that this service is not being offered and so, when we submitted the first one, we did some elevations that are very similar to these, but since that time, we've had a chance to articulate them a little bit more and develop the elevations. I think you will find that conceptually they are consistent. There are just slight changes as we develop the project. Chairperson Wilcox — Just so we're clear, you are asking us to approve or disapprove, based upon what you are showing us here and not what was given to us in our packets? I just want you to understand that. 30 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Levesque — I do understand. Chairperson Wilcox — We don't like that, by the way. We don't like that at all. Mr. Levesque — It's difficult because of the schedule we are working on. We were in a hurry and we submitted where we were at the time. But, yes, I guess that is what I am asking, is I would re- submit these to you. I think you'll find that the differences between what you have in front of you and this are very subtle, but there are differences. Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to clarify something because when I looked at these, the top one is described as the east elevation, but I think that must be the west elevation. The one on the bottom is described as the south elevation, which, I think is correct. The east elevation is the side that is adjoining the current building, I believe, isn't it? Mr. Walker — The south elevation would be looking through the building and I don't think that's what that is doing. Mr. Levesque — You're correct, I apologize for that. The top elevation that you are looking at would properly be labeled the north elevation. Board Member Hoffmann — Are you sure that it is not the west elevation. The north elevation would face the courtyard, which is between the hospital and the medical office building. Mr. Levesque — This elevation right here, is from looking at the hospital this way, which is the north. I think, on your drawing it is incorrectly labeled as east elevation. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So it should be north? Mr. Levesque — Yes. The other one, which says south elevation, is incorrectly labeled on your drawings and it should be labeled west elevation, which is looking at the west side of the Medical Center. I apologize for that. Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed also in the text that is was described as being on the northeastern corner of the hospital, but you corrected it now. When you talked about it, you said northwestern. Just so that we all know what we are talking about. Mr. Levesque — You are correct, I am sorry. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? 31 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Talty — Do you have any other changes that we should know about? I just want to make it clear that the Board has treated candidates like yourself in one concurrent and steady fashion and I have to point out that I am with Eva and Fred, that when we get plans that aren't exactly what they appear to be, now you're on our time. We like to have exactly what we are going to be voting on in front of us, just to be fair to everyone else that comes in front of us. just want to make that clear from this Board. Mr. Levesque — Understood. Larry Hoffman, HOLT Architects — Normally at the time we make a submission to the Planning Board the job is in a relatively early phase of design. I think that the submission that was made originally could stand as what we would submit normally. We have since then been developing the project and, obviously, will have to submit final construction documents at the point that we apply for a Building Permit. We've brought slightly more developed drawings today. The differences are not substantial. The final working drawings that are submitted at the time that we apply for a Building Permit will be slightly different from these drawings, but not conceptually different, not different in size. If it were a real problem for you to approve this set of drawings as opposed to the ones that were in your original packet, I would not have a problem. I can't image why it would be a problem approving the original set of drawings. Board Member Talty — I just want to be very clear that other people have come in front of this Board, that have said exactly what you are saying to us now. Board Member Conneman — You are asking for final site plan approval. Board Member Talty — Exactly and this is not. Board Member Conneman — Which means what we see is what we get, not what you may submit later on. If you were asking for preliminary site plan approval, we probably would say "okay, we'll see you when you come back." Chairperson Wilcox — Understood? Mr. Levesque — Understood. Chairperson Wilcox — It's also not fair to the other people who are waiting patiently for their public hearing because we spend more time talking about the fact that your drawings are different than the drawings that we have to review. Okay. Environmental concerns, that's where we are. We're still on the environmental concerns. Joe, you're sitting back there, pardon me if I call you Joe, but I think we formally met finally. Who used to offer oncology services here? Just my own curiosity. 32 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Joe Fitzgerald, Vice President, Cayuga Medical Center — For a number of years, since some time in the late 1980's, there has been a private proactive, Radiation Oncologist of Upstate New York. A group out of Syracuse, primarily, of about seven or eight various sites in Central New York, mostly up in the Syracuse area. They served in our Medical Office Building, it's a private practice. I can't speak for the group, I know that they've had some difficulty when they've tried to update an out -dated piece of equipment. They took it out of service in January. I apologize to Kevin for the push here. Board Member Talty — It's not just myself. Mr. Fitzgerald - Mostly the push is on my part. People have not had the service in this community who have cancer and need radiation oncology since the first month of the year, back in January. We tried to work out something with the private practice. They refused to do so. We have talked to the State Health Department and they are very interested in us putting this service on line at the hospital, which I think is better for the community in the long term than having it in private practice. The push was probably more mine that HOLT, to be quite candid with you because I would like to see this project get going late this fall because it's going to take a number of months to do this. In the meantime, we have a serious community concern and that is every one who gets oncology right now in radiation form has got to go either up to Syracuse or down to Elmira or Binghamton or whatever and for any of you who have ever experienced this, and I have in my family, this is not a pleasant situation, you are dog tired — excuse my French. After a couple of treatments and you have to drive an hour and a half up and back, even though the private practices try to assist in the sense that they have been busing people up to sit there all day waiting for other people to get done and be brought home. It is, I think, a real hardship on this community. I think, in a community like this, we need to have this type of service. Again, I apologize because I've been pushing these guys. Since this project was developed early on, it was around the same time that we were talking to the Health Department to get all the materials into Albany, who've been extremely supportive, they've been pushing us as well to get this further developed. My apologies if we've caused this Board some concern. We're trying to get this project finalized as quickly as possible for the needs of this community. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann- I can add that a friend of mine, who was just facing trying to decide what kind of treatment to chose, told me that one of her options is going to Syracuse for radiation treatment, which means going, I can't remember how many times a week she said, it was a lot, for six weeks. That is tough, I understand that. I understand the need to have this service here, but I am concerned that we keep getting applicants coming in with papers — you heard, there was someone already tonight. 33 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Hoffman — To be candid when we spoke with the staff and they've been very good to us, so don't misinterpret this question, but just the timing is we had tow days to submit everything in order to have it here for this meeting tonight or we would have to postpone beyond the month. And beyond the month, quite candidly, I think if we don't get it approved tonight, I don't this we get this thing underway until the spring and we're talking another six or seven months beyond that. So, yes I do apologies. Board Member Hoffmann — I, personally, don't have a big issue with the change in the design as I see it there as compared to what's in there drawings, I just needed to point out that there was a difference. Board Member Conneman — How long would it take you to produce what you have up there for the staff? Mr. Hoffman — I could have to over here tomorrow. Chairperson Wilcox — It would be a condition of final approval. Mr. Walker — Is there any footprint change between what we have and what's on there? Mr. Hoffman — No. Mr. Walker — And there's not height difference? Mr. Hoffman — It's just — no, no. It's just the process of developing it further. This is the process we go through. We've had a couple more weeks to work on it and this is where — like I said, the changes are minor, but there are changes. Mr. Walker — You've got brick shown on there and the rest of it concrete blocks and this looks like it was all concrete. If you hadn't said anything, we probably wouldn't have noticed a difference. Mr. Barney — Some of us wouldn't have noticed a difference. Chairperson Wilcox — Speak for yourself . Mr. Walker — That's red and we have black and white copies. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. It looks like ugly McDonald's red almost. Mr. Levesque — It does. I apologize for that. It's supposed to be a nice brick red. Mr. Fitzgerald — I promise you, it will not be that red. 34 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — It will match the existing colors? Mr. Fitzgerald — It will match the existing color. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. It's almost a Harvard red. Is there any further discussion with regard to the Environmental Review? Would someone like to move the SEAR Motion as drafted? So moved by Larry Thayer. Can I have a second? Seconded by Rod Howe. All those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Is anyone opposed? And we have no abstentions. Thank you very much. Could you sit right there, for a second. Just in case we have any questions. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -073: SEAR: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval, Cayuga Medical Center — Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -3 -2.1 MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. The project involves a 10,000 +/- square foot three -story addition to the northwest corner, of the existing building, just north of the main entrance. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, 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 4. The Planning Board, on September 2, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and plans entitled "Radiation Oncology Addition to Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca — Schematic Design" (LS -1) dated August 5, 2003, "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SKI), "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SK2), both dated August 4, 2003, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., and other application material, and 35 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, 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. AGENDA ITEM: 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 three story, 9,975 +/- square foot addition to the north side of the existing Cayuga Medical Center for Radiation Oncology services, located at 101 Harris B Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, P.C., Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 8:26 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox- Questions of the gentleman sitting at the table? Board Member Hoffmann — It's again, a form thing. We've got this printout, dated 4th of August 2003 " Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition to Cayuga Medical Center ", but it doesn't say who wrote it, what office it comes out of, so I feel it's incomplete and I would like to have, for the Town records, a copy of this, which tells us that information. Could you tell us now who wrote it ? Mr. Levesque — That was written by me, HOLT Architects. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that sufficient to have it on the record that it is from HOLT Architects? 36 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — Well, if they give us a revised copy with that information on it. Chairperson Wilcox — Or has it on their letterhead or something like that? Mr. Levesque — That's not a problem. It was actually submitted as part of the Planning Board submittal, which included the drawings and everything else. Mr. Hoffman — It was not a cover page. Mr. Levesque — It was not a cover page. It was a page within the submittal. But that's fine, I can appreciate what you are saying. Board Member Hoffmann — I assume we all got the same. We just got this one page. Mr. Smith — Eva, I would mention that, most of the time, the packets are all stapled together and once we get it in our office, we separate it sometimes and put the SEAR material together and organize it differently than the way the applicant has submitted it, so it does get separated from the way they have presented it as a packet. Board Member Hoffmann — Then it would be helpful to let us know that. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions of the applicant or their agent? I will ask you to have a seat then. Ladies and gentlemen this is a Public Hearing, if there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Board this evening, we ask you please step to the microphone and give us your name and address and we'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say. Good evening sir. Dr. Steve Randall, Radiotherapy Associates of Ithaca — I've been in practice in Ithaca since 1991 with radiation therapy. It's true our facility has not been operational since the end of January, however, the room is being revised and will be completed early next week. The new equipment will arrive within a week. We plan to be operational again in October. The statement was made — we do transport patients to Syracuse — the statement was made "wait all day ". That is absolutely not true. I think the longest wait has been four and a half hours. So, we will be online again shortly. Board Member Hoffmann — This is at the hospital? Dr. Randall — We have been in practice, adjacent to the hospital, since March of '89. That's all I have to say. 37 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you sir. Anybody else. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 8:30 p.m. Board Member Talty — I need a clarification. So, are you guys competing? Is that what is happening? Inaudible voice from the audience Board Member Talty - Okay, so am I to understand, once we give our approval and you move forward that we are going to have two existing in the area? Is that correct? Board Member Mitrano — Is that any of our business? Chairperson Wilcox — That appears to be the information that we have received. Mr. Fitzgerald — Dr. Randall has been a member of our staff since in the practice that he spoke about since '91, 1 believe. I will furnish these if you want, I do have numerous letters from their practice indicating numerous starting dates when the equipment was going to be placed and operational and that's how we got into discussions initially last spring with them saying that we would work with them and we would operate it with them so we knew they would get it finished. Our perspective at this point is "is it going to be repaired? Yes." It could be if they go back into business. However, it's our feeling that this is such a major service for oncology and that the hospital, I don't know if you are aware of this, is accredited by the American College of Surgeons, which about 20% of the country's hospitals have that accreditation. We have the highest accreditation you can get as a community hospital. That doesn't sound like much, except about 80 percent of the oncology is treated by those 20 percent of the hospitals. We have a significant amount, about 400 or 500 patients a year in oncology. I think what we have found through this arrangement and that's what we've said to the Physicians, that we can't structure it anymore like this, leaving a vital service in just the hands of a private practice that can continue to tell us that they're going to be ready and operational. I hope maybe they are operation by October, for our own patients sake. But, we talked to the State Health Department, they are very strongly behind us in Albany. We already have gotten indications from them that they will approve our project in October, which is the earliest possible date that they can do so since we talked to them in July. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Sir, the Public Hearing has been closed. Mr. Barney — I think we better listen to him. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, say that again john. PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Barney — I think in fairness, you probably ought to — Mr. Kanter — I think this does have to do with the need of the project, absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox — This discussion is relevant because, under the "Further resolved ", where we make a recommendation to the Board of Zoning of Appeals, one of the conditions is that there is a need for the proposed use at the proposed location. Doctor, you may come to the microphone. Dr. Randall — Rumors aside, the fact is that now it's finalized, they're completing the room, it will be completed this Friday or Monday and the new equipment will arrive next week. Probably, three weeks after that, we will be treating patients, which is far sooner than this plan. We've been here since '89. Chairperson Wilcox — Thanks. Joe, can I ask you to come over here please? Does the State still require a needs analysis for something such as this? Mr. Fitzgerald — Yes. In fact, we have submitted a Certificate of Need, which is exactly the question that Jonathan asked, was there need? The State has a need methodology. Need methodology, at this point, we have reviewed it with the staff in Albany on two different occasions since July when we were informed by the Doctor's group that they did not want to work with us, that they would support this program. Chairperson Wilcox — They meaning the State. Mr. Fitzgerald — The State. I met with them as recently as last Thursday, just to answer questions that they might have about this Certificate of Need that we submitted in July. Because of the fast turn around time that that staff has to make, we thought that maybe they'd have questions and there were a few that we were not able to answer. Then actually I wrote a letter back to them today with the answers. Chairperson Wilcox — Have you received written communication from the appropriate state licensing authority granting you permission to build this addition? Mr. Fitzgerald - That's what they will do in October. Chairperson Wilcox — That's what they will do in October. You fully expect to receive that? Mr. Fitzgerald — They have already verbally indicated that they will approve this project. 39 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Conneman — Does the State know that Dr. Randall exists? Mr. Fitzgerald — Yes. They believe, like we believe that is should be a community service, operated by a hospital, not a private practice. Chairperson Wilcox — I think that we would like to see that. That solves the need part. I'm sorry, Tracy's looking at me strange. As a condition of approval — Mr. Fitzgerald — We can't build without the approval. Chairperson Wilcox — That's a condition of approval that the State grants you, as a hospital, the right to build this facility because a determination has been made that there is a need for it. Mr. Fitzgerald — That's is correct. Board Member Conneman — Are there other services at the hospital that are provided by private practice? I assume that there are some other things that private practice does that the hospital does not do. Mr. Fitzgerald — Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything with the exception of outpatient dialysis. That's operated by a big national organization called GAMBRO that operated right next door to us. We operate the in- patient dialysis. Chairperson Wilcox — If the State is going to grant the appropriate license or approval, then that takes care of my issue with there's a need. The State has made that determination. Any other questions at this point? Alright, thank you. Sir, John, I've got to stop this at some point. I can't allow the back and forth, we'll never get done here. You can have the last say. Mr. Barney — Are you asking my opinion or are you telling me — Chairperson Wilcox — I'm cutting you off. I will give you the last word, if you come to the microphone. If you wait to sit down so we can record you. Dr. Randall — Regarding the Certificate of Need, I would imagine that the State thinks there is not operational facility currently and won't be, except for theirs. That's not the case, we will be operational in October. The State Certificate of Need organization needs to know that. Mr. Barney — But, if that's the case, isn't that really your responsibility to illustrate that? Dr. Randall — We will. 40 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Barney — And if the State doesn't give the Certificate of Need, then this project probably won't be built. It's a little bit difficult for this Board to sit here evaluate whether one or two services are needed, whether you are going to get your done. I gather there has been some expectancy that it would have been done some time earlier than now. Dr. Randall — True, there have been many delays, but those are over now. Mr. Barney — I think the Chair is absolutely right, that the need issue, in that respect, is probably better served by the State of New York than this Board. Board Member Conneman — You will inform the State that you exist? ITM: TMIMY 4", II Mr. Kanter — Just a follow up question. A private practice, such as yours, does not need the same kind of certification from the State that a public facility does? Dr. Randall — That is true. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Any further discussion? Board Member Talty — This is a whole lot more than I thought it was when I read through the packet, I can tell you that. Board Member Hoffmann — I agree. Chairperson Wilcox — Unlike two weeks ago, we're not just kind of flying through these, are we? Alrighty, if there's no further discussion, would someone like to move the resolution as drafter? So moved by Rod Howe. Seconded by the Chair. Changes? I'm going to let John Barney go first and then I will deal with the ones that Eva brought up. Mr. Barney — Is it the Health Department that issues the, New York State? Chairperson Wilcox — We're waiting on you John, but you know that? Board Member Hoffmann — Do we really feel that this is the right time to make a decision, especially the final decision or should we just make a preliminary decision tonight and wait for the other information? Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion that has been brought to the table and seconded. Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I'm putting that question to everyone. 41 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Barney — What's the process now, you can't do anything until you get the State Certificate of Need? Is that- Mr. Fitzgerald — That is correct. Mr. Barney — You can't open the service or you can't start construction? So that you have to have that in your hand to do that and that won't come until October? Would there be a significant hardship if, well you still have to go to the other Board. Chairperson Wilcox — They still have to go to the ZBA. Mr. Barney — But you could come back here for final approval following that without too much of a struggle? Inaudible voice from the audience Mr. Barney — Presumably, as your design evolves, you'll have final drawings, as Larry says, the creative process is ever on- going. The other thing that you might have is your Certificate of Need or a determination at that point, if you're going to get it or you're not going to get it. Mr. Fitzgerald — We will get it. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not uncomfortable proceeding as we are, but if any member of the Board is and feels that maybe preliminary is the only thing that should be granted tonight, then vote appropriately on this one and then we can always go for preliminary approval only. Board Member Conneman — I want to hear John's language. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Let's see what Mr. Barney is writing. Mr. Barney — I have a very brief addition. I was going put in a "c" which would be "submission of a Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department, confirming the Health Department's determination that there is a need for this service ". Then I was going to suggest that "1(a)" would be qualified slightly to say that "based upon the testimony heard this evening, there appears to be a need for the proposed use in the proposed location." Board Member Hoffmann — Could you repeat that one please? Mr. Barney — That's in the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, "a" would be "based upon the testimony heard this evening, there appears to be a need for the proposed use at the proposed location." 42 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Is that acceptable to Rod? And it is certainly to myself. We also need to add a conditions where the applicant provides both revised and final LS -1, SK -1, and SK -2 drawings. Eva has requested that the narrative date August 4, 2003 be submitted and sourced as to who wrote it. Rod, do you have a problem with that? I don't either. No further discussion at this time ?] Mr. Kanter — Could I just ask John, were you suggesting, in the Certificate of Need that that is prior to issuance of a Building Permit or, if you didn't, could we add that? Mr. Barney — I think it's a good idea to add it. It goes without saying, I think. Chairperson Wilcox — John, then just repeat it again then. Mr. Barney — "Submission of a Certificate of Need from the New York State Health Department, confirming the Health Department's determination that there is a need in the community for this service. Such certificate will be received prior to the issuance of a Building Permit." Mr. Hoffman — John, just for a technicality, what you're asking for is approval of the Certificate of Need. The Certificate of Need has already been submitted. Mr. Barney - What is the document they issue that gives the blessing, that says this — Mr. Hoffman — Their approval. Mr. Barney — Okay, submission of a copy of the approval. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Board Member Thayer — Jonathan what is the work that is being done up there in that location? Mr. Kanter — I have absolutely no idea. Are you talking about in the radiology unit? Board Member Thayer — No, in that physical location. Mr. Fitzgerald — There is an education center. We were here last year for the approval. Chairperson Wilcox — There being no further discussion. Just so we're clear, all those in favor of preliminary and final site plan approval, please signal by raising your hand. I have one, two, three, four, five. I have Rod, I have Larry, I have 43 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Tracy, I have George and I have the Chair. All those opposed? Eva and Kevin. No one is abstaining, the motion is passed five to two. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -074: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval, Cayuga Medical Center — Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -3 -2.1 MOTION by Rod Howe, seconded by Fred Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed Radiation Oncology addition to the Cayuga Medical Center located at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. The project involves a 10,000 +/- square foot three -story addition to the northwest corner of the existing building, just north of the main entrance. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, PC, 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 September 2, 2003, 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 II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 2, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate plans entitled "Radiation Oncology Addition to Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca — Schematic Design" (LS -1) dated August 5, 2003, "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SKI), "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SK2), both dated August 4, 2003, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., and other application material, and I►T101 F W9:IarVa1901042 ff :12 ff #rC42Prela ato] 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 44 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed 10,000 +/- square foot three - story addition to the northwest corner of the existing building, just north of the main entrance, as shown on the plans entitled "Radiation Oncology Addition to Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca — Schematic Design" (LS -1) dated August 5, 2003, "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SKI), "Proposed Radiation Oncology Addition Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca" (SK2), both dated August 4, 2003, prepared by HOLT Architects, P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the required Special Approval and height variance for the proposed project prior to issuance of a Building Permit, and b. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum, or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca prior to issuance of a Building Permit, and C. submission of a copy of the approval of the Certificate of Need from New York State Health Department confirming the Health Department's determination that there is a need in the community for such a facility, such approval to be supplied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, and d. submission of revised amended narrative on Building Permit. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: sheet LS -1, SK -1, and SK -2 and an HOLT letterhead prior to issuance of a 1. That the Planning Board, in making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a. based upon testimony given to this Board, there appears to be a need for the proposed use in the proposed location; b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed use; C. the proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town; m. PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe NAYS: Hoffmann, Talty The MOTION was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and additions to the Country Club of Ithaca located at 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 68 -1 -1.2 and 71 -7 -1 and Village of Cayuga Heights Tax Parcel No. 10- 5-5, Residence District R -30. The project includes a 9,500 +/- square foot addition to the clubhouse, a 600 +/- square foot addition to the poolhouse, adding 37 parking spaces, new stormwater facilities, and changes to the walkways and landscaping. The project is located in both the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights. Country Club of Ithaca, Owner; Schopfer Architects LLP, Applicants, Robert J. Seigart, Agent. David Schlosser, Schopfer Architects, Syracuse- Since we were here last for preliminary site plan approval, we were in front of the ZBA and the Village of Cayuga, both who gave us a go ahead. The ZBA on special approval, with several condition, which you are aware of and the Village of Cayuga, who basically indicated that they need to take no further action with respect to site plan approval. At both the ZBA and your approval of preliminary, there were conditions noted, we have submitted a number of responses and additional information addressing each one of those. Would you like me to go through each one? Would that be the most appropriate? Chairperson Wilcox — That would be appropriate, yes. Mr. Schlosser — The first item on your conditions was special approval of the Zoning Board and the Zoning Board, as I said, gave us approval. They noted several conditions, one of which I'd like to address now and another, dealing with golf balls, I will reserve until later in the discussion here. The first one was, they asked for you consensus or an agreement that the parking that we are providing is adequate. We got into a rather lengthy discussion with respect to memberships versus members and how to look at them. I don't believe there was an issue with the Zoning Board as to adequacy of parking. They just wanted to make sure that you are comfortable with it. To support that, what I did was I gave a rather lengthy dissertation, looking at this thing inside out and upside down, just about 46 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 as to how many memberships they have, which is the 354, as we originally submitted. We then also gave you additional information showing single memberships versus family memberships and then an account of the members, any member over age 16, i.e. potentially driving age, which amounted to 653. We then gave you four different scenarios as to how to look at a parking analysis, all of which, I think, show that the 113 paved parking spaces that we are proposing are more than adequate. We have also, just to be sure, shown you two expansion parking areas, grassed areas, for any special events, should you wish to look at the scenarios anywhere different then we have proposed. We have shown a potential parking expansion area of 28 cars on the west access road, down Pleasant Grove and additional parking area up in here, all of which we would prefer to keep as grassed area with no further impervious surface. They have probably two or three major events per year and this would provide all the adequacy for that and we feel it unnecessary to pave any additional land for those two or three special events. Do you ant to discuss any of that? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Any discussion to that? Board Member Hoffmann — I think that's a smart idea to do it that way. Chairperson Wilcox — I had a discussion with Brent Cross of the Village of Cayuga Heights this afternoon and the Village of Cayuga Heights feels the same way. Why put enough paving there to serve the absolute possible maximum? Yes there was some discussion about members versus membership versus persons, versus families, but I don't have a problem at this point. Mr. Schlosser — Your condition number two, which is basically the final storm water report plans and erosion control. We've submitted a final drainage report. A grading plan 0 -12, that coordinates with the drainage report and we also have erosion control plans, details and locations shown. I can go into that report in a little more detail if you decide, but basically, what it does, is the initial report, which was submitted analyzed a 100 year flood, which is about the most severe we could look at and what we had promised to do was to show a balanced pre - and post- drainage to Pleasant Grove Road. What the report actually shows is that the drainage area, one, which is 3. acres right now, heading towards Pleasant Grove, in a hundred year storm would be reduced to 3.1 acres and in a ten year storm to 2.8 acres. Obvious, we not are only balancing it, but we are improving the situation to Pleasant Grove. We are taking it to the existing pond on the 18`" fairway and the report also shows that we have adequate capacity for that, as a matter of fact, it shows excess capacity. Chairperson Wilcox — Dan, have you reviewed ? Mr. Walker —Yeah. 47 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Back to Brent Cross on his letter, which you all have a copy of, dated today, says "I have also reviewed the storm water calculation prepared by Dunn and Strobel and have been in discussion with Schopfer Architects to make some minor revisions that I expect to be addressed without concern." Do you know what those minor revisions are? Mr. Schlosser — Yes. We've had three or four discussions with Brent since Thursday of last week. He was concerned about the one hundred year evaluation. You have, I don't know whether you all have it or whether it went to staff. I got a call from him on Thursday at four o'clock, saying that he had concerns and he was heading off on vacation and he wouldn't be back until today. So, we hustled off a ten year analysis because we had basically done the most sever to show him that more of the upper parking lot was draining to the pond. His concerns is that he feels that one hundred percent of the upper parking lot could drain to the pond. Both reports basically show that we are improving it by draining approximately three quarters of it. At the north half, which is this half, actually we have two new catch basins being placed here and here and draining right on down through to the pond, which is sitting up in here. This area has a natural slope right on down through here, all this land would have to be re- contoured in order to catch it over to these two areas. What I talked to Brent about today was that, not only had we begun what we had promised, but we improved on it and that I would also promise to meet with him in the next day or two to see if he had any concerns that we might mitigate to help send a little bit more to the pond and if we could do it, I basically would deal with your engineer and Brent to try and get the two in balance, I guess. He'd like to see even more go to the pond, but that's not what we promised and that's not what we are required to do. Mr. Barney — Does the pond -what flows out of it, where does the pond flow go? Mr. Schlosser — It basically is pumped and irrigated onto the course. Basically, what you have, assuming that the pumps are going to be down, the pond itself, has to have a capacity to hold that one hundred year storm and the report shows that it has about 0.5 acre feet I think is the additional need and we have, in addition to that, another foot of capacity there, so, could we do it, we probably could, but we'd have to recontour the entire north parking area and — Mr. Barney — Unless you go the other way because that's in the Town of Ithaca, the pond? Mr. Walker — It's all in the Town of Ithaca. Even what is in the Village of Cayuga Heights is in the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Barney —Sometimes 48 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Schlosser — The pond is really captured entirely within the golf course. Even if it overflows, it overflows onto the 18th green , so it's on their own property. Chairperson Wilcox — Does the pond have an outlet? Mr. Schlosser — Not that I am aware of. Mr. Walker — There is a natural stream that flows through the area, but I think there's another little stream that flows. Mr. Schlosser — Again, the overflow, we had elevations taken from the surveyor and it was that elevation of a top of the ridge of the pond and the overflow that creates the capacity. Chairperson Wilcox — Let's move on. Mr. Schlosser — Item three was the landscape plan. We submitted to you a modified landscape plan, we received a copy of the Tompkins County Invasive Species List, went through all our proposed plantings and we replaced two. One was the Vinca Minor, we replaced with Pachysandra. The other was the dwarfed Euanymus, which we replaced with the snow mount Spirea. Now there are no invasive species on the proposal. Item four, I spoke with Mike and to our knowledge there are none required, this is the submission of record of application for an approval status of all necessary permits from all county, state and /or federal agencies. As far as we are aware, we've done what we are supposed to do and there are no more necessary. Item five, site grading. That is a minor one, you asked for stamp and seal of the registered land surveyor, we placed that on the drawing. Item six, the outdoor lighting. We submitted to you a revised plan for on L -6, light fixture LP -3. Basically the same style, we simply changed the lens to a frosted lens, as suggested, which was a good suggestion. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Eva. Mr. Schlosser- Samples. When we had talked previously, this is from the northwest, looking at the main entrance. What's light is two shades of essential taupe- Chairperson Wilcox- Can I stop you for a second? Ma'am, you may come around us if you'd like to see better. Mr. Schlosser — Basically this is the EFIS or RIVIT, commonly known as synthetic stucco as well as the window trim and any paint trims shown. This is the stone around the building. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I just ask you? Is the material actually this thin? 49 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Schlosser — No. That's just the coating. What they do is, we just asked them for four or five different textures in four or five different color ranges, plus or minus our paint chips and that is what they gave us. Then, from there, we select. What it is, is actually you have your standard sheathing that goes on the building, then they have anywhere from one to three inches of insulation, then on top of that there is a fiberglass mesh which gets mechanically attached and then two coats of this synthetic stucco. The final coat is what you see there, which is the color and texture coat. Chairperson Wilcox — Bear with us for a second. Mr. Schlosser — Item eight was Cayuga Heights and I mentioned that already. Number nine was written documentation, essentially indicating our mitigation concepts for the errant golf balls across Hanshaw Road. What has been shown on the drawings is that there is an existing rail fence, three foot high that runs the full width east to west on Hanshaw Road. We will be putting a fine mesh on the club side of that and then a berm and planting, which we've shown, I think 30 or 40 some plantings, which about % are actually being transplanted from the area of the construction, basically forming a hedgerow to stop any balls from going onto Hanshaw Road. That letter, I believe, has been sent to the Board and to all interested parties. Board Member Hoffmann — I thought it was rather interesting when I looked at the drawing, it's just a sketch of the property in relationship to the Hartman and Hutchens properties. The property lines are quite different from how they are shown on your other submissions, which I assume is more correct than this sketch. Mr. Schlosser — I'm sorry, the sketch that was submitted to you in the letter was a hand sketch and then we came back and we put it on the drawings as a survey sketch. So what's on the drawings that you have right now on L -1.1, I have a larger copy if those are too small. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't see them. I have L -2. I was looking at the L- 1.1 and comparing the property lines of the Hartman and Hutchens properties with respect to the tennis courts and this little chipping green. Mr. Schlosser — I didn't know if you really wanted to get into it, but we basically took a digital photo and gave you a panoramic of the area. What it is, is actually this is the chipping green right here, this is the chipping area and what you're doing is you are just chipping onto this area, the flags are missing. It's actually 240 feet across Hanshaw Road, from this area, where you are supposed to be chipping in the ten yard or 15 yard category. These are 40 foot high trees or 30 feet high trees, this is the property in question, behind the trees. 50 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — Mr. Hutchens? Mr. Schlosser — That is correct and that's the ten to twelve foot high fence. That's a heck of a shot. Chairperson Wilcox — Could I get you on the microphone? We don't want to miss a single word. Mr. Schlosser — My point is that I think we've done everything that is necessary to help mitigate this and, in a situation that we are not entirely convinced needs mitigation, but we are certainly willing to do it and to go this extra step. There has never been an incident on Hanshaw Road, that was brought out at the ZBA meeting. There has never been a reported incident of any car being hit or any other ball, other than on this particular property. Board Member Hoffmann — I just wanted to point out what I saw as a discrepancy between the two maps. Chairperson Wilcox — The surveyed map is certainly more accurate than this drawings. Mr. Schlosser — That is correct. But that drawing is not totally inaccurate. What it basically is showing is that that line going through there, the 240 feet, is actually going right through that wooded lot, all those trees. Chairperson Wilcox — To some extent, yes. Mr. Schlosser — Now, you're supposed to be chipping ten, 15 feet and we're talking of going over a 40 foot tree. Board Member Conneman — Well, I looked at it. I think that is not exactly accurate, but I'm not a golfer. The other question that came up, from Mr. Hutchens, I guess, was noise. Could you make a statement about that? Mr. Schlosser — Well, that wasn't a condition of the site plan, but I would point out several things. One, if you take a look at the existing plan, the plan and the concept being proposed is actually whatever noise there is, is going to be improved by what is shown here. At the moment, this right here is a room with sliding doors opening out into the parking lot and adjacent to it is the bar. As part of the re- orientation, the reconfiguration of all the inside, this open dining area right here, which is a balcony area and this room are all being moved to the golf course side and will basically be surrounded by nothing but backhouse operations. So, there will be no public dining facing north. There will be no bar, dining areas, or again public areas, other than the entrance. So, if there's entertainment inside and they would open windows , those windows, of course, will be facing the green. Another reason that they do open windows at the 51 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 moment if because the HBAC system is not adequate and the entire system is being totally replaced and revamped for, again, the increased capacity that is being shown here, so there should be less reason for that. Board Member Conneman — To my recollection, we also talked about the pool area, is that not right? Mr. Schlosser — I don't remember anything about the pool. Board Member Conneman — They said they have parties there. Mr. Schlosser — I can speak for him if you'd like because it came up at the ZBA meeting. It was basically they have one lobster roast a year. And, again, the pool is right in this area. Board Member Conneman — You used to have more because I used to live in the Village of Cayuga Heights. I'm not saying that you do now because it's been a long time., but you used to have a lot of parties at the pool. I lived there 36 years, in the Village of Cayuga Heights, upstream of where the pool is. Chairperson Wilcox — Were you aware of the noise? Board Member Conneman — Well, yeah. I'm tolerant of that, some people aren't. Chairperson Wilcox — Less tolerant. Board Member Conneman — Yeah, some people are less tolerant. Kevin, does this satisfy you, that they have mitigated this in writing. The minutes said " would like to see the two parties get together and resolve this issue." That's about the golf balls. "I think the Board would like to have that resolved before we move forward." And I said "I agree with that in writing." And Mr. Wilcox, the Chairman said "Absolutely in writing." I just want to know if that fits your criteria. Board Member Talty — Was there dialogue between the two parties? Mr. Schlosser — I can't speak to that. Chairperson Wilcox — We'll give the people in the audience a chance to answer that question. I'm sure we'll have a good discussion about this topic. Board Member Talty — I just want to address what George said. I think that he did say put in writing. Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 9: 10 p.m. 52 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — If there are members of the audience who wish to address the Planning Board this evening, please come to the microphone, give us your name and address and tell us what you'd like us to hear. Bernie Hutchens, 1016 Hanshaw Road — In answer to your question about were there any discussions, there were none. They never contacted me at all. I did hear what went on at the Zoning Board meeting because I was there and I appreciate very much that Mr. Ferris came up and introduced himself and discussed it and I'm also pleased that they seem to be taking this matter a little more seriously. Tonight, as I came in, they gave me this letter, I don't have the drawing, but I do have the two pages, which I think is the letter that was discussed. That's the first I have seen of this. I read it and there's only a couple of things that I object to. A couple places he says "a very isolated event" and down below "a very isolated incident ". This ignores the circumstances that at the Zoning Board meeting, I know Mr. Smith and Mr. Barney were there, I brought in a box that had 50 golf balls to show them that it was not just one, there were a lot coming over and we've returned a lot more just by skipping them across the road. So, this is not an isolated incident, it happens a lot. I don't know why. Somebody in the Zoning Board confessed to not being terribly proficient and sometimes when they were trying to chip, they hit it with the bottom of the club instead of the surface and the ball takes off. So, I think that is the kind of thing that is going on here. I returned the balls to them. I have the receipt for 50 golf balls. I don't see this as an isolated incident. We're not talking about 50, we're talking about hundreds each year. Chairperson Wilcox — Why do you have a receipt? Did you ask for one? Mr. Hutchens — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Hutchens — I gave them a whole box of balls back. Chairperson Wilcox — It just gives me some idea of the relationship between you and your neighbor or your neighbor and you. The fact that you had to ask for a receipt just gives me some indication of the relationship here, which is important for me in making my own personal judgment. Mr. Hutchens — You wouldn't have asked for one? Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know whether I would have or not, but it tells me a little bit about the relationship between you and your neighbor, that's all. Mr. Hutchens — Okay, the other thing in here, it refers to Mr. Hartman and it says they didn't get any balls. They have a much higher fence in front. They have a 53 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 fence, we don't. So maybe that's one reason. But, the one incident where I told you that that ball flew out and there was a young man over there using that as a driving range, hitting balls in all directions as hard as he could and the one flew into their yard, he might have gone in there and picked that up. I don't know, probably I would have if I hit it. Right now, there are still balls coming across, there were four over the weekend. Prior to that, there were none, since the Zoning Board meeting. I think their education program worked because they weren't coming over and then there were four over the weekend. There are also fly golf balls that have been hit over the Hartman's house, they are down in that corner. Actually there's three on my property, one on Henry's property and one on Hartman's property in a piece of property that was discussed, it seemed like a long time ago, but it was just this evening. Okay, as far as the noise, everybody is just guessing here. They had a party on Saturday, August 23rd of this year and from eleven o'clock until twelve o'clock, took a sound level meter out to see what I could find. At the end of my driveway , which is not even across the road, the edge of their property, I measured the sound levels, well, they apparently had a disc jockey because they seemed to be playing records. The maximum levels were 82 decibels, 73 and 72 on three measurements that I took there. The average levels were 64, 62 and 60. Back at my garage, they were, the maximum levels were 76, 72, and 70, while the average levels were 61, 57, 55. That's an additional 200 feet back. Now, recognize, I got a call from Mr. Frost this morning, apparently he just returned from vacation and he had a message and he confessed that they are looking at this idea, how to measure sound or this sort of thing and what they are going to use. So, I think, probably that's for the Town Board to worry about, getting a new Noise Ordinance that is more satisfactory and actually getting some instruments so that they don't have to guess. I think that's all, unless you have questions. Board Member Conneman — When was this party happening? Mr. Hutchens — It was Saturday, August 23rd of 2003 and, incidentally the song that produced the 82 decibels, I think it was "Play the Funky Music" , I hope that's what it is, it sounds like something else to me. They might have had people joining in and changing the words. Board Member Thayer — Are you happy with the netting that is being put up? Mr. Hutchens — I haven't seen the netting. I don't think there is any netting there yet. Board Member Thayer — No, it isn't there yet, but that's the proposal. Mr. Hutchens — It's going to stop the balls that are simply being skipped. It's not going to stop the ones where somebody hits it too hard. It's certainly not going to stop the idiots who hit it down into the corner. They just have to haul off and they 54 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 hit them down into that right -of -way, which they were talking about earlier, probably assuming that nobody is there. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Board Member Conneman — My recollection was that you suggested that they turn that the other way. Mr. Hutchens — That's good because I guess you folks said that if what they are doing doesn't work, that they have to turn it around. Board Member Hoffmann- I don't remember that. Board Member Conneman — I don't remember that either. Mr. Hutchens — It was discussed. The suggestion was made. Chairperson Wilcox — Someone may have made a suggestion. Board Member Hoffmann — The letter from the Country Club that you got, said that if it turns out that there are still balls reaching Hanshaw Road with this three foot fence, we will look into a higher retaining fence. Mr. Hutchens — That would be satisfactory, too. I don't think it would look too great, but I would rather have a fence. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions for Mr. Hutchens? Thank you sir. You are representing the Country Club right. John, I am speaking out loud, wonder if I want to let the other members of the public speak before we get into this. Let me let the other members speak. Ellen Hartman, 1018 Hanshaw Road — We're neighbors of the Hutchens and we are members of the Country Club. I noticed there was a note that we never received golf balls in our yard, that is not true. We do, periodically, get golf balls in our front yard. It's in no way a problem for us. I don't think that we have an issue with that. We get, I don't know how many balls, but it is never anything that would bother us. We have a large font yard , but our house is actually closer to Hanshaw Road and probably closer to the chipping range than the Hutchens' house is and we've never had a ball close to our house. I'm ashamed to say this, but I feel that this is getting a little acrimonious between the Country Club and Mr. Hutchens. Chairperson Wilcox — You noticed. Ms. Hartman — We've always had a good relationship with the Hutchens and I feel that, this is not something I have done, but my husband and son have hit golf 55 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 balls from our yard back, toward the vacant lot and I would imagine that the balls that you are thinking are coming from the Country Club have come from my husband and son, who I have told never to do that again. I wish we had known earlier that that was causing a problem between other people because that is obviously something that we would not have intended to do. I never condoned that and would have never done it in the first place. The noise is not a problem for us. We have gone to the lobster fest, which I think was the party that was on the 23rd. We have sat home and listened to the lobster fest other times. We're inside, the noise is outside, we don't have air conditioning, we do have our windows open and can hear the music, but the music is off at what we think is a reasonable hour. It's a once a year party. There have been other times during the year when I've heard noises from the Country Club, but it's nothing more than you would expect from any neighbor. People in our yard are out mowing their lawns, they are using power tools, there's lots of stuff going on in the neighborhood and it's not noise that I would think it's like living next to a bar or something where you're constantly inundated with rock music. It's a party that happens once a year. There might be other parties that happen once or twice a year. So, those two issues, the golf balls and music are not problems for us. Board Member Conneman — What's an acceptable hour? Ms. Hartman — I think about midnight is when the parties are over. They are not going on until three in the morning. Board Member Talty — How many golf balls, annually, would you say are in your yard? Ms. Hartman — See, I have little kids who like them, so we go out and search for them quite a bit and we're frequently disappointed. So, I would say, maybe 20, maybe 25. 1 can say that I have seen teenagers on the chipping range hitting golf balls, purposely, I think that a teenager would want to do that, they would to see if it could go over Hanshaw Road. When I'm in my yard and I give them that look that says " Don't you dare hit another golf ball into my yard." They stop, they go away. It's probably just a fact of life that there are teenagers hitting balls in the neighborhood, as there are husbands hitting balls in the neighborhood. I can't even believe that this has caused so much trouble, I'm so ashamed by having to say that. Board Member Conneman — Would you give us that look so that I can see? Ms. Hartman — Well, I'm not quite angry enough. Mr. Barney — What's the look that you would give them is one of them clobbered one of your kids in the head. 56 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Ms. Hartman — Well, see that's exactly the trouble. That's why I would give them the look. I also know that the club pro would never let anyone do that on purpose. It's teenagers doing things that they shouldn't be doing. It's against the rules. It's obviously against the intention, you're not supposed to be doing that when you are chipping, you're not supposed to be hitting the ball that hard. I've never had a problem with it, it's been once or twice teenagers. Mr. Barney — You've got to look at it a little bit from the standpoint of the Town and County, we're being asked to approve something here and we're approving it knowing that balls are flying, for whatever reason, off of the property, across a fairly well traveled road, presumably some balls are bouncing in the road. To date, they haven't hit a car. I really am surprised that you are kind of casual looking at it because I think if I were across the road and these balls were coming in and I had young children, that I'd be pretty upset. Ms. Hartman — There is the chipping range, there is a grass verge that is in between the road and that fence, where they are going to put the netting, there is Hanshaw Road, we have a grass piece and then the front of our property, it's not tall trees, but we have lots of bushes in front of our property and the balls generally fall along that bush line. They're not coming into the grass, that's what I meant when I said they're not coming anywhere close to our house. They're not coming into the grass where we play, they're not coming anywhere close to the house. They are not anywhere close to the house. They are not anywhere where we are living. Mr. Barney — Even the teenagers who are wailing away. Ms. Hartman — Well, that's the other thing that I was going to say. Now that my husband is aware of the fact that this is a problem for other people, he is never going to that a ball in that direction again and I would imagine that now that the Country Club is aware in fact that this is a problem that is potentially dangerous, there is going to be a lot better understanding for the people that are using the chipping green about how far they should be hitting the balls. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you done John? You seem to be giving her the look now. Alright, thank you. Anybody else. You get to speak as a member of the Country Club anyway. J. David Ferris, 5 Belvedere Drive — I think that we have taken several steps to try and mitigate what the problem is with the balls and we are going to carry through on that. We have made our commitment to do it and we've talked already to the grounds crew. The plans are already being drafted. A berm is going to be put there, which is going to raise and elevate the shrubbery that is going to be put there. It's going to be significantly higher than the three foot fences, there would be netting in front of it and I can't answer the question about 57 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 is noise going to- you have to realize he is giving his noise decibel quotes, we didn't have an engineer out there to respond to that. I would just say that, unless we call the sheriff or somebody to actually hear the noise that was too loud, I don't know how we'd have somebody on our side to respond to that issue about the decibels. They could come in here and argue about it, but there is nothing to argue with, but I think that we are taking all kinds of steps to change this. We are not allowing anybody under the age of 16 to be at that chipping range without adult supervision. That is one of the changes we have made with the pro shop and in the club. We have talked to all of the members about it. It is being put in our "Chip Shots ". The pro shop has been advised that they have to completely supervise that chipping green at all times, which they are doing. So, I believe that we have made every effort that we can in good faith to respond to these issues. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Questions. Board Member Talty — Yes, I have a question. The balls that are landing in the yard, are they range balls or are they their own ones? Mr. Ferris — Well, that is interesting. That box of balls that he made me sign for, I took them to the pro shop, I didn't look at them that night, I didn't take them out and look at them, but out of the total box of balls that he gave us, only four were the brand that we use on our chipping range. I don't know where the others came from. They were clearly range balls, but they weren't our range balls. They were balls that we haven't used in years. We have a specific brand that we use and they have a specific logo on them, they have a specific brand name on them from the manufacture. But anyway, the point is that we are doing everything that we can to respond to this issue and we think that it will be more than adequate. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anything else? Board Member Talty — I'd like to say that I am a golfer George and 50 degree loft wedge, when you pull that with a full swing, with all due respect, you can easily put it 60 — 70 yards with no problem. Mr. Ferris — That would be true down our driving range. Board Member Talty — I'm just saying on the chipping range and the other thing, to mitigate with a berm and trees, that's all fine and dandy for the errant when you hit it thick, but when you're still launching them, I bet you could get an arch of 40 — 50 feet if you are peeling back and hitting it hard, so I just wanted to say that for the record. I just wanted to say that the Country Club, in my opinion, has met each of the concerns that were brought up before and that I do feel as though there is genuine on the Country Club's and, given Mr. Ferris' testimony here tonight that, if it continues to be a problem, I'm sure they will take advance steps to mitigate it. 58 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Ferris —Absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox — Any to other questions? Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak this evening? Mr. Hutchens — (inaudible from the audience) Chairperson Wilcox — No, you may not because we are running out of time. We have two more items. Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 9:30 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — I was up there today, I have a golf ball, as you noticed. He's my opinion, the screening along the wooden fence there and the trees is going to catch the occasional ball that is hit too hard that rolls off the green and slides down. What they are not going to be able to stop by a fence or by trees is the malicious person, who is just teeing off from that area and hitting them across and that , to me is the problem. If you park along the road and look at what is there and the distance from the road to the — Are you familiar with that area? It has to be, not malicious, but you've really got to try to hit it across the road. It's unlikely that if you're actually using that facility the way that it is supposed to be, that you are going to put the ball in the road, therefore, the best thing that can be done is education and rules. Board Member Talty — And enforcement. Chairperson Wilcox — And enforcement, absolutely, that what has to be done here. This was not found across the road, this was found near the road, actually on their property. I brought it in just to prove to you guys that I actually was there. Board Member Mitrano — I stretching back in my memory of law school, the first year of torts, John nuisance. All the other things I am willing to go for , but I actually think this sounds like an attractive nucense. There are a number of people who cannot help themselves, for whatever reason, immaturity, that just think it is terrific to knock it across Hanshaw Road, I think we've all got a problem. Mr. Barney — Quite frankly, I'm sitting here, kind of with my hands here because I relish the thought that if somebody gets injured on Mr. Hutchens' property or Mrs. Hartman's property, I have got a nice defendant with deep pockets because they know about the problem, they've been told about it now, very clearly, written about it and if somebody gets hurt, I quite frankly think you guys, if it's a serious injury, you are going to wind up paying for it. I don't understand the thought that says we can't turn this around or do something so that these balls don't come off the property. I think that these kids who are wailing away because they want to get it across the road, they would think twice if the thing was oriented towards the 59 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 club house and they're starting to wail away and whacking at the club house, that would probably bring the club pro out pretty darn quick to slow them down. I would suggest that you might want to include a condition that, if you're going to approve this in this final form, that it's to be conditional on an agreement being presented by the Country Club of Ithaca, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planner and the Town Engineer, that if the errant balls doesn't subside fairly dramatically and permanently, that they will take whatever steps, including reversing the direction in which the hitting goes to this chipping green. That will allow you to stop it, but if it doesn't stop it, I think you've got to come back in and get it straightened out. I , quite frankly, don't see how we can do anything less than that to protect the people, and I'm not even talking about Mr. Hutchens, I'm talking about joe blow driver goes by there and a ball whams into his car. Those things can kill you. So, I'm very concerned about it. Board Member Conneman — The kind of golf balls doesn't' matter because kids will pick up golf balls that are not traceable of they are going to fool around, that is what kids are about. Board Member Talty — The reason I asked that question is because if a majority or all the balls were range balls that are similar to what they utilize at the Country Club of Ithaca, that they could have sign out sheets for the buckets. SO, we would know, so if the balls start flying at 2:20 p.m., they can go back to the log book and find out who had the balls from 2:00 to 2:30. However, that's the reason that I ask that question, it doesn't seem to be the case, it would be very difficult to maybe monitor exactly who's got what ball if it's not the Country Club's range balls. Chairperson Wilcox — There were multiple people out there around noon time, 12:30. Board Member Talty — It would be almost impossible to try to pinpoint. Mr. Barney — The problem, I think, is that the Country Club has assumed the liability by creating a situation where kids will do that. Monitored or not, if it's happening, I don't care if it's happening with their range balls or with balls that kids bring on the course where they picked them up from some other location. think you're into it Dave. Chairperson Wilcox — No, I do not want you to respond, not at this point. Thank you John. I like you're suggestion, by the way. Board Member Conneman — I just want to say about noise. I think that noise is reasonable a few times a year and to quit at midnight is very reasonable. Board Member Hoffmann — It makes me wonder now that you mention this, whether the whole renovation and the change in enlarging the kitchen and so on 60 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 might make it happen that there are more parties, more weddings, more special occasions. I wonder if somebody would be able to tell me if you are anticipating that that would happen with these renovations. Board Member Talty — While they are deciding who is going to come up, I would also like to say that with the Clean Air Act, that there is going to be many more people exiting and entering the premises, having their smokes and cigars and that has to be taken into account as well in deciphering noise because nobody goes for a smoke by themselves. There's always two or three people, all my friends do it. So, I think that in the old days, I don't know if you had a smoking section or not in the club, but being a private club, am I right to assume that everyone has to smoke outside or are private club off the — Mr. Ferris — Our club is governed by the same New York State rules as others. As long as you have employees, they can't have smoking. Chairperson Wilcox — I hate to make you come all the way up here, but we can't record you from there. Board Member Hoffmann — What about my question about the possibility of increased number of parties, weddings, banquettes, things like that after the renovation. Mr. Ferris — We don't think that there will be an increase in the number of banquettes, it's just that the number of people that we can have at the banquettes will be increased. In other words, we only have a finite number of banquettes and things that we can have during the year. Board Member Thayer — What would it entail to reverse the chipping green. Mr. Ferris — This came up in front of the Zoning Board, it would require completely re- contouring the green because now it slopes up toward the road, we would have to tear the whole thing out, turn around and change it. We are looking at, could be $50, 000 to $75,000. A green costs a lot of money. A properly designed green. They are very expensive. I assure you that our interests are not to have those balls going across the road. Board Member Conneman — Mr. Barney pointed out that it might be cheaper than a lawsuit. Mr. Ferris — The green has been there for 70 years and, as far as we know, we haven't hit anybody yet. Board Member Talty — You better knock on some wood. 61 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Good. Thank you. I'm trying to hurry because we've still got two more things. Any other comments, questions, discussions? Board Member Hoffmann — As I said, I liked what Tracy brought up and, after hearing what John Barney said too, I think maybe we should consider putting in something else into the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox — I liked John's language. Any other discussion. Board Member Talty — John, if we pass this in it's form, do we assume any liability. Does the Town assume any liability by passing this if someone does get injured after all the discussion that was had? Mr. Barney — There is always a slight risk. Board Member Talty — Is there more than a slight risk? Mr. Barney — I would say no because you're getting disparate versions of what's going on and what's happening and you're making a judgment and normally, you're immune in a municipality from any kind of a lawsuit if you're exercising reasonably good judgment. On the other hand, if it is a problem that does continue and you approve a project that basically has the potential for adding to that, which is the expansion of the facility, it's not imprudent to require some kind of steps to be taken to minimize or end the problem. The Club is saying that they are going to do some things and that may end it there, which, if it does, great. What I suggesting is that we add a provision that says if it doesn't, that we have some leverage to say you've got to do something. Board Member Mitrano — And with respect to the noise pollution, can't people just call the sheriff? Mr. Barney — The noise, I think, will maybe take care of itself, quite frankly in the next six months to a year. We're right in the throws now of getting quotes for decibel meters that we can certify. The problem is that you can't just take one of those things from Radio Shack because you have to be able to have it certified, qualified or what's the word? Calibrated periodically to make sure that it is registering the sounds correctly, so we're getting close and I think the Town Board is pretty close to purchasing one for our own people to have or for the Sheriff's Office to use because I'm sure that Andy won't come out at 12:00 at night to measure what the lobster fest is doing at the Country Club or anything else, but, basically having a device that will be able to be use for that purpose and will be able to stand up if it were challenged in court. So, I think that, come next summer, we will have that device and if someone has any problems, they can call. 62 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the resolution as drafted? So moved by Larry Thayer. Do I have a second? Seconded by George Conneman. Mr. Barney is writing away. Mr. Barney — What I would suggest adding is a second condition, after the submission of final site plan, "submission of an agreement signed by the Country Club of Ithaca, Inc. reasonably satisfactory to the Town of Ithaca Director of Planning and the Attorney for the Town of Ithaca, pursuant to which the Country Club will take any additional steps necessary to curb the errant balls from leaving its property near the chipping green should the balls not be adequately curbed by the mitigative measures presently being undertaken by the Country Club, said agreement to include agreement of the Club, if necessary, re- orientating the chipping green so that shots are directed away from Hanshaw Road, said agreement to be provided prior to the issuance of a Building Permit." Chairperson Wilcox — Jon and John. Why do you- Mr. Barney — I don't like to be the only one looking at some thing. We can make the Chair look at it. Chairperson Wilcox — No, I don't want it to be me either, no. Mr. Barney — Do you want to make it Eva, the Vice Chair? Chairperson Wilcox — I was just wondering why not just you at this point, it seemed more of a legal thing, but that is fine. Mr. Barney — It involves a little bit of policy. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that change acceptable Larry and George? Any other discussion? There being none, all those in favor say "aye ". Is there anybody opposed? Are there any abstentions? The motion is passed unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -075 :Final Site Plan Approval, Country Club of Ithaca — Additions & Renovations: 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 68 -1 -1.2 and 71 -7 -1 MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and additions to the Country Club of Ithaca located at 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 68 -1 -1.2 and 71 -7 -1 and Village of Cayuga Heights Tax Parcel No. 10 -5 -5, Residence District R- 63 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 30. The project includes a 9,500 +/- square foot addition to the clubhouse, a 600 +/- square foot addition to the poolhouse, adding 37 parking spaces, new stormwater facilities, and changes to the walkways and landscaping. The project is located in both the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights. Country Club of Ithaca, Owner; Schopfer Architects LLP, Applicants, Robert J. Seigart, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Approval, in coordination with other involved agencies, did on August 5, 2003, make a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Town Planning Board, on August 5, 2003, did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project, and 4. The Town Zoning Board of Appeals, on August 18, 2003, did consider and grant Special Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 2, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "Site & Erosion Control Plan, " (L 1. 1), "Site & Grading Plan, " (L 1. 2), "Landscape Plan, " (L1.3), and "Site Map & Misc. Site Details," (L1.4), dated 8110103 and revised 8121103, and "Lighting Plan," (L6) dated 419103 and revised 8121103, prepared by Schopfer Architects LLP, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and additions to the Country Club of Ithaca that are located in the Town of Ithaca, 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 68 -1 -1.2 and 71 -7 -1, as shown on drawings titled "Site & Erosion Control Plan," (L 1. 1), "Site & Grading Plan," (L1.2), "Landscape Plan," (L1.3), and "Site Map & Misc. Site Details," (L1.4), dated 8110103 and revised 8121103, and "Lighting Plan," (L6) dated 419103 and revised 8121103, prepared by Schopfer Architects LLP, subject to the following condition: a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum, or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and b. submission of an agreement signed by the Country Club of Ithaca, Inc., reasonably satisfactory to the Town of Ithaca s PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Director of Planning and the Attorney for the Town of Ithaca, pursuant to which the Country Club will take any additional steps necessary to curb the errant balls from leaving its property near the chipping green should the balls not be adequately curbed by the mitigative measures presently being undertaken by the Country Club, said agreement to include agreement of the Club, if necessary, re- orientating the chipping green so that shots are directed away from Hanshaw Road, said agreement to be provided prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 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. Chairperson Wilcox — How late can we go tonight, guys? Board Member Talty — We might as well take a vote right now. Chairperson Wilcox — Does anybody want to go passed ten? We're going to have to. 10:30 at the latest? I think I have to take a formal vote, though. Rod has got to leave at ten, Tracy's got to leave so we'll be five, at best. 10:30 guys, at the latest? Chairperson Wilcox — I'd like to remind those members of the Ithaca College contingent that we normally end at ten. The members of the Board have decided that we will go to 10:30, so let's see what we can accomplish in the next 45 minutes. That's a hint by saying we'll try to be brief, if you try to be brief. AGENDA ITEM: PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a 54 square foot sign at the entrance to the College Circle Apartments on Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2.2, Multiple Residence. College Circle Associates, LLC / South Hill Land Associates, LLC, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; Michael P. O'Shea, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox -Is Mr. O'Shea here this evening or someone else? There he is, how could I miss him. Name, address and quick overview. Vince Nicotra, QPK Design, Syracuse — I did call the Planning Board and make them aware, I left a note to Jonathan that I would be in Michael's place. I don't know if you got it on Friday. 65 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Basically, we're before you tonight to request a variance from the sign ordinance to put a permanent sign at the entrance to College Circle and I brought with me the intended design of the sign and you might recognize this because it matches very closely the sign that sits at the main entrance to the Ithaca College Campus. The intent here is to provide a consistency in both the material, size, not quite size, but material and lettering. The size is approximately 60 percent of the sign at the entrance to the campus. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? I note that we only, we have a little bit of burecracy in the Town and hopefully we'll get rid of it, but this is actually, we have to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Board Member Conneman — Your current sign is up, but it seems to be more of a size, I'm not sure why you need such a sign up in front of a, I believe you described it as a living unit. You don't have signs like this in front of any of your other living units. Mr. Nicotra — This one has the distinction of having it's own entrance, where most of the other living units at the college do not, in other words, you would enter through the main campus. I think the college wants to, obviously, identify this as part of their campus housing and I think it's just in recognition to maintain a consistency to know that it is college housing, which I think has been affective in the turnaround for that property. So, this is really in keeping with the campus's identification. There is one at Coddington Road, that is also of this design. So it is consistent that the three signs is similar in design and construction. The 54 square feet primarily comes just from the uniqueness of the sign, it tapers to almost a foot and is four feet three tall in the front. So, although it seems large, it's very low to the ground and I don't think it would provide the same type of obstruction that a 54 square foot sign would if it was on two posts. Board Member Conneman — Why did you pick 60 percent, instead of 40 percent or 30 percent? Mr. Nicotra — Well, I think part of it is that we wanted it to be scaled to the island that it sits on and there were parameters and limitations and we don't want it to be larger than the main campus sign, so somewhere between one and 100 percent and 60 fit the size of the island as well as maintaining a lettering size of nine inches high that you could read easily from the 50 mile an hour road out in front. We actually looked at a couple of different sizes, both smaller and larger and fine -tuned it to this, after working with the campus. Board Member Hoffmann — Is the taller end of the sign closer to the road? Mr. Nicotra — Yes. If you're familiar with Ithaca College's main campus sign at all, it is the same design layout, angles. We measured that sign and tried to replicate it. 66 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — What about the distance in from the edge of the road? Mr. Nicotra - It's approximately 30 feet or so in from the road and if you look at the plan, it is sitting on the median, it's about 33 feet actually. It's within the median that exists for the College Circle entrance. Board Member Conneman — Do you have two sides of the sign? Mr. Nicotra — Yes. It' s two sided and both sides there is a slight angle outward so that they project towards the road. They will face both up and down Route 96 B. Board Member Conneman — But it's one sign? Mr. Nicotra — It's one sign. It's literally one piece of concrete. Chairperson Wilcox — It's a piece of concrete with lettering on it. Mr. Nicotra — With metal lettering. It's very simple. There is no lighting plan for this sign. Board Member Hoffmann — The reason I asked those questions were that there was a comment that we got in some e -mails here about the sign perhaps hiding a car as it is about to leave. Mr. Nicotra — I don't think, if you look at the diagram, the cars, in order to safely negotiate either entering or exiting the property would be beyond the median in order to safely do so. So, I don't think that that will be an issue with this sign. Board Member Talty — I just wanted to say that I went out there with my wife and got out of the car and she pulled forward in both directions and I didn't see any problems at all. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Mr. Nicotra — I've done the same. Board Member Conneman — What are our sign regulations? Mr. Smith — They're allowed 24 square feet in a multiple residence. Mr. Barney — And the sign area is 54, is that the whole fagade or just the area of the sign. 67 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Nicotra — The fagade. The uniqueness here is that the sign tapers. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? I'm just going to ask you to take a seat, this is a public hearing. Mr. Barney — Can I just add one quick question? What's the dimension of "Circle Apartments" that part of the sign, it's nine inches high, but how long is it? From the beginning of the "C" to the end of the "S "? Mr. Nicotra — Eleven foot seven. Mr. Barney — Oh, there it is, I'm sorry. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen this is a public hearing, if there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Board, please come to the microphone and give us your name and address. Joel, will you be quick? Joel Harlan, Newfield — I go out around them apartments all the time, they're having activities up in that area. It's kind of hard to see where you're at when you come in the entrance of those, they need to put one on the other side or College Circle Apartments too, those apartments just above them because it's hard to tell we're you're at with the traffic coming at you at night time. You do need a sign there to point it out, just like you do with Ithaca College, it will identify where you're at because one of these days there's going to be quite a few accidents up there, especially in the wintertime, not knowing where it is at. They did 100 percent job of beautifying it. It looks like a different world up there now and they did it in a year. That is amazing to me. While in all around down here, you can't get anything started. Chairperson Wilcox — Joel! Mr. Harlan — That's a shame and Cornell is the same way. You guys are in on this. There are developments going fast up there, what's wrong with downtown. That's the joke of the County. But, you do need a sign up there and I'm all for what they are doing up there. It looks a heck of a lot better. You go up there now and it is 100 percent different then last year. It's amazing how these campuses in College Town grow so fast, but down town. Chairperson Wilcox — Joel! Thank you. Thank you sir. Anybody else? Chairperson Wilcox closed the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — It's good to see you again, it's been a while. Board Member Conneman — There are no lights on this thing? 68 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — No lights are being proposed. Let me note, for the record that we did receive, via e -mail, comments from Pauline Layton, which you are welcome to read, they were in front of you when you arrived. Okay. Any other discussion. Board Member Thayer — Was John maybe figuring a different was to arrive at the square footage? Mr. Barney — Well, the law is a little, as usual, ambiguous. It defines a free- standing sign area as the area of the smallest rectangle, triangle or circle, whichever results in the smallest area of calculation, circumscribing one face of the sign panel or sign symbol or group of panels or symbols, inclusive of decorative appendages, but exclusive of supports. I just, in my own mind am trying to figure out where the — if you took a square around "College Circle Apartments" which is probably the smallest, you wind up with about 19 square feet, so you are actually under it a little. But, if you treat the entire fagade, the stone fagade, as being a decorative appendage then that's what creates the need for the variance. I think that's probably the proper way of looking at it. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll remind everybody that we are being asked simply to provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board or Appeals. Board Member Conneman — Would our recommendation to them include what John just said? Chairperson Wilcox — No, our recommendation simply, we can change it, but you have the draft resolution in front of you. Board Member Thayer — I like the design. Chairperson Wilcox — It looks like the other ones. I'm used to the one on Coddington Road. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question for Mike, just in case you know this, don't expect you to know it necessarily. How does this compare to the sign outside the PRI, which has a similar sign? Mr. Smith — I'm not sure- Board Member Hoffmann — It looks big. Mr. Smith — It's the same style of sign and that one had to get a variance also, but I don't know what the dimensions were. Board Member Hoffmann — I wonder if it looks bigger because it is closer to the road. 69 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Thayer — Well that, plus it is bigger. You saw the people here and that is shoulder high and that's certainly larger than shoulder high. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the motion, as drafted? So moved by Larry Thayer. Seconded by Kevin Talty. Any further discussion. All those in favor, please signal by saying "aye ". Anyone opposed? Are there any abstentions? The motion is passed unanimously. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -076: Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, Sign Variance — College Circle Apartments, 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2.2, Sign Review Board (Planning Board) MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a 54 +/- square foot sign at the entrance to the College Circle Apartments at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2.2, Multiple Residence. College Circle Associates, LLC / South Hill Land Associates, LLC, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; Michael P. O'Shea, Agent, and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 2, 2003, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, drawings titled "College Circle Apartments — Permanent Signage, " sheet MS -1, dated June 27, 2003, and sheet MS -2, dated July 1, 2003, prepared by QPK Design, and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign review Board, recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for the sign variance be granted. 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. 70 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 AGENDA ITEM : SEQR Determination: Ithaca College /College Circle Apts. Parking Expansion, 953 & 1033 Danby Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:59 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Good evening. All set? Name and address and the floor is you rs. Brian McAree, 125 Park Lane — I am the Vice President for Student Affairs and Campus Life at Ithaca College. With me tonight are other representatives, Carl Sgrecci, Vice President for Finance Administration, Rick Couture our Director of Physical Plant, Fred Vanderburg, our Senior Assistant Director for Construction and Planning and Design, Bob Holt, our Director of Public Safety, Vince Nicotra, you've already met our partner with QPK Architects. Dave Harding is also here tonight, landscape architect form QPK and also Herman Sieverding, Vice President for Integrated Acquisition and Development. We're here tonight to propose the construction of a 118 -space parking lot at the southern end of the Ithaca College campus, between the existing soccer field and the Circle Apartments. We were here in March of 2002, at which point in time, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board approved the total occupancy of the College Circle complex to not exceed 750 persons. At this point in time, on August 15t ", this past month, we began full occupancy of the College Circle Apartment complex and we are housing 694 residents at the Circle Apartments. When we were here last, we had proposed a parking plan and, at the present time, we have 532 spaces for parking in front of the apartments. However, out of that 532, ten of those spaces are designated for handicapped use only. We also designated five of those spaces for service vehicles and so the net numbers of spaces that we have for residents for parking in front of those apartments and aside of those apartments is 517 spaces. In addition to that, in the middle of the circle we have a beautiful community center, which we are very happy with right now and so are the residents and we have 20 additional spaces around that facility, but our purpose of having those spaces in that area are for students to drive back in forth. The laundry facilities are there, we have a small fitness center there, our offices are located in the community center and so forth. So, we don't see those spaces as being long -term parking spaces for our residents. So the bottom line is, right now, we have what we consider, 517parkign spaces for those residents. If you take the 694 residents that we have there, you are looking at about 74 percent of our residents being able to have parking spaces for registered cars at this site. This is what we anticipated when we came to the Board over a year ago, we were looking at about providing 75 percent parking for our residents, which is what we have. Last year was Ithaca College's first year of occupying Phase I of College Circle and to our surprise, not to Fred's surprise certainly, because I think he warned us about this about a year ago, but to our surprise, we had 90 percent of the students at College Circle who registered cars at Ithaca College . Our experience is, and again, this is our first year of full occupancy, but out anticipation is by the Spring semester of this year, we will 71 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 again have around 90 percent. Our college students certainly, most of the residents at College Circle are juniors and seniors. They have cars, they bring those cars to campus and, clearly from our experience, they use those cars throughout the day because of their complicated schedules to get back and forth to campus, to internships, to work sites off campus, etcetera. One of the things that we tried to do last year and again under your encouragement, to try to have a bus service to go back and forth to College Circle and we were very hopeful about that bus service and really encouraged students to use that bus service and , in addition to that, discounted the bus fares for our students to help with that incentive. That certainly did not pan out at all. TCAT, in fact, in the spring semester discontinued bus service because, on average, we were having about nine to twelve students a day using the bus service. It was inconvenience to them no matter what kind of schedules TCAT worked out and, in fact, the kind of service that was provided actually inconvenienced other residents on South Hill, so it didn't prove to be very productive for our students. So, what we are attempting to do right now is look at, not just now, but project into the spring semester and our experience over at Ithaca College is that students will continue to register cars throughout the year, in fact many of them do bring cars back after the winter break holidays. So, our anticipation is that we will be on a full 90 percent, based on our experience last year, at College Circle come spring semester. So we are trying to avoid a safety problem and we are certainly trying to avoid a parking problem. Our proposal is to build 118 spaces in order to bring our occupancy levels or our parking levels to around 90 percent. This will do for us, 90 percent, at about 705 residents. So, it is a little bit below that for the numbers of cars that we have at present. We've been doing parking assessments throughout this semester, to date, at three o'clock in the morning on specific nights to try to assess how many available parking spaces and we have anywhere between seven and 15 spaces available at the present time. So, we know that there are a number of students who still need to register their cars, so we do an actual count and also our projection of registered vehicles. We, as you know, paved and also constructed a connector road that we said we would do, in fact we paved it this summer, a full year earlier than we anticipated to try to make it convenient and also make it safe for our students to stay on campus and use vehicular and also pedestrian traffic and keep that on our campus, versus 96B. So, that's been successful and our students are finding that convenience very helpful to move back and forth to campus. We will continue as we have this past year. We added parking enforcement staff to our Ithaca College Office of Public Safety to enforce rules and regulations at Ithaca College. They will continue to monitor the lots and they will enforce our parking and also traffic regulations on site. So, the bottom line is, what we are trying to do is, last year we were anticipating a certainly level of student who had cars and what we're trying to do right now is deal with what our reality is at College Circle. At this point in time, I would like to turn the microphone over to Dave Harding, who is our landscape architect for QPK to talk a little bit about the physical setup of the parking space. 72 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 David Harding, QPK Design, 450 South Salina Street, Syracuse- QPK's design task is to find spots for these 118 parking spaces and we evaluated various alternatives around the College Circle property itself and came to the conclusion that there were really only two potential solutions. One was on the College Circle property, it was very undesirable and that would have been right in the commons area, the green area adjoining the community building which is a very vital part of the success of that whole facility. The other alternative, which we developed into the plan you see before you tonight is, in the interface, between the College Circle property and the Ithaca College property at the soccer fields. On the illustrative plan here, that fits in right in this area you see here. We have tried to snuggle it up as tight as we could to the soccer field, which you see illustrated by this rectangle. The fence that encloses the soccer field currently extends up and into the hillside somewhat. Part of this layout was to relocate that fence and make it closer to and parallel to the easterly side of the soccer field so that we would minimize how far up into the hillside we would get. Some of the parking spaces are side loaded off of the connector road itself, eleven on one side and thirteen on the other. The balance of the 118 are in this finger parking that wraps around. One of the critical issues that we looked at during the previous project that I was here for on the connector road is drainage. This design incorporates an extension of the 36 inch culvert that goes under the connector road right along the property line here and conveys it into the swale that then goes into the pipe down to the highway, between the Yntema and what was the Kirschman properties. That pipe is being extended up towards the rear of the College Circle property at the same slope and hydraulic characteristics and will convey up to the hundred year design storm. So, we maintain the integrity of that storm system, which I understand has worked very well and it's been given several workouts, I hear from these intense rainfalls. Lighting will involve, relocating an exiting light and actually changing it out to the same type of cutoff light fixture that's utilized on the College Circle Apartment's property. The idea here is to establish a continuity so that this parking lot appears to belong to the College Circle apartment complex . There will be a total of five lights. Located at about 100 foot intervals along the outside edge of the parking lot. The details have not yet been worked out, but there will also be a blue light system on several of those poles. There is an existing walk that leads down from the College Circle Apartments, you'll see the apartment buildings in the Phase I area and one of the buildings in the Phase 11 area here. This walk provided convenient access from the parking lot so that its functionality will be convenient to some of the upper lots, whereas the spaces that we are providing down here near the connector road will help relieve some burden that is occurring to the Phase I apartments. A part of the design also involves updating the existing detention basin system that is illustrated here and here. As you may be aware, regulations went into effect at the beginning of this year, so the plans that have been submitted comply with those regulations, both from the standpoint that we are seeing an increase in volume runoff from a greater paved area, but we are also, but we are also addressing the water quality treatment issues in a similar 73 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 manner that was done on the College Circle Apartments project. I think that's all have to say. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions of David while he is sitting here? Board Member Conneman — David, it seems to me that you are cutting trees. Mr. Harding — We are cutting some trees, yes. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that you are cutting a lot of trees. Mr. Harding — Well, not really. There are several trees sporadically located along the interface of the properties. In the upper ones, all that we are cutting, and you can see the tree line that I have illustrated here, there are a few trees here and a few trees that are in between the existing gravel security road that runs through here and the soccer road, but all totaled, it's about a tenth of an area of wooded area. I don't know if you had the opportunity to get up to the site, but when I was up there with some of the Planning staff and Fred Wilcox, I did point out that a lot of those trees is poor and they appear to be approaching the end of their normal life cycle. We've tried, to the greatest extent to minimize impact, which is why it ends where it ends and it's configured as it's configured. We're also proposing to plant new trees to mitigate the loss and I think we have about 18 trees indicated as part of the scope of this project. Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that by paving more space and cutting down trees, you are being, and I'm not a tree - hugger, you are being eco- unfriendly, whatever you want to call it. Mr. Harding — I've been called that before. I don't like to be called that. You know guess I'll reiterate the statement that the college made to me. They don't want to pave anymore than they have to anyway. It both cost money to pave and it is- Board Member Conneman — There are alternatives to look at and we'll get to that. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a question based on what was just said. When was up there looking, it seems to me that the ground in the area adjacent to the upper level housing there has been disturbed quite a bit in among the trees and I was thinking that maybe that had something to do with the fact that those trees didn't look very healthy. There had been fill dumped there and the ground had been disturbed quite a distance in to the woods. Mr. Harding — I don't see how that filling would impact the trees that I was talking about which are really separated by the whole drainage ditch system. Perhaps it may have had some impact on the trees that are immediately down slope. 74 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Hoffmann — I'm talking about the trees that are where you have some dark green, indicating trees. Mr. Harding — Up in here? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Mr. Harding — The limit of the fill that you just mentioned wraps around here and around there and all that filled area surface drains to a ditch that apparently runs, essentially along the property line. Board Member Hoffmann — I saw the fill in the area where there has been some grass planted, but it looked to me like the ground had been disturbed quite a distance in among the trees. The trees really looked like they had been — some of the branches were off and they really looked quite disturbed on the very edge, but deeper in there are the other trees that are having a hard time. Mr. Harding — I'm not sure what that might have been from. Chairperson Wilcox — Recent disturbance or possible five or ten years ago? Board Member Hoffmann — No, I would guess from the construction because there was nothing growing in the sandy, rocky kind of soil that was there. I guess my other question, goes out to a different thing and that is if the College doesn't want anymore areas paved over than absolutely necessary, what has this college done to try and discourage students from bringing cars? Mr. McAree — One of the things that we instituted last year was a program to try to discourage — we started with freshman to try to discourage freshman from bringing cars to campus, which was pretty successful, two years ago we had 400 or so freshmen bringing their cars to campus. This fall 136 freshmen parking permits were issued. The way we did that was, number one, we increased the parking registration fees for freshmen to be double that of upper classmen. So upper classmen, this year paid $100 for a registration and freshmen were charged $200. In addition to that, we've restricted freshmen parking to two very specific peripheral lots, they're still on campus, but they're the more peripheral lots and so, it's not as convenient for freshmen to park. We've also been encouraging freshmen orientation with their parents through mailings to freshmen and their parents to basically say "you do not need to bring a car to campus ". We have not gone that extra step and said "you should not" or "we won't let you" because there are some freshmen, because of the distances where they live, prefer to have a car. So, we've tried this for the past two years and we feel pretty good about the success. That is has been one effort that we are trying to make in order to minimize the numbers of parking lots and so forth. This is a little bit different because we were projecting an experience and our experience was a little bit different. Again, we were surprised that 90 percent of the residents had 75 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 cars. Maybe we shouldn't had been surprised, but we were. So, where we are proposing this lot is trying to provide some additional numbers of spaces and the projection that we are going to have 90 percent once again in the spring. It's very difficult in our experience at the college, I'm sure most colleges are the same way, when you talk about juniors and seniors, which is the vast majority of student who live in this apartment complex. Board Member Conneman — Do you have a parking policy? Let me state a couple of things. First of all, I believe that we granted you more parking spaces in this area because you said the cars were getting smaller. Cars are getting smaller, but suv's are getting bigger. We granted you more parking spaces. Several years ago, when you came to us with some sort of a proposal, I can't remember exactly what it was, you said that you were developing a parking policy. Have you done that? Is there a parking policy that you? Mr. McAree — The parking policy that we were talking about was our effort to minimize the number the number of cars on the central part of campus and that's where I was describing , George, the plan to try to reduce freshmen from bringing cars to campus. Board Member Conneman — You wouldn't consider telling freshmen that they can't have cars? Mr. McAree — We've discussed that over and over and over again. It was interesting. We thought we were one of the few schools that allowed freshmen to bring cars to campus. We were very, very surprised because about a year ago when we did a study of our competitor institutions to find out that almost every one of them allowed freshmen to bring cars to campus. When I was in school, it was like no freshmen. It was just like an accepted piece of business. Things have changes a lot in the past 20 years. Board Member Conneman — What's changed? Mr. McAree — People use cars. People have the advantage of having cars. Especially when you look at a private institution, some of the backgrounds that our students come from, they had these cars when they are in high school. For many of them, again the distances that they travel to and from school, they feel that this is a necessity for them and their parents feel the same way. We have tried to discourage that with freshman. But again, we're talking about juniors and seniors who are living up at this complex. I didn't mention the weather, but the bottom line is, for our students, at this distance, between their schedules and the complexity of their schedules that I mentioned, the jobs that many of them have on campus or off campus at different places, at different hours of the day and night. The bus was not convenient. 76 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Conneman — What is the distance? Is the distance quarter or a mile, half of a mile? Mr. McAree — I don't know the exact distance, it's a good 15 minute walk from this side of the apartment complex. Board Member Conneman — Is that not healthy to walk 15 minutes? Chairperson Wilcox — Are you implying that students always do healthy things? Board Member Conneman — It seems to me that your policy makes parking part of an education mission, which I think it isn't and also we ought to be encouraging people to walk. Lots of people walk. Mr. McAree — They certainly do, but I can tell you that people like their cars, they are married to their cars. I think at items, we want our college students to be different, act differently then other people do in society, but they are not going to . I wish that weren't true, but that is our reality. Board Member Conneman — I've been in Ithaca a long time. I am a Friend of Ithaca College, so I don't oppose you guys in any other way, except that Ithaca College used to be a beautiful campus. I think that your parking had screwed it all up. If you want to look at parking lots, even, look at what PRI has put up. What's wrong with having College Circle people park away from this area, an alternative to doing what you are doing now? I don't know. The thing is you offer no alternative. You say that this is it. You had to have all these spaces originally, now you are going to cut down more trees to encourage people to put cars close by. We have a letter here from somebody who says that there are places to park and you guys don't — I don't know where this is. Mr. McAree — I read that e-mail and I think that they were referring to the core. We've done regular parking counts and check and I would disagree with the indication that students are not using those spaces to park. Our experience, when we do our counts is not in line with that person's perceptions. Board Member Hoffmann — George, you are familiar with the Cornell campus right? How long would you say it talks to walk from one end of campus to the other, which many students do? Board Member Conneman — I would say that it takes 15 minutes because we have 15 minutes between classes. A lot of people walk. That doesn't mean that there aren't Cornell student who drive and there aren't Cornell students who live in complexes like Gun Hill, where there transport them up to campus. But 15 minutes is not exactly a vigorous walk. It might be to me, but these people are 20 years old. When I was 20 years old, I could walk pretty fast too. 15 minutes is not 77 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 very long to walk. It just doesn't make sense to pave everything for cars. I don't believe cars are part of an educational mission. Mr. McAree — One of the things, as you go up to College Circle, in the planning of it, I think people tried to be very mindful of preserving green space and certainly that area around the community center, that was mentioned, as a place for additional parking. I think the layout and the nature of that parking complex, it is certainly beautify and we tried to be very conscious of that when we designed it. Again, I won't sit here and say that this is something that we relish doing. Whenever we seem to talk about creating parking at Ithaca College, you know, we struggle because we are trying to preserve green space, it certainly feels better and, economically, it is better for us to use those scarce resources on other things and, at the same time, we are trying to deal with what our reality is versus the way we would like it to be. Board Member Conneman — That's why we granted you all the extra parking spaces, that would be my argument. That is what you did the first time. If you abided by the rules, you would have had less parking at College Circle, we granted you all of that. Now you come back — Mr. McAree — I know. I remember us coming in here and asking our plan being 75 percent, which is exactly what we have. Board Member Talty — What I think happened George is that they made the parking spaces smaller. Board Member Conneman — That's right. Board Member Talty — So, it wasn't granting more spaces, it was limiting the area of space. Chairperson Wilcox — The re- striping much of the existing space. Board Member Talty — So, the square footage of the lots themselves was smaller. Chairperson Wilcox — I'd like to remind everybody that we have about two minutes, unless we decide to continue. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a quick questions. I hope it's quick anyway. In the letter, the memorandum we got from you, Mr. McAree, it says that providing these parking spaces would discourage students from parking on 96B. Do they do that now and is one, in fact, allowed to park on 96B. Mr. McAree — One of the things that we are trying to point out is if there are not enough parking spaces for students, legally, then our experience with students is 78 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 that they would then have to park some place and our anticipation is that they would then start parking illegally. So, fire lanes within the College Circle complex, people parking in the handicap spaces, which we don't want People parking along the roads, which would cause safety problems. Board Member Hoffmann — Is it legal, actually, to park on 96 B? Mr. McAree — To my knowledge, it's not, but my point is that students will try to try to park anywhere they can if space is not available. Board Member Hoffmann — If they get enough tickets, maybe they'll leave their car at home. Mr. McAree — And we do that. I told you before and I'll reiterate it again that we enforce our parking regulations very strictly. We're just trying to negate the consequences of people parking illegally and the safety problems that result. So, we're the first ones to enforce the parking regulations. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you all set? Dan, have you reviewed the storm water? Mr. Walker — Yes. They've maintained the flow patterns, they are in the same place to where they were prior to the original College Circle project. They have increased the capacity of the detention basin to take into account both the additional impervious services. Chairperson Wilcox — You are satisfied? Mr. Walker — I am satisfied. Board Member Talty — Do you have to add any additional handicap spots? Like, when you increase your parking is there a ratio? Mr. Harding — Technically, yes. I'm trying to remember what the ratio is at the 500 plus parking spaces. I think, technically, we would need to add two spaces. Those are not currently included in this proposal. It was an oversight to be honest. It may also be, in discussing with the college, undesirable from their standpoint if they're finding that the demand for the handicap parking spaces is not currently there, why take two more spaces out of commission. Board Member Talty — Aren't they by New York State, mandated to do that? Mr. Harding — Technically, I'll have to look at it, I don't know how many spaces and what the ratio panned out to be. Chairperson Wilcox - There's also the question of whether those handicap spaces should be in this proposed addition. 79 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Harding — Definitely not. There might be some near the Phase I. Board Member Talty — I think 90 percent is short - sighted again. If you take 90 percent of 694, you still going to end up short. What are you going to do? Come back in two years and say okay, we're at 100 percent or 98 so now we're going to have to add additional again. I think you should add another 20 because I can tell you right now, they're dying over here that I am saying that , but I'll tell you what, you don't want to be coming again and saying I need another 80 spots. Mr. Harding — We are trying to come in and ask for what we think is necessary and what we know from our experience. Board Member Talty — That's what we did before. Board Member Conneman — You promised us a comprehensive parking policy two or three years ago. Tom promised it. He stood right up there and promised it. Chairperson Wilcox — Tom Salm. Board Member Conneman — I don't want to go back through the minutes, I suppose if I spent enough time I could find it, but I know he got up and promised they're working on a comprehensive parking policy. That was at least two years ago, if not longer and you don't have it. I think you ought to have alternatives to this, that's my view. You haven't done that. Board Member Talty — I concur with Ithaca College, it is what it is and we're not going to be able to curb the students. If you guys lose out on revenue because a student was down all the way to the end choice of whether or not to go to Ithaca College or not because they want to have a car on campus and they are not going to allow them, I think that's short -sided on our end because that's a fight you can't win. I don't think that that's fair to Ithaca College. So, but, what is fair is that, I think that you guys get and "A" for effort and a "D" for the final grade because it was short - sighted to think that all these juniors and seniors don't have cars. That's my personal opinion and coming back and asking for 90 percent, you might as well ask for 100 percent. You might as well. Mr. Harding — We're trying to — I hope that we're not back, but we're trying to take it in stages and we don't want to pave over more land than we need to. Board Member Talty — But you don't want to come back again, I'm sure, I'm sure. Chairperson Wilcox — We're going to keep Kevin right there on the end. Board Member Conneman - $100 or $200 is not a disincentive. You pay a heck of a lot more at most universities. 11 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Barney — George, these are universities, they have got to attract students. Board Member Conneman — If you have students who won't come because they can't get a parking spot, I would — Chairperson Wilcox — One at a time, please. Mr. McAree - I don't think we attract students to Ithaca College simply because we offer parking. Our experience with college students nowadays is that they will come to Ithaca College because of the educational programs, first and foremost, but by the time they get to our campus, many of their decisions go along with what's housing like? It's a residential college. What is your meal plan like? What do you offer in the dining halls? Again, for those of you who went to school and had a dining hall, thirty years ago, forty years ago, your dining hall experiences are much different nowadays. You may not think that we need to provide that or should provide that, but that is the reality. You may not think that you need a fitness center because that's not what education is all about. The reality is that we are dealing with a student population and parent population that expects a good deal of amenities, ones that you and I may not think should be there, but the reality is that when you compete for students to come to your college, there is a lot that goes into their decision. I think that we are very successful with that. Board Member Conneman — The quality of the food has changed and I know that. A fitness center, that's part of it, the other part of it is walking 15 minutes, that's fitness too. If you have a lot of students who are ecologically active and think that way, there's a lot of them there that would say. "We don't want to pave over this whole campus and make it ugly, it was beautiful." Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to state what my basic problems with this are before we get too far off on other things and I know we have already gone over the time. The end part of the parking lot is, in my mind, too close to the conservation — what do they call this? Chairperson Wilcox — UNA Mr. Barney — Unique Natural Area. Board Member Hoffmann — UNA. I'm getting too tired already. Even if it's in an area which has been disturbed already, it is part of the buffer of the UNA and I would like to see no more encroachment on that. This, even though it's not very wide, it's going to involve, because of this slope, digging into it and to create a flat enough space for those parking spaces and that troubles me. Then, I guess, there will be some fill on the other side that will be taken out on one side and put on the other. It's the taking out of it of that hillside which disturbs me because that surely is going to damage some of the trees that may still be healthy. That's 81 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 basically my concern about this. I could see adding some of the parking spaces, but I would like to see that stretch that goes parallel to the eastern edge of the soccer field to be eliminated and those spaces, if they are absolutely needed, be put somewhere else. The other question I have, we may have talked about this before, but I have forgotten, those spaces for handicapped persons, if they are not needed, if there are no students in a particular year that need them, why could they not be assigned as regular parking spaces with the understanding that if somebody temporarily needs a space like that, it would have to be given up and given to the person who needs it? Mr. Harding — I'll answer to that. The thing is that you can never tell when a person might become handicapped and it's not always someone in a wheeled chair, it might be someone with a broken leg, or it might even be a visitor, a relative, so those spaces, technically are supposed to be kept available at all times for potential use by handicapped people. Board Member Hoffmann — And all of them have to be that way? Mr. Harding — By letter of the law, yes. Board Member Hoffmann — I think that that is an unfortunate limitation of them in a place like this, where you have students who register for a year. I understand, if there is a temporary disability for one that happens during the year, that you may need one, but that could be adjusted. It's a shame to have parking spaces staying empty. There could be more flexibility. Chairperson Wilcox — It's 10:40, we are 40 minutes over our time limit. About the only thing that we could accomplish at this point is possibly making the SEQR determination. There is no way we are going to get to the Public Hearing. Board Member Hoffmann — I think I would rather do the whole thing at once. Board Member Talty — Fred, can we ask Ithaca College to come back with potentially another plan of action? Board Member Thayer — An alternative. Board Member Conneman — I'm with Eva, I would be willing to go along with part of this. If you also came back with some sort of a comprehensive plan that I could see. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, you have concerns? Board Member Thayer — No, not with this particular plan, other than what Eva suggested. Maybe we could eliminate part of the parking. 82 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin? Board Member Talty — I think you need it at 100 percent parking. Chairperson Wilcox — You want more? Board Member Talty — I want more. I don't want you to come back and say this again. I don't think you want that, we don't want that. I think it is a waste of the Board's time. I think you should come back with a comprehensive pan like George said. I think you should come back with 100 percent occupancy and where the additional handicap spots are going to be relocated. You've got to goback to the drawing board. Mr. Kanter — You certainly could come back with the information that you were going to on the number of additional handicap spaces that legally might be required and where those would go near existing buildings. Chairperson Wilcox — You're screwed either way. Mr. Harding — We do have two variances as part of this application, which were not mentioned before. We are on the agenda for the 15th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. How would this affect that? Chairperson Wilcox — My guess is that you would have to postpone you appearance before the Zoning Board. Mr. Barney — What are the variances for? Chairperson Wilcox — Well they need that use variance. One is a use variance and one is a parking lot in the side yard variance. Mr. Harding — This red line is the property line dividing College Circle from the Ithaca Collage campus. The use variance was for an accessory use on an adjoining property because the parking for the apartments is actually on the Ithaca College Property, which is residential zoned. Then the parking occurring in the side yard of a multiple residence zoned property. Mr. Barney — I think you could go ahead with you variance application. If you got your variance based on this plan and then you had to change you plan to get approval here, you'd have to go back and get another variance. Mr. Harding — Except that the substance of it doesn't really change, even if you were to eliminate some of this parking here, you would still be in that same situation. 83 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Mr. Smith — It was also put together as a type one action with the Planning Board being lead agency for this. Chairperson Wilcox — And we haven't made a determination yet. Mr. Kanter — It's a type one action because of the number of parking spaces over 100, 1 think it is, in our local law. Mr. Harding — I heard a couple suggestions, a comprehensive plan, 100 percent parking, less spaces. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, that's what happens when you get five people discussing at eleven o'clock at night. Board Member Talty — In the event that none of this happens, what are you going to tell your students when they come in and there is only 75 percent availability? At that point, is it first come first serve? How is that handled? Mr. McAree — What would happen in this situation, is that the parking would be pushed further down (inaudible away from microphone) Chairperson Wilcox- You have to decide, Brian and your staff behind you and I apologize that I am going to cut you short, but it's running late and we don't make good decisions when we're tired. There are two people who aren't here, keep that in mind. You've got to decide whether you want to come back with the same plan and we are still doing the Environmental Review, you've got to decide if you want to come back with the same, if you think you can get it through, with whatever changes might be requested by this Board to get four votes out of the seven. If you feel that there is some resistance or enough resistance, that change the plan appropriately. You'll cut back the number of spaces, you'll raise the parking rate, whatever you are going to need to do. You need to come out of here with four votes, that's the bottom, you got to get four. I don't know whether you're going to get four for this plan or not. I don't know whether you are going to get four this plan modified or not. I'm surprised at what I'm hearing, to some extend, but we're all individuals and we all have our own opinions on what's appropriate. But we've got to get through the SEQR determination first. So, I'd like to put them off until the next meeting and pick up where we are. What's the agenda like for the meeting on the 16th at this point. Mr. Kanter — Fine. Chairperson Wilcox — We can discuss later on whether we put them first of last. Unfortunately, this is the sort of application that we put last, just because it's hardest to estimate how long it's going to take. We try to put the short ones first. Board Member Talty — I think they should go first. 84 PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 Board Member Thayer — I don too. Mr. Kanter — There actually is only one other confirmed action at this point. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is? Mr. Smith — The Town pump station for a subdivision. Mr. Kanter — That's easy. Mr. Smith — Well, that's a Town action too so it could go after. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right. Is there a public hearing? Mr. Smith — Yes. Mr. Kanter — I don't see why we can't put this one first. Chairperson Wilcox — And we'll pick up where we are. We have not opened the public hearing, we have not even gone through SEQR, no. Mr. Barney — I would re- advertise the public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox — Do I need to formally to take a vote to adjourn this to the next meeting? Mr. Barney — I think it would be a good idea. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved to adjourn this to the — Mr. Barney — Adjourn the Ithaca College matter to the next Planning Board Meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is September 16t ", so moved by the Chair, seconded by Kevin. All those in favor? Anyone opposed? Alright. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -077: Adjournment of Ithaca College / College Circle Apts. Parking Expansion, 953 and 1033 Danby Road Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2, 43- 1 -2.2, and 43 -1 -2.3 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty. X • • PLANNING BOARD SEPTEMBER 2, 2003 APPROVED SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 RESOLVED that this Board adjourns the above SEQR determination and Public Hearing until the next meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board on September 16, 2003. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Talty NAYS: None. ABSENT. Mitrano, Howe The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox — Jon, you got any other business? Mr. Kanter — Just some real quick items. We have completed the generic Environmental Impact Statement for the zoning revisions and have submitted that for the Town Board's consideration on September 8th and if the Town Board accepts that as complete, we will be sending that on to the Planning Board because, in your resolution for the recommendation, you indicated that you would like to review the Environmental Impact Statement. What I would propose to do, again, if it's accepted by the Town Board on the 8th, is bring copies of the EIS here, to the meeting on September 16th, give it to you at that meeting and just briefly give you an overview of some of the findings and conclusions of it. I guess we could add that as an actual agenda item, if that was alright, but it would be pretty short. That would there be a Public Hearing scheduled by the Town Board for October 2nd, hopefully, that's what we are recommending. The comment period would be till October 14th, so that would give us time to review it and time to put it actually on the early October agenda here for comments, if you want to comment. That's it. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the September 2, 2003 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:52 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lori Love Deputy Town Clerk :. 7:00 P.M. 7:04 P.M. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, September 2, 2003 AGENDA Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). SEQR Determination: Williams Subdivision Setback Waiver, 114 Woolf Lane. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a request for a waiver of Section 32, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and a waiver from the final plans for the Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision showing the typical cluster layout, which requires a thirty foot minimum distance for the front yard, to permit the existing house to remain 2.2 feet within the front yard setback at 114 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23 -1- 11.123, Residence District R -15. Christopher Williams, Owner; Roger D. Williams, Applicant. 7:09 P.M. SEQR Determination: Flatt 2 -Lot Subdivision, 1020 Hanshaw Road. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2- lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal involves subdivision approval to match the existing lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C ") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner; Scott W. Flatt, Applicant, 7 :15 F.M. SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center / Paleontological Research Institution Bus Stop & Path, 1.01 Harris B. Dates Drive and 1259 Trumansburg Road. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed bus shelter, lighting and 8 -foot wide pedestrian path located between the Cayuga Medical Center at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive and the Paleontological Research Institution at 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.1 and 24- 3 -3.1, Residence District R -30. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca and the Paleontological Research Institution, Owners; Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, Applicant. 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cayuga Medical Center Radiation Oncology Addition, 101 Harris B. Dates Drive. 7:30 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 three story, 9,975 +/- square foot addition to the north side of the existing Cayuga Medical Center for Radiation Oncology services, located at 101 Harris B Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, P.C., Applicant. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and additions to the Country Club of Ithaca located at 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 68 -1 -1.2 and 71 -7 -1 and Village of Cayuga Heights Tax Parcel No. 10 -5 -5, Residence District R- 30. The project includes a 9,500 +/- square foot addition to the clubhouse, a 600 +/- square foot addition to the poolhouse, adding 37 parking spaces, new stormwater facilities, and changes to the walkways and landscaping. The project is located in both the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights. Country CIub of Ithaca, Owner; Schopfer Architects LLP, Applicants, Robert J. Seigart, Agent. 7:50 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a 54 square foot sign at the entrance to the College Circle Apartments on Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2.2, Multiple Residence. College Circle Associates, LLC / South Hill Land Associates, LLC, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; Michael P. O'Shea, Agent. 8:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca College /College Circle Apts. Parking Expansion, 953 & 1033 Danby Road. 8:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a 1 l 8 -space parking lot for the College Circle Apartments with additional walkway connections, new landscaping and lighting, and modifications to the stormwater facilities. The parking lot is proposed to be located at the southern end of campus between the existing soccer field and the College Circle Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2, 43- 1 -2.2, and 43- 1 -2.3, Residence District R -15 and Multiple Residence. Ithaca College and College Circle Associates, LLC / South Hill Land Associates, LLC, Owners; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent. 14. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 15. Approval of Minutes: August 5, 2003. 16. Other Business: 17. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 0 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, September 2, 2003 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, September 2, 2003, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of a request for a waiver of Section 32, Paragraph 6, of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, and a waiver from the final plans for the Westwood Hills Residential Subdivision showing the typical cluster layout, which requires a thirty foot minimum distance for the front yard, to permit the existing'house to remain 2.2 feet within the front yard setback at 114 Woolf Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 23- 1- 11.123, Residence District R -15. Christopher Williams, Owner; Roger D. Williams, Applicant. 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 1020 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Residence District R -15. The proposal involves subdivision approval to match the existing lines for the 1.7 +/- acre parcel (labeled "C ") which was subdivided without the Town of Ithaca approvals. Sheri Johnson Henry, Owner; Scott W. Flatt, Applicant. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed bus shelter, lighting and 8 -foot wide pedestrian path located between the Cayuga Medical Center at 101 Harris B. Dates Drive and the Paleontological Research Institution at 1259 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.1 and 24- 3 -3.1, Residence District R =30. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca and the • Paleontological Research Institution, Owners; Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, Applicant. 7:30 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 three story, 9,975 +/- square foot addition to the north side of the existing Cayuga Medical Center for Radiation Oncology services, located at 101 Harris B Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -2.1, Residence District R -30. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Architects, P.C., Applicant. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations and additions to the Country Club of Ithaca located at 189 Pleasant Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 68 -1 -1.2 and 71- 7-1 and Village of Cayuga Heights Tax Parcel No. 10 -5 -5, Residence District R -30. The project includes a 9,500 +/- square foot addition to the clubhouse, a 600 +/- square foot addition to the poolhouse, adding 37 parking spaces, new stormwater facilities, and changes to the walkways and landscaping. The project is located in both the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights. Country Club of Ithaca, Owner; Schopfer Architects LLP, Applicants, Robert J. Seigart, Agent. 7:50 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a 54 square foot sign at the entrance to the College Circle Apartments on Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2.2, Multiple Residence. College Circle Associates, LLC / South Hill Land Associates, LLC, Owner; QPK Design, Applicant; Michael P. O'Shea, Agent. 8:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a 118 - space parking lot for the College Circle Apartments with additional walkway connections, new landscaping and lighting, and modifications to the stormwater facilities. The parking lot is proposed to be located at the southern end of campus between the existing soccer field and the College Circle Apartments, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2, 43- 1 -2.2, and 43- 1 -2.3, Residence District R- 15 and Multiple Residence. Ithaca College and College Circle Associates, LLC / South Hill Land Associates, LLC, Owners; QPK Design, Applicant; David A. Harding, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Dated: Monday, August 25, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 • Jonathan Kanter, AICP, Director of Planning 273 -1747 • • The Ithaca Wednesda Journal r, August 27, 2003 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, September 2, 2003 By direction of the Chair pperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearing will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, September 2 20030 at 215 North Tiogg Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at th following times and on th following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideratio of a request for a waiver o Section 32, Paragraph 6, o the Town of Ithaca Subdiv' sion Regulations, and 'waiver from the final plan for the Westwood Hills Res identiol Subdivision showing the typical cluster layout which requires'a thirty fo minimum distance for th front yard, to permit the e isting house to remain 2. feet within the front yor setback at 114 Woolf Lane ,setback Ithaca Tax Farce ,No.- 23 -1- 11.123, Res dente District. R -15. Chri 'topher Williams, Owner (Roger D. Williams, Appl -cant. 7:10 P.M. Consideratio lof Preliminary and Fin Subdivision Approval for th roposed 2 -lot subdivisio located at 1020 Hansho 'Road, Town of Ithaca To Parcel No. 71 -1 -66.2, Res dente District R -15. Th proposal involves subdiv ision approval to match th ;existing lines for the 1.7 + lacre parcel (labeled "C' which was subdivided wit out the Town of Ithaca a provals. Sheri Johnson He iry, Owner; Scott W. Fla Applicant. 7:20 P.M. Consideratio +of Preliminary and Final Si Plan Approval for the pr lannde8 -foot wiideepedestria Ipath located between th Cayuga Medical Center c 1101 Harris B. Dates Driv land the Paleontological R search institution at 125 jTrumansburg Road, Town < Ilthoco Tax Parcel No.'s 2A j3 -2.d and 24- 3 -3.1, Res Idence District R -3( Cayuga Medical Center c Ithaca and the Poleontoloe ;cal Research Institutioc 'Owners; Trowbridge ;Wolf Landscape Architect Applicant. 7:30 P.M. Consideratic lof Preliminary and Final Sit ;Plan Approval and a re ommendation,to the Zonin ;Board of Appeals regardin Special Approval for th ,pro posed three.story 9,97 +/s square foot addition I the north side of the existin Cayuga Medical Center fc Rodiation Oncology ser ices, located at 101 Harris ' B Dates Drive, Town of j Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24.3- 2.1, Residence District R -30. I, Cayuga Medical Center at! Ithaca, Owner; HOLT Archi- tects, P.C., Applicant. 7:35 P.M. Consideration �of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renova- tions and additions to the Country Club of Ithaca lo- cated at 189 Pleasonl Grove Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 68- 1.1.2 and 71 -7.1 and Village of . Cayuga Heights Tax Parcel No. 10.5 -5, Residence Dis- trict R -30. The project in- cludes a 9,500 +/- square foot 'addition to the club- s house, a 600 +/- square foot addition , to the. poolhouse, adding 37 park- ing spaces, new stormwater a facilities, and changes to the e walkways and Ion dscaping. , e The project is located in - both the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Consideration Heights. Country Club of f Ithaca, Owner; Schopfer f Architects LLP, Applicants, Robert J. Seigart, Agent. a 7:50 P.M. Consideration s of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regardingg a sign variance to allow a 54 square foot sign 01 at the entrance to the Col- e lege Circle Apartments on x- Danby Road, Town of 2 Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1 - d 2.2, Multiple Residence. I College Circle Associates, l LLC / South Hill Land Asso- ciates LLC , Owner; QPK s- Design, Applicant; Michael % P. O Shea, Agent. i 8:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site n Plan Approval for the pro- al posed construction of a 1 18- e space parking lot for the n College Circle Apartments w with additional walkway. x connections, new landsca�� i- ing and lighting, and modi- e fications to the stormwater r facilities. The parking lot is e proposed to be located at /- the southern end of campus I between the existing soccer h- field and the College Circle P- Apartments, Town of Ithaca n- Tax Parcel No.'s 42 -1 -13.2, tt, 43.1 -2.21 and 43- 1 -2.31 Residence District R•15 and n Multiple Residence. Ithaca Sit College and College Circle a- Associates, LLC / South Hill 9 Land Associates, LLC, Own - n ers; QPK Design, Applicant; e David A. Harding, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may ap- pear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual im- pairments, hearing impair- ments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as 'necessary, upon request. Persons desir- ing assistance must make' such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP' Director of Planning 273 - 1747'. Dated: Monday, August 25, 2003 Publish: Wednesday, Aubust 27, 2003 L y TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME T� PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION ,pia .S A2 e� 53 4Lcj 4w FA NO i f I r v � i RVA rg N 4 � r 01 WOR ,pia .S A2 e� 53 4Lcj 4w r • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME 11 PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION ftt • is 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, September 2, 2003 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag_Street. Date of Posting : Date of Publication August 25, 2003 August 27, 2003 �Jcvkd„cti, �o� � Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27th day of August 2003. 1�V. 1 ♦ l HV11V Dani L. Flottord Notary PuDiic, State Of NeN Y04 Not 01H06052870 Seneca County My Commission Expires Dec. 28. QCaL