Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1992-05-19• TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MAY 19, 1992 FILED TOWN OF ITHACA �� Date tL- Clerk The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday May 19, 1992, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m.. PRESENT: Chairperson Carolyn Grigorov, Virginia Langhans, Robert Kenerson, Candace Cornell, William Lesser, James Baker, Stephen Smith, Herbert Finch, John Barney (Attorney for the Town), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), Floyd Forman (Town Planner). ALSO PRESENT;: John R. Carpenter, Carole Carpenter, Paul Hartman, Todd Mattison, Nancy L. Krook, J. Loomis, Vic Loomis, John White, Myrtle White, Natalie Emlen, Eva Hoffmann, Karen Bawn, Bruce Brittain, R. DiPaola, Fred Koslov, David Auble, Andy Marvin, Kathryn Wolf, John C. Gutenberger, John Novarr, Dave Herrick, Marty Turnbull, Bruce Turnbull, Shirley Raffensperger, Stewart Messinger, Fran Reese, L. Roscoe, Chairperson Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :35 p.m., and accepted, for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on May 11, 1992, and May 14, 1992, said Notice was served upon the applicants and /or 'agents, as, appropriate, on May 15, 1992. Chairperson Grigorov read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, a's required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Grigorov closed this`segmen't of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6 -29 -6 -13.2, 5.37 +/— ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED AT 560 ELM STREET EXTENSION, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, INTO TWO (2) LOTS COMPRISED OF 0.86 +/— AND 4.51 +/— ACRES. JESSIE CHUPP LOOMIS, OWNER /APPLIIICANT. Chairperson Grigorov declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as. noted above. Chairperson Grigorov stated that Virginia Langhans, Robert Kenerson, Candace Cornell, and herself viewed the site. •Mrs. Loomis stated they were going to leave the lot to their daughter. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 MAY 19, 1992 APPROVED 5/7/96, Chairperson Grigorov asked if she was going to build a house. Mrs. Loomis stated it will be years before she retires. Mrs. Loomis's daughter lives in New Jersey at the present time, and when she retires she will move back to Ithaca. Chairperson Grigorov declared the Public Hearing for the proposed subdivision for the Loomis property duly opened, and asked if anyone would like to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson closed the Public hearing and brought it back to the Board for discussion. Planner I Chad Eiken stated he met with Mr. and Mrs. Loomis earlier in the week. He decided to shift the western lot line a little bit further to orient the lot better towards the easement there because before it looked kind of narrow, so we are going to give the lot a little more depth in the event there is a Town road coming in at some point to this easement. This lot does not have any frontage on a public road, so the project needs to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. As a condition of approval the applicant will need to come back with a survey map. • Virginia Langhans wondered if the proposed new lot line on the map was the correct one, so the Board was not doing anything different from what is printed. Planner I Chad Eiken stated that that is the new one the department came up with, and what you see in front of you is what is proposed. Virginia Langhans stated she thought a fire engine would have trouble turning Planner I Chad Eiken stated there larger truck to get up there. The gravel a tight turn, but with some work they co the road looked very narrow and around. I is enough shoulder there for a road itself is fairly narrow and uld get it turned around. Mrs. Loomis stated that gas trucks go up there. William Lesser wondered if three accesses were the maximum for this right -of -way. Mrs. Loomis responded, yes. William Lesser asked if there was a reason for more to be added at some time. • Mrs. Loomis stated there can't be. The only one that might be able to is the Burnett's, but Mrs. Loomis is not sure if they have land up • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 APPROVED 5/7/96 MAY 19, 1992 beyond their house or not and the road does not go up beyond that. Virginia Langhans asked if the Planning Board could specify no further subdivisions. Planner I Chad Eiken stated that Mr. Loomis will not want to do that, but should we think about another access or should we think about a wider right -of -way while! „we are designating it. Stephen Smithlasked how big the Burnett lot is and whether they have any other access. Planner I Chad Eiken stated that it does not look like it from the aerial photo. Thi11s parcel looks landlocked. Robert Kenerson asked if there was a house on the remaining acreage. Mrs. Loomis answered, yes. William Lesser asked about the location of her (Mrs. Loomis) house. Mrs. Loomis stated that her house faces Elm Street. Virginia Langhans stated she liked the idea of the right -of -way since it is a private road to begin with. Mrs. Loomis stated there are only three residences on the road now, Townsend, Burnett, and them. Stephen Smith stated these lots should not be in multiple lots. Planner I Chad Eiken stated these lots should not be, but they already are,` but someone could have the potential to subdivide it more. Virginia Langhans stated it would not be landlocked, but if there any further development here then they would be landlocked. William Lesser asked if this subdivision was going to make the Burnetts landlocked, Virginia Langhans stated, no more than they already are. •Planner I Chad Eiken stated the Loomis's will be adding another lot to the right -of -way, but the only difference is they would need frontage, but the Burnetts have only 35 feet now. . PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 MAY 19, 1992 APPROVED 5/7/96 Virginia Langhans asked who owned the 33 foot easement road. Mrs. Loomis responded, Townsends, Burnetts, and Loomis. Attorney Barney stated that it crosses the Townsends property in the front, so he owns that property with an easement 33 feet wide. Planner I Chad Eiken stated that it allows the access back into the Loomis property. Attorney Barney stated that there is nothing wrong with this, but the problems mean Mr. Townsend effects the control of the easement because if anyone wanted a wider easement everyone would have to ask Mr. Townsend for approval. Robert Kenerson wondered if this makes the Burnetts landlocked if there is no other outlet. Attorney Barney stated that the Burnetts are already landlocked. •William Lesser stated that this issue was in front of the board before, that you can not have a lot that does not have access to the road, that you can not put two lots on the site unless it is a shared driveway. What is the subdivision doing for the Burnetts, are they being blocked off. Virginia Langhans asked that there is not a problem with the Burnetts. Robert Kenerson stated that it looks like the lot goes further in if one looks at the aerial photo. The lot looks like it continues into the Burnett property. It is not certain if there is any legal right to access this or not, but the photo looks like the lot line goes beyond. Virginia Langhans stated that the line goes up and does a turn around by a tree by the barn, and the house is off to the left. Attorney Barney wondered if this is the Burnetts property. Chairperson Grigorov responded, correct. William Lesser stated that this is the Burnett property, but that it does not go all the way up. •Robert Kenerson stated that the Loomises, Townsends, and Burnetts will not do anything different than they are doing now, due to the access of the roadway. They will have to come before the Planning Board as to 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 MAY 19, 1992 APPROVED 5/7/96 whether or not this lot becomes into existence or not, it really is not going to effect the Burnett's parcel at all. William: Lesser wondered if it is reasonable to think about reserving a wider right -of -way in case there is a need to deal with broader access, as we are only dealing with one instead of two properties, especially if someone is thinking about building a house sometime. 11 1 Stephen Smith' asked if the Board could make it a condition that the house be set back a certain distance from the road to leave room for potential access oaf right -of -way necessary for future use. Attorney Barney stated that there are no written agreements about the i subdivision °of this parcel, just oral communications. Stephen Smith asked if the Board wants to require some kind of maintenance agreement in reference to safety. William Lesser stated that the building permit will not be issued to build a house because this lot will not have a proper right -of -way. • Robert Keners,;on stated that they can on a variance. William Lesser stated, how can you give them a variance, there are three different users, and one is the only access. Attorney Barney stated that Section 280A, in the Town Law states that you can build and 'get a building permit on a lot that is not on a public road with the permission of the Zoning Ordinance. This proposal is up to the Board to grant or not. Virginia Langhans wondered how far the Townsend house is from the actual roadlif it1sits down the private road. Mr. Loomis replied, about 30 feet. Virginia Langhans said that, the road would be right on top of the house if the road 'was widened. Mrs. Loomis stated no, that house must be farther back than that. Virginia Langhans stated that the house is not that far, so making a 60 foot road a Town road it would be right next to the house. •Robert Kenerson stated that the aerial photo will give you a good idea. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 APPROVED 5/7/96 MAY 19, 1992 Chairperson Grigorov stated that it would be difficult to make a Town road out of this, 'and NYSEG will probably not give anything. Mrs. Loomis addresse lot to her daughter. Chairperson Grigorov wanted to comment 1 on the closed the Public Hearing discussion. i the Board and s asked if there WE project. No one and brought the tated that she is deeding the ire anyone from the public who spoke. Chairperson Grigorov matter back to the Board for Planner I Chard Eiken stated that he had met with Mr. and Mrs. Loomis last week and decided to shift the western lot line a little bit further to the west to orient the lot a little bit better toward the easement. This gives the lot ,;a little more depth. The lot does not have frontage on a public road so the project needs to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance. As a condition of approval the applicant will need to come' back "with a survey map. Virgini!'a Langhans stated that she thought the road looks very narrow •and a fire engine would have trouble turning around. Planner I Chad Eiken responded that he thought there was enough shoulder for a larger truck to get up there, butijnoted that the gravel road itself is fairly narrow. William Lesser wondered if three accesses were the maximum for this right -of -way. Mrsl. Loomis answered, yes. There appearing to be no further discussion or comments from the Board, Chairperson Grigorov asked_ if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by William;,Lesser, seconded by James Baker: WHEREAS: 10 This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -29 -6 -13.2, 5.37 +/- acres, located at 560 Elm Street Extension, Residence District R -15, into two (2) lots comprised of 0.86 and 4.51 acres, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency with respect to thelproposed subdivision, and • 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearin g on held May 19 1992 has Y , • I • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 APPROVED 5/7/96 MAY 19, 1992 reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, Part II and III as completed by the Town Planning staff, and a sketch map entitled "Map to Show the Chupp Tract and its Sub - Division," dated March 30, 1992, prepared by Kenneth L. Jones, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the subdivision, as proposed, 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 - described action and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov called for a vote. AYE - Grigorov, Kenerson, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell, Lesser. NAY - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Candace Cornell. WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6 -29 -6 -13.2, 5.37 +/- acres total, located at 560 Elm Street Extension, Residence District R -15, into two (2) lots comprised of approximately 0.86 and 4.51 acres, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency with respect to the proposed subdivision, and 3. The Planning Board, reviewed and accepted Form Part I prepared by the Town Planning the Chupp Tract and i by Kenneth L. Jones, at a Public Hearing held on May 19, 1992, has as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment by the applicant, Part II and III as completed staff, and a sketch map entitled "Map to Show is Sub - Division," dated March 30, 1992, prepared and other application materials, and • U • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 APPROVED 5/7/96 MAY 19, 1992 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the subdivision, as proposed, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca requirements for Preliminary on the Preliminary and Final from the materials presented a significant alteration of the policies enunciated or _ Planning Board hereby waives certain and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown Subdivision Checklist, having determined that such wavier will result in neither the purpose of subdivision control nor Lmplied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of 5.37 acres into two lots of approximately 0.86 +/- acres and 4.51 +/- acres in size showing on the sketch plan entitled "Map to Show the Chubb Track" subdivision dated March 30, 1992 prepared by F.L. Jones subject to the following conditions. a. Submission of four (4) copies of a survey map, to be prepared by a licensed surveyor, showing the items noted on the Final Subdivision Checklist, and approval of said survey by the Town Engineer,and b. Granting the necessary of variance by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, and c. Any construction on the 0.86 +/- acre lot to be located at least 103 feet west of the easterly line of the lot (70 feet from the westerly line of the access right -of -way), and d. Before any building permit is issued for any construction on the 0.86 +/- lot, an agreement between the then owners of the Townsend, Chupp, and Burnett parcels, assuring maintenance of the access road sufficient to permit access by emergency vehicles, such agreement to be in form and substance satisfactory to the Town Building and Zoning Enforcement Officer and the Attorney for the Town. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov called for a vote. AYE - Grigorov, Langhans, Baker, Smith, Finch, Cornell, Lesser. NAY - Kenerson. 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 MAY 19, 1992 APPROVED 5/7/96 • • The MOTION was declared to be carried. Chairperson duly closed the matter of the two -lot subdivision of Jessie Chubb Loomis duly closed at 7:45 p.m.. AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY AND SUBMISSION TO THE PLANNING BOARD OF A DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DGEIS) PREPARED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY IN ORDER TO EVALUATE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF VARIOUS SCENARIOS FOR POSSIBLE CAMPUS EXPANSION ON AN 826 -ACRE TRACT OF LAND BOUNDED BY ROUTE 366 AND SNYDER HILL ROAD, GAME FARM ROAD, AND JUDD FALLS ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, `'OWNER; SANDRA L. TALLANT, PROJECT MANAGER. Chairperson Grigorov declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the agenda as noted above. Lewis Roscoe, Director of Planning at Cornell University, stated he brought Stewart Messinger from the L.A. Group in Glen Falls, Nancy Goody also from the Planning office, and Fran Reese from Larson, whose roles will be better identified. Mr. Roscoe gave a presentation on what the GEIS is and what kinds of things it covered. Copies of documents will be available for Planning Board Members and others will be handed out. The document is full of details and responds to the SCOPE that was established by the Town Planning Board during the previous summer. Mr. Roscoe will review the need for this process with a slide show. Chairperson Grigorov stated to the other Planning Board members that this proposal is only being presented tonight, and it was going to be evaluated first before completion. Chairperson Grigorov explained that the Board is to ask questions and find the problems identified concerning the SCOPE. Mr. Roscoe stated that the Planning office at Cornell has been working with the Town of Ithaca now for a year or two, to try to describe the planning process that would cover the concerns of an area adjacent to Cornell campus on the southeast. Mr. Roscoe claims the Town of Ithaca worked with Corneil University to describe a SCOPE which is also part of the State SEQR process, and arrived at a SCOPE that defined all things that the University and consultants could examine as part of the generic environmental impact process. Since July, the Planning Office has had various consultants working on this, and will show you an outline of what we delivered to the Board for examination of it's'appropri.ateness. The University and Town are both involved in a comprehensive planning process. The University has been undertaking various plans, at different times throughout history, and has been involved in active planning for about 10 years or so, and is involved with accurate comprehensive planning at the moment. The Town is too, and we hope in this process there will be a lot • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 MAY 19, 1992 APPROVED 5/7/96 I • of information in common value for both University and Town. Mr. Roscoe showed an aerial view of the campus and surrounding land pointing out some different views on the screen. Cornell University is gradually using their land for different kinds of construction projects and responding to large changes in 'technology. The University is looking for long -term potential for physical expansion and in some area for adjoining residential areas. Mr. Roscoe was showing slides of Cornell's campus map where the GEIS areas, lands of Town of Ithaca, and Village of Cayuga Heights, pointing out certain areas this will effect. The University grows at a rate of 1.3% a year in gross square footage of building space to a point where the University had about 12 million square feet of building space on campus which does not include the buildings out by the airport, only the area in the main part of campus. The planning office thinks it is unlikely the growth rate will extend the same rate as in the past. The growth rate are needs for response to new technology. Eventually there will be growth, interests, and looking ahead in the future outside the GEIS area. A lower impact of this planning process is to subdivide the campus into precincts. These are geographic areas that are there for examination in greater detail, such as space use, space allocation, colleges and departments. The University will have natural area setup. Mr. Roscoe showed a map of the campus precincts, which number 14. The first 6 precincts have been done, and the 7th precinct is part of the GEIS area and is being evaluated in the process. The University had examined the physical plan periodically through history. There was no engineering quad at that time. Mr. Roscoe pointed out on the slides, that the University experiences and sees planning as a process. It is not a preparation of a single fixed plan that stays put at all time, but it is an examination of ideas and principals for planning, and a process for identifying things that may need special care in the future. Mr. Roscoe showed slides of Land Use Plan prepared by the County, and it shows the GEIS area and surrounded by various Land Uses that are identified on the County Land Use map, and shows heavy residential areas, but much of the GEIS area is surrounded by low density residential or rural farm land. The GEIS itself consists of three main volumes. Mr. Roscoe gave the summary volume to the Planning Board which includes an executive summary, and address to all the basic SCOPE elements that were brought up in the SCOPING session last summer. Stewart Messinger stated that a chart he is showing the Board shows the process diagram for the SEQR process, where they stand, where they have been, and what happens for the future. At the beginning of the process Cornell submitted an Environmental Assessment Form, The Planning Board issued a Positive Declaration for the project and a SCOPING document. Mr. Messinger stated that was a year ago, and they spent a lot of time on this project for the draft of revisions. This was the beginning for the review process, and then the next step was review by the Town, staff, and consultants, to review the document for completion. The • • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 APPROVED 5/7/96 MAY 19, 1992 Town had 30 1'to 60 days to review the document, and Cornell will make any revisions or changes for this project. After the document is complete, the document will be issued for public review. After the Town commences the completion for the public to review, there is a public time period for review and a public hearing. At the conclusion of the public comment period Cornell will be instructed to prepare a Final GEIS, and the Final GEIS will contain the revisions from the Town and comments from the public. The entire process fits in well with the master planning process the Town is taking. Mr. Messinger showed a slide of a study map. The study area was divided into nine different functional parcels, and each parcel was differentiated by existing uses, potential future uses, and the range of development program. Since Cornell does not have a development program, they will arrange for potential uses of each parcel. One of the key things in the GEIS was how to evaluate such a wide range of possible future development since there was no definite plans at that time. The answer to that is the threshold approach, as development reaches certain thresholds than mitigation would trigger. Mitigation covers all types of impact that is threshold related except traffic. GEIS contains certain mitigation measures that are not threshold related. It should occur no matter what development occurs, like soil erosion. A non - traffic threshold related mitigation are especially water and sewer and storm water management. The document contains a lengthy and detailed description of the environmental study as was requested in the SCOPING outline. This document differs from most environmental documents in most development programs. What the Planning office was able to do with this document and program was to identify the off -set before there was a definitive plan for development of Precinct 7 and in the entire study are, so they can be avoided. There are 5 key areas to this development area: 1) Cornell's goal is to provide for an effective long -term Land Use plan; 2) Protection and enhancement of natural areas; 3) Protection and enhancement of air and water quality; 4) Provisions of good utility systems; 5) Cornell's intent to provide a quality built environment that equals the campusi at the present time. There are going to be study changes in the future. People enjoy the natural landscape that is there. Mr. Messinger discussed the orchard area and the potential changes that may occur. Traffic is probably the most important issue in the GEIS. The traffic impact study looked at three development conditions: 1) Existing conditions;' 2) What kind of mitigation improvements are needed without the development program; 3) Development 20 years in the future with the range communicator. There were a number of different kinds of mitigation measures presented. The road network that was studied was extensive. Traffic study looks at the existing and the future conditions with or without the range of possible development. There are some existing problems that need mitigation. Chairperson Grigorov explained that the DGEIS is only being presented tonight and the Planning Board will evaluate tonight whether Cornell has 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 MAY 19, 1992 APPROVED 5/7/96 U covered every subject. Chairperson Grigorov asked if anyone from the public would like to speak. Bruce Brittain of 135 Warren Road asked about the availability of the documents to the public. Town Planner Floyd Forman responded that all six volumes of the document are available for review in the Town Planning Office; 3 traffic volumes and 3 GEIS volumes. Eva Hoffmann, of 4 Sugarbush Lane, said that she would hope that the procedure in the future includes having illustrations that covers the whole study area., Ms. Hoffmann noted that what is shown tonight is just part of the study area, then it went off the screen. Mr. Roscoe responded that they would take care of that. Ms. Hoffmann said that drawings should show the whole study area, along with the surrounding area. Nancy Krook, of Pine Tree Road, stated that all of a sudden volumes of traffic go by her house. Ms. Krook wondered if this area would potentially double the existing size of the campus except in the Warren Road.area. Mr. Roscoe said that the idea is that development would go in Precinct 7 -- they really have no idea what is going to happen there. Precinct 7 includes the Orchards Area, but includes the area north of Cascadilla Creek, south of Rte. 366, and bounded by Judd Falls Road. At this point, Chairperson Grigorov announced that there would be a lot of meetings and a lot of time to ask questions and comment on various topics in the following months. Nancy Krook asked, if after the whole procedure is finished, does that give Cornell an overall blanket okay to develop. Mr. Roscoe said that Cornell „ has to come before the Planning Board before proceeding with any developing. Attorney Barney stated that when the process is completed, then the merits are discussed of whether there is going to be rezoning to a SLUD or not, but before those are discussed, under the law one has to determine what the possible environmental impacts may be. Mr. Walker offered that the original area requested for the SLUD is only Precinct 7, not the entire study area. The study area was expanded significantly over what Cornell originally proposed as a study area so that the Town could evaluate the impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods. Town Planner Floyd'Forman offered that, in one case, the proposed rezoning was about 250 acres; the study area is about 800+ acres, so it is a much more expanded area over what Cornell asked to be rezoned. •Natalie Emlen, of 45 Lone Oak Road, asked if the public hearing portion could go well into early Fall. Town Planner Floyd Forman responded that it appears that the process would probably take until next • • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13 APPROVED 5/7/96 MAY 19, 1992 Spring, maybe even early Summer of next year, before the final process is completed on this. There are three phase -- the 30 to 60 days that we are Generic Environmental Impact Statement, it is a much more significant process. separate phases; the completeness in now. Then looking at the Draft then later on the Final GEIS, so At that time, Chairperson Grigorov closed the discussion for the public on the above, and brought it back to the Board for discussion. Robert .Kenerson stated that he wanted to make clear that all discussion a;t the Planning Board level would be held at a regular Planning Board meeting. Town Planner Floyd Forman introduced Mr. Reese, from Larsen Associates, Ms. Reese will help review the project. William Lesser wondered about the role of the Planning Board. Town Planner Floyd Forman said that the Planning Board would be comparing this document to the SCOPE within the 30 to potentially 60 day of review for completeness -- was everything in the SCOPE adequately addressed. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Grigorov closed the presentation of DGEIS prepared by Cornell University. AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE /RENTAL COMPLEX TO CONSIST OF 20,000 +/-.SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE AND RENOVATION OF AN EXISTING 51000 +/- SQUARE FEET BUILDING FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL USES, WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS, TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 6- 40 -3 -91 306 +/- ACRES TOTAL, LOCATED AT 930 DANBY ROAD, INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS DISTRICT. JMS ITHACA REALITY, INC., OWNER; TROWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES AGENT Chairperson Grigorov opened discussion on the above -noted matter, and read aloud from the agenda. John Novarr, owner, addressed the Board and stated that the brick building is an existing building formerly occupied by NCR located on Danby Road. The intent is to rehab the existing building for office /rental use. The additional 20,000 square feet of new office /rental space is proposed with associated parking, landscaping, lighting, and utilities. The building is two - stories, if part of an exposed basement is counted as a story. There is 2,500 feet of floor. Mr. Novarr talked about creating a little neighborhood shopping center, but not a strip mall, just something that is meant to service the people that live on South Hill. At this point;, Kathy Wolf, Landscape Architect of Record, Trowbridge and Wolf, addressed the Board. • • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 APPROVED 5/7/96 MAY 19, 1992 Ms. Wolf said that the property is zoned Industrial Products. Ms. Wolf said that the intent is to develop a retail project with a residential character. Where possible, buildings will be single story (slab -on- grade) . Two proposed buildings on the north and northeast edges of the parking area will be constructed with basements to retain construction fill required in grading the proposed parking area. Ms. Wolf stated that the buildings would be wood siding and pitched roofs. A mix of retail, office and restaurant uses is anticipated. If uses are such that the project would be enhanced with a public open space component, then the developer will provide appropriate open space amenity. A sidewalk is provided within the public right -of -way for the full length of the property. Ms. Wolf stated that the primary access point is at the existing traffic light at the entrance to NCR, and all cars would have to exit here. A 40' easement across NCR property will connect the project to the intersection at the existing traffic light. The existing curb cut to the property will be maintained as an entrance only. A project sign would be located just to the south of the NCR entrance. An upper terrace has been designed to accommodate 85 parking spaces, and have also engineered an additional area for 33 cars. Attorney Barney wondered how it related to the Industrial Zone Requirement. Ms. Wolf responded that the Industrial Zone Requirement is three spaces per employee. Ms. Wolf said that the estimate is for 20 employees. Town Planner Floyd Forman noted that retail space takes more parking than industrial space does. Discussions are currently underway with Ithaca Transit regarding bus service to the project. The intent is that buses would actually loop through the project, providing drop- off /pickup service internally. Ms. Wolf said that the project has been designed to accommodate fire trucks. Two construction phases are anticipated at this time. Phase One would include the rehab of the existing building, and construction of associated parking, storm drainage, utilities, and landscaping. Construction of the access road connecting the project to the existing traffic light at NCR will be completed in Phase One. The project would be built out in Phase Two. Ms. Wolf stated that the size of the proposed development is not large enough to attract large volumes of traffic from long distances. People will continue to drive downtown or to the major malls for shopping. This project will serve people already driving by or living nearby. Ms. Wolf said that the plant locations are indicated on the Site Plan. Eva Hoffmann asked about loading docks or are all deliveries made to the front door. Mr. Novarr stated that one of the existing buildings has a loading dock. Most stores would probably be on the smaller side. If a tenant I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 MAY 19, 1992 APPROVED 5/7/96 needs a loading dock, then we would find a feasible way to make that. Mr. Novarr stated that in the long run, we will be appearing in front of the different boards about this proposed project. Chairperson Grigorov closed the discussion for the proposed construction on 930 Danby Road for Office /Rental Complex use. Acrenda Item: Report from the Town Planner. Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that these are the changes the State Law is studying that went into effect July 1, 1992, for area variances. State law had changed in terms of what is allowed for use variances, and the Town had the authority not to go along with this. This would make Use Variances more difficult to obtain. Town Planner Floyd Forman stated that any recommendations be made to the Planning Board at the next meeting. The Comprehensive Planning Committee has a meeting on May 28 at NCR cafeteria relating to chapter 3 - Goals, Objectives, and Recommendations. Adjournment: DRAFTED 4 -10 -96 by Debby Kelley • MOTION, Chairperson Grigorov duly declared the May 19, 1992 •Upon meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adjourned. DRAFTED 4 -10 -96 by Debby Kelley •