Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1998-05-19TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MAY 19,1998 FILED TOWN OF ITFtACA Date The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, May 19, 1998, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, Greg Bell, Robert Kenerson, James Ainslie, and Lawrence Thaver, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barney (Town Attorney), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering), Christine Balestra (Planner), Susan Ritter (Environmental Planner). ALSO PRESENT: David Auble, Michael Herzing, Sal Strobe, Jagat P. Sharma, Om Gupta, Ed Franquemont, Rick Bogush, Nancy Ostman. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:34 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, 1998, and Mav 13, 1998, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of 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 May 13, 1998. (Affidavit of 10 Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Wilcox read all the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as 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 Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting. Chairperson Wilcox stated Board Member Ainslie s term had been extended for two years. Board Member Ainslie stated his term expired on December 31, 20004 Chairperson Wilcox stated Joan Lent, at the direction of the Town Board, looked at the fact that both the Planning and Zoning Board had issues with not having one member's term expire each year. Seven members, seven year terms, they should have one member having their term expire each year. He thought what happened was the board went from seven members to eight members when they added an agricultural person, which was Board Member Ainslie, and his term was originally a five year term. Then the board went from eight members back to seven members, and Board Member Ainslie still had a five year term and that could have caused this problem to occur. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 2 MAY 19,1998 • APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding a proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to Adult Entertainment Business. Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 7:37 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. Planner Balestra stated the study was the result of a lot of research. She and other staff members researched other ordinances and studies prepared by other municipalities. A municipality that does not have an Adult Entertainment Use in their town boundaries, relied on other municipality studies that have proven secondary impacts. This is kind of a compilation of those studies, as well as legislation at the Federal and regulations at the State level. Recommendations for the Town of Ithaca, a description of each of the areas within the Town of Ithaca, the neighborhoods and what the Planning Department's recommendations for the location of the Adult Uses were included in Planner Balestra's report. The areas considered had the least amount of impact to residential areas, schools, churches, and places where many children are. An amendment by the Codes and Ordinances Committee was also included. Board Member Kenerson stated he assumed they did not need to spend their time on philosophy and all of the other things. They were looking at the law as it applies to the Zoning Ordinance. 10 Chairperson Wilcox stated he was unsure what Board Member Kenerson meant by philosophy. Board Member Kenerson stated whether it was a good thing or not. Board Member Ainslie stated because of the First Amendment the board could not stop it. Board Member Kenerson replied that was what he was saying. He stated the board should concentrate their efforts on the mechanics. Chairperson Wilcox stated he would not discount the fact that a member of the Planning Board or any other board that reviewed this, would take the stance they did not care, did not want Adult Entertainment in their town, and did not care what the Constitution said. He hoped the board could be rational and understanding. It was an issue the board had to deal with. Board Member Kenerson stated he assumed the decision was made because they were considering a change in the law. Board Member Hoffmann stated one of the things she remembered from the first proposal was that the boundaries between adjacent uses and the Adult Entertainment Use within these light Industrial districts were supposed to be much greater than five hundred feet. It looked at the COC PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 3 MAY 19f 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED meeting as if this would exclude the possibility of the use in the THERM area. It turned out when the staff looked at it in greater detail, it did not. Board Member Kenerson asked if the economics were considered in the same way as the physical location of the facility. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Codes and Ordinances did not discuss the economics of it Board Member Kenerson stated it could be made impossible for anyone to make any money. Attorney Barney asked if in terms of regulating it in such a fashion to make it too expensive and said that would be difficult to do. It starts off with the premise that this is an expression of free speech, it is a First Amendment Right, which because of certain side consequences from the type of operation can cause a problem to a community. So it can be regulated to allow it to reduce the likelihood of those side consequences. The board could not stop the free speech itself. That is why restrictions of the location, usually related to so many feet from churches and residential zones are placed. These are zones where the side effects would be of greater detriment to the community than they would be in a light industrial zone. Attorney Barney stated the Planning Department did a good job on the Adult Entertainment Study and the law was designed to provide for this type of activity in certain areas of the town which . would have the least impact. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. and asked if any persons present wished to be heard. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7 :45 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox stated for the record that there was no SEAR associated with this because the Town Board was acting as the lead agency. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to discuss any possible problem with the THERM property being included as an area where this would be permitted. She stated that if THERM was sold to some one else, and it changed use, would there be any way to regulate the use. Director of Planning Kanter stated when the Codes and Ordinances Committee discussed the revised distance requirements and focused Adult Uses in the light industrial zone, he thought the uses would be limited to the Inlet Valley area, which is a remote area. Using the setback distance numbers that Codes and Ordinances came up with, it left the center strip of the THERM property as a potential site. He thought that if the distance requirement was changed a little bit, the use might be able to be excluded. It also might result in limiting the area in the Inlet Valley, the level of discomfort might be reached in terms of how many uses. 0 Board Member Bell stated there was not room on the THERM site for Adult Entertainment. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 4 MAY 19t 1998 to APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated that what he thought was being questioned was if the property was sold. He thought it was unlikely that THERM was going to allow one of these establishments to be near their plant. But if it were sold and another owner came in, then technically the board would have to. Realistically, if the THERM property was sold, it would more than likely be sold in a unit for either development in a industrial fashion, or developed in another way. It is hard for him to envision a circumstance where there would be a possibility of putting an establishment there. The board could limit it to the industrial areas other than the one THERM occupies. His concern was the cases on Adult Entertainment say you have to give a realistic ability for there to be some place within your municipality where Adult Entertainment can happen. The lead case was a Court of Appeals case which involved the City of New York. New York City basically zoned them in a way where sixteen percent of the land area in the City of New York would qualify. The Town of Ithaca is down to a fraction of one percent of land qualifying. He was hesitant to see it restricted any more. His biggest level of discomfort with this proposal was that the land area already was a small fraction of the total land available. If they had to defend it in court in the immediate future, they would be able to say they had applied it uniformly to all industrial districts. The board would have to take their chances that THERM was not going to go out of business any time soon. If they do, THERM would more than likely sell their property to a developer as an entire unit. Board Member Bell stated even if THERM went out of business in the near future, it is a non- commercial area. Attorney Barney stated if THERM were to go out of business in the near future, the area might be re -zoned into a residential area. Board Member Bell stated they were talking about small businesses and that it would not make sense to break up a parcel of that size. Chairperson Wilcox stated it would be quite expensive to put an Adult Entertainment Business on the property. There would have to be a very long driveway in order to get to the property. Board Member Hoffmann wanted to mention that when New York City was compared to Ithaca, it did not seem quite right. This was because it seemed like they would need to look at both the population per area as well as just area. Attorney Barney responded the only reason he raised that point was because it was one of the elements that the court cited specifically as the basis for allowing the regulation of the Adult Use. The court said they are not that restricted, sixteen percent of the land use in New York was eligible. It is just one of the criteria, it is not just the only one. Certainly a rural community like Ithaca was quite a bit different from the metropolitan area of New York City, but it is the only guideline at the moment at that level of court as to what has been found acceptable. The conservative lawyer in him says to make sixteen percent of the land in the Town of Ithaca available, then they are able to say PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 5 MAY 19,1998 APPROVED - _APPROLRD - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED they did what the court said was all right. He feels they should not do that, but the further away from sixteen percent they move, the greater the question of the ordinance. Board Member Bell asked what was the percentage of other town use. Director of Planning Kanter asked Planner Balestra if she found any of that information in her research. Planner Balestra replied that for town uses it was not expressed in percentages. Many other towns used similar distance requirements, concentrations, and certain zoning. She stated many of the municipalities she looked at, their studies showed thev had looked at each of their own municipalities, the size of the municipalities and then looked at the growth patterns, market trends. Then they made their own judgments to how many uses would be appropriate for their town. Some one the size of New York City or Chicago would have found it more appropriate to have many more uses than the Town of Ithaca, where the population is lower. It has been tailored to each community. Director of Planning Kanter stated that unfortunately a lot of the communities which had more in -depth studies were the large urban areas like New York, Boston and Los Angeles, Planner Balestra stated these cities had significantly more uses than the small towns. Chairperson Wilcox stated based on the analysis done that somethin g e lik thirty-five Adult ty Use sites for up to about thirty -five Adult Use facilities or locations could be carved out of the land that has been set a side. Planner Balestra stated there were still many variables associated with that. Board Member Hoffmann stated she was worried they were going to have many people unhappy that they have included this area. Not just because of the residential nature of the area, but also because it is close to the recreation way, and it seems very contrary to the concept of the Six Mile Creek conservation area. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann: WHEREAS: 19 The Town Planning Department has conducted a study, entitled "Adult Entertainment Use study," outlining the potential negative secondary effects associated with adult entertainment uses, so as to enact a Local Law limiting the location of adult uses to the Light Industrial zone to protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public from said secondary effects, as well as preserve community and neighborhood character, and L__� PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 6 MAY 19t 1998 APPROVED - APPROTIED - APPROICED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROICED - APPROVED - APPROVED 2. The Town Board has proposed a "Local Law Providing for Regulation of Adult Entertainment Businesses' and 3. Said proposed local law would establish regulations limiting the establishment of adult entertainment businesses to the Light Industrial zones of the Town, with additional distance requirements of 250 feet, separating adult uses from the property lines of churches or other places of worship, parochial or private schools, daycare centers or nursery schools, public parks, institutions of higher learning (including dormitory accommodations), and R -5, R -9, R- 15, R -30, and MR residential districts, and 4. The Town Board referred said adult use study and proposed local law to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on May 19, 1998, has reviewed the above - referenced study and local law, and a Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts I and II, prepared by the Town planning staff for the Town Board, which will act as Lead Agency in the environmental review of the proposed local law, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca . Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that a. There is a need for the proposed local law providing for regulation limiting adult entertainment uses to the Light Industrial zone, and b. The existing and probable future character of the Town will not be adversely affected by the adoption of the local law, and c. The proposed local law is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. That the Town Planning Board has reviewed the submitted Adult Entertainment Use Study and recommends that the Town Board accept the study as adequately documenting the secondary effects of adult uses, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed "Local Law Providing for the Regulation of Adult Entertainment Businesses." *YES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Kenerson, Ainslie, Thaver, Bell. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 7 MAY 19,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Site Plan Modification, South Hill Plaza, 930 Danby Road. Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:00 p.m. Attorney Barney stated he represented the applicants, but it was not in conjunction with this project, but just wanted the board to know they were clients of his. Jagat P. Sharma, stated that he is the architect, and South Grove Landscape Architect was working with his team. Mr. Sharma asked if the approved site plans were displayed. Director of Planning Kanter explained on the upper left of the board was the approved Sub- division Plan, and on the upper right was the approved Modified Site Plan from 1995, and on the bottom is the Proposed Modified Site Plan being discussed. He stated Mr. Sharma had brought some colored renderings to help illustrate where some of the changes were taking place. Mr. Sharma stated he would go over in detail why they had come before the board. The approved Site Plan had been modified once more, since it was approved February 7, 1995, and Sub- division on December 19, 1995. He stated his client had been working hard to get the project going. In the last two years, one thing that came up from prospective tenants was if: they were going to build building number two, there was a request to have more parking on the upper level, the south side. As the board remembers, they only had the single loaded parking. They looked at it when they were asked to do further work and go to the design development stage. The old one was done by air, and this one had been done by foot and computed on a computer for a larger scale. As they looked at it from a view of how they could get the second bay of parking on the south side of the building, on lot two, it would lead to a domino affect. This would result in everything being moved to the north. On his colored renderings, Mr. Sharma explained where the buildings were, where and how far they needed to be moved. The red indicated where the buildings were, and the blue showed where the proposed buildings would be. Building number two would need to be moved north, and made narrow and longer. The buildings were aligned as before. The building on lot two was moved to align with the building on lot three. Mr. Sharma stated he had been saying lot two, but it was actually three. Some parking was reduced, there used to be continuous double bay parking. The modifications did not affect the Sub- division layout. Each property still remains on its own lot. Sal Strobe, Landscape Architect, stated the green line indicated the first phase that would be constructed in order to construct the lot 3 building. It would include the parking lot, storm route out fall, part of the road, and the entry roads (Mr. Strobe was pointing to the diagrams as he was talking). PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 8 MAY 19f 1998 9 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6. 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Sharma stated they were keeping the storm system as it was approved before. There would be no impact on the storm system. They began to look at the buildings in more detail. Talked with tenants, now and future, the result was to leave more flexibility in the building, where the roof top inners would go, and the air conditioning, and other things would happen. They also studies the required height and what the building would be. They had presented a sloping roof on the buildings, and it was discovered it would not be a good development in order to provide maximum flexibility. The building would be only one story high on the south side, and as it slopes down to the north, it became a two story building with a flat roof. The other thing they looked at was the class of the building. If the building had a steel frame with concrete floors and metal doors, and put a wood frame on top, it would lower the classification of the building. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the materials, in terms of the exterior, were consistent with what was proposed before. Mr. Sharma responded with cost in mind, it would be a dry wall stucco. The building would be stucco because the cost of doing a brick building would be too expensive. Board Member Hoffmann asked if they had proposed the brick building before. Mr. Sharma replied he did not remember. Board Member Hoffmann stated the building that was presently on the site now, was a brick building. Mr. Sharma stated she was correct. They had asked the contractors to compare and the difference between the brick and stucco on one building was $80,000. The brick building also did not allow the flexibility they wanted to provide their tenants. Every time someone needed a new door or window, to cut, fill and match the bricks was very time consuming. The building would look like a match and patch job down the road. A building with a universal facade would be more appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the applicant was proposing was to have flat roofs on all buildings. Mr. Sharma stated it would amount to that. Board Member Hoffmann stated Mr. Sharma mentioned, in the text, that if the buildings had a pitched roof they would be too high. She wanted to know how much lower the roof line of this building was compared to the earlier proposal. Also in moving it north, did the building also need to be moved down by grading, so that it would sit lower on the site than the original. wMr. Sharma responded that previously the parking lot was sloping from the east end of the ilding to the west end. The grading followed the hill, and it came up that the parking could be several feet lower than the west end of the building with a five feet wide side walk. They have PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 9 MAY 19, 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED maintained the same elevation they had before. The floor to floor height from the first to the second, was thirteen feet four inches, and twelve feet on the street level, south side. Board Member Hoffmann asked what the difference in total height was between what they presented now, and what they presented before. Mr. Sharma replied if they followed what they presented last time, it would be thirty -seven feet total from the lower end, and what they were presenting would be twen -five feet. A total of twelve feet from the lower end. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the lower end was the end closer to Danby Road. Mr. Sharma pointed where the lower end was relevant to Danby Road, Board Member Hoffmann stated they were not talking about that corner, they were talking about the highest point in the old design, which would be in the middle of that facade facing the road. Mr. Sharma stated he was talking about the top of the sloping roof. Board Member Hoffmann asked in moving the whole building north, if they were placing the whole building at a lower grade than before. Mr. Strobe stated that would be very difficult to compare because the original survey was based on different data. The final survey they made was based on USG data, and was different from almost four hundred feet, plus or minus. The relationship to the road was the same because they could only be so steep. Presently, there was a gas line that crossed, and they could only escavate six inches. The elevation here was the same as it was in the previous drawing, (Mr. Strobe was pointing to a diagram) and this road would have to pitch the same. He stated this point was about the original plan and he could not tell the board if it was within a foot or half of a foot. The shifting to the north did not change the grade. Board Member Hoffmann stated she was asking that for several reasons. One was how it would look if it was sitting lower in the ground because the lot clearly slopes from the south to the north. It is higher at the southern end than it is at the northern end. It seems to her if you leave the building sitting at the same height, there would be more fill involved. Mr. Strobe stated he believed they would have to bring some fill in because the parking lights would jog up the stride. The lights would follow the first, second floor of the building so that anybody could park, step over the curb, and enter through the door ways. Board Member Hoffmann asked if it was fill for the building as well as for the parking lot. 0 Mr. Strobe replied (referring to diagram) this end of the building was an excavation. Just to show the grade on Danby Road was eight thirty, and that was eight twenty -five, the second floor PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 10 MAY 19,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6> 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED was eight twenty -two. If you were to look from that point, it was eight feet below the grade on Danby Road. If you look from this point (referring to diagram), straight across it would be three feet below the road on Danby. Board Member Hoffmann asked if he was saying the floor level on the second floor was three feet below. Mr. Strobe responded that she was correct. The floor below that was another thirteen feet. Director of Planning Kanter stated following up on that question, he was going to ask whether the overall cut and fill calculations would change at all as a result of the changes being proposed. Mr. Strobe stated he had not done overall cut and fill calculations, but they assume there would be some fill to be brought in, particularly on the ends of the parking lot. Director of Planning Kanter stated that was some thing they would ask for as part of the review for construction. Board Member Hoffmann stated she was also wondering about if the building was set down lower, it seemed to her it would be less visible from the road if it was set lower. From her point of view, that would be desirable. Mr. Strobe answered he could not tell her by looking at the floor elevations as they were proposed then and now. It was based on different data. There was no comparison number given. Mr. Sharma stated in relation to the road, it was slightly lower than before. The difference was within about six inches, but it was not going up, it was going down. Director of Planning Kanter stated it was relatively small compared to the twelve feet that was being taken off the total height of the building. Board Member Hoffmann asked it to be explained how the parking would be south of the building. On the drawing it looked like one row of parking next to the building, but it sounded as if they are talking about another row of parking. Mr. Strobe stated it was shown on the drawing by dashed lines, which would be the future, not the full lengths, but partial lengths of the parking lot. Board Member Hoffmann stated she saw something that looked like the retaining wall, and asked if the parking spaces were all to be to the east of the wall. Mr. Strobe stated the future parking would be east of the retaining wall. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 11 MAY 19,1998 0 APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED ED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPRO VED -APPROVED -APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox stated in regards to the SEAR, it did not change the traffic, impervious surfaces did not change greatly, and the number of parking spaces proposed is being reduced by four. The height of the building was being decreased. Director of Planning Kanter stated in clarifying the parking count, the actual proposed number of spaces decreases by two, but the total of possible future spaces decreases by four. Board Member Hoffmann stated the plan also showed the electrical, telephone and gas locations, and she would like them to be pointed out. Mr. Strobe showed Board Member Hoffmann where they were located on the diagrams. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the utility services would be above ground. Mr. Strobe responded they would be under ground. MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Is modification of the previously approved site plan for South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex), located at 930 Danby Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 40- 3-9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4, said modifications to consist of moving the locations of the proposed buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 4 towards the north and adjusting grades, parking, landscaping and utilities accordingly, "I" Industrial District The project received Final Site Plan Approval on February 7, 1995, and Final Subdivision Approval and modified Site Plan Approval on December 19,1995. ICS Development Partners, Owner /Applicant; Jagat P. Sharma, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on May 19, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part H prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan drawing set entitled "South Hill Plaza, 930 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York" consisting of sheets L1, L2, L3, Al and A2, prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect and dated April 17, 1998, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan. *NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 12 MAY 19,1998 to APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED 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. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Kenerson, Thayer, Ainslie. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification of the previously approved site plan for South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex), located at 930 Danby Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 40- 3-9.1, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4, said modifications to consist of moving the locations of the proposed buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 4 towards the north and adjusting grades, parking, landscaping and utilities accordingly, "I" Industrial District. The project received Final Site Plan Approval on February 7, 1995, and Final Subdivision Approval and modified Site Plan Approval on December 19,1995. ICS Development Partners, Owner /Applicant, Iagat P. Sharma, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:24 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. Board Member Kenerson asked with the moving of buildings and innovative lots, and wondered if the lots had changed from what they originally approved. Mr. Sharma stated the lots had not changed from what was originally approved. Board Member Kenerson stated the movement on a couple of buildings, if it resulted in new side, front and back yards. Director of Planning Kanter explained there were not too many required :yards within the industrial zones. There were the required buffer areas, which are all still important and need to be met. In the subdivision there were a lot of cross easements that needed to be looked at for access and utilities, which the details needed to be worked out time. Board Member Ainslie asked if they were approved, did they have a schedule of building Om Gupta stated they had a commitment from the bank, a condition on one of the leases that they were proposed to one of the Federal Agencies. He also had a couple of other leases already signed, but if they did not get the government lease, they might have to wait another two months. If they get that, they should have things up and running soon. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 13 MAY 19,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Bell suggested to Mr. Gupta that the name South Hill Complex is confusing gg P P g and not very explanatory. He agreed with the idea to change the name, but the name South Hill Plaza is also very confusing. The reason is there is an East Hill Plaza, which is bigger and more retail oriented. People also tend to confuse the hills, and when two projects were named after two different hills, Mr. Gupta might not get the public awareness he needs for his plaza. He feels it would be a marketing benefit. Mr. Sharma asked if they needed to come back whenever they wanted to move a door or a window. Director of Planning Kanter stated that in the zoning ordinance it stated when they would need to come back. If there were minor changes, those changes usually add to the square footage clause quickly, so it was not the drawings, it was the actual changes. Attorney Barney stated his concern was if at this juncture there was one large tenant and two or three smaller tenants, that had created the layout of the doors. If that were to change, did the board want to be involved in the change because that would probably be considered a revision. On East Hill Plaza, if there was a change in use, the board would have treated that as a Site Plan change requiring people to come back. A slight modification of the facade, they did not come back. Chairperson Wilcox asked how to legislate the exterior appearance to remain the same, no matter of the location of the door. He wanted the exterior building, the colors, amount of glass to remain the same. He does not want to have to revisit the site every time the window becomes a door, or vice versa. r Board Member Hoffmann stated she did not have any problem with the minor changes of doors, but if the whole look of the windows, the look of the building is changed, then what was there was not what was thought to be there. She also stated on the drawings the buildings should be labeled, and on the elevations, two were listed as both South elevation, and one needed to be changed to North elevation. Chairperson Wilcox stated the other issue was if they reference the drawings one, two, three and four, what was the effect of minor alterations on the exterior. Director of Planning Kanter stated that it would be controlled under the current zoning, which was if the changes were above certain costs or square footage thresholds, then they would be required to come back. Attorney Barney stated the current zoning ordinance was obscure because it stated if there were any modifications they needed to come back, unless the modification involved construction, repairs, alteration, or renovations affecting the exterior of the building or the site, exterior work anticipated to cost less than $10,000. Reading what was intended, if exterior work that costs less than $10,000, the applicant did not need to come back, or as long as it does not violate any expressed conditions imposed by the Planning Board in granting the Site Plan Approval. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 14 MAY 19,1998 is APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROTIED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated that the design of the building showed a symmetrical layout of windows. Within that, the doors were not arranged symmetrically, so the doors could change. If the windows began to change, then it would alter the look of the building entirely. Mr. Sharma responded that if they were to move a door, and it became a window, it would not change the total appearance of the building. Board Member Hoffmann stated that kind of small change would not change it drastically. Attorney Barney stated if they were to block off a panel of the building, then it would have to come before the board. Board Member Bell stated it could not be exactly symmetrical, but it needed to have the same rhythmic facade. MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS, 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification of the previously approved site plan for South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex), located at 930 Danby Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 40- 3 -9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4, said modifications to consist of moving the locations of the proposed buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 4 towards the north and adjusting grades, parking, landscaping and utilities accordingly, "I" Industrial District The project received Final Site Plan Approval on February 7, 1995, and Final Subdivision Approval and modified Site Plan Approval on December 19,1995. ICS Development Partners, Owner /Applicant; Jagat P. Sharma, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on May 19, 1998, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on May 19, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan drawing set entitled "South Hill Plaza, 930 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York" consisting of sheets L1, L2, L3, 1, 2, 3, and 4 prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect and dated April 17, 1998, and other application materials, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: �1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APPROVED - APPROVED having determined fro significant alteration of by the Town Board. 0 PAGE 15 MAY 19,1998 - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED m the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a the purpose of site plan review nor the policies enunciated or implied 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan .Approval for the proposed modifications to the site plan for the proposed "South Hill Plaza" project, to be located at 930 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 40- 3-9.1, -9.2, -9.3 and -9.4, as shown on the drawing set entitled, "South Hill Plaza, 930 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York" consisting of sheets L1, L2, L3, 1, 2, 3, and 4 prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect and dated April 17, 1998, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions, prior to issue of building permit: ae that all conditions outlined in the Planning Board's resolutions of December 19, 1995 granting Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval, for the proposed project not already fulfilled, be fulfilled; and be submission of size, materials and design details of all proposed signs and lighting fixtures; and C, revision of Sheet L2 to include seals of the registered surveyor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary survey of the site; and do submission of and approval of construction details of all proposed improvements and detailed sizing and final material specifications of all improvements, including proposed water and sewer line connections, by the Town Engineer; and e. submission of cut and fill calculations for review and approval by the Town Engineer; and fe revision of the titles of Drawings 1, 2 , 3 and 4 to clearly indicate that these drawings pertain to the proposed building on Lot No. 3 relabelling the building elevation on the lower left -hand portion of Drawing 2 as "North Elevation'. (instead of South Elevation'); and go submission of an original or mylar copy of the drawings entitled, "South Hill Plaza, 930 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York," sheets L1, L2 and L3, revised as required; and he record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from all relevant county, state and federal agencies; and i. minor modification of the facade of the proposed building on Lot No. 3 by relocating doors or windows, and main partitions to accommodate tenants, are permitted provided the same do not significantly alter the overall rhythm of the design or impression of the building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 16 MAY 19,1998 is APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6. 1998 - APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Thayer. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances proposed in conjunction with the reconstruction of Big Al's Hilltop Quickstop, located at 1103 Danby Road (Route %B), Tax Parcel No. 43=2 -1, Business District "C ". Big Al's Hilltop Quickstop, Inc. Owner /Applicant; Michael Herzing, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox stated for the record there was not a SEQR Determination by this board, the Zoning Board of Appeals was the designated lead agency. Michael Herzing, 319 Coddington Road, stated he was asking for some sign variances. The variances were presented to the board with the original approved plan. He stated that all the drawings remained the same. It was a process he needs to go through to stay within the sign code. Director of Planning Kanter stated after the three actual permits were submitted to Director of Building and Zoning Frost, Director of Building and Zoning Frost issued the May 11th letter in the board's packet. Board Member Hoffmann stated what surprised her was how much larger the signs were than what the sign ordinance permitted. It made her wonder if they need to adjust the sign ordinance. Board Member Bell asked why the lettering was six inches high. Mr. Herzing stated that as far as canopies, the town code was very vague of what a canopy was. In his industry, a canopy was something that covers the pumps and dispensers. In other retail establishments, that was not what a canopy was. He felt there was some gray area as far as the definition of a canopy. Attorney Barney stated it was not really gray, it was pretty explicit. He does not know if it takes into account the current practice of erecting rather large canopies over the fuel areas, and then putting a small sign on it. A canopy was defined as an ornamental roof like projection or covering of free standing structure over gasoline pumps. The problem was applying the sign requirements to the canopy. Chairperson Wilcox asked how the proposed signage here compared with other gasoline operations within the Town of Ithaca, or with sign variances that might have been granted on East Hill. Mr. Herzing replied that the gas companies kind of had the same blueprints or footprints on a w1ot of it. The height he could not say, but the actual square footage, were going to be pretty similar. ompkins County Weights and Measures required that the three prices of the three grades of PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 17 MAY 19,1998 is APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED gasoline, excluding kerosene, be displayed. Every one was in the same boat when three grades of gasoline, regardless of the flavor of the gasoline, were offered. Board Member Thayer asked if he purchased the sign from BP. Mr. Herzing responded that BP owned the sign, and he must pay to have it erected. Board Member Bell asked if it only came in one size. Mr. Herzing stated there were other sizes. As part of the level one package he had agreed to with BP, this was the sign size requirement. Not excluding what BP wanted, his feeling was when a car was heading south, the store front would be visible, the canopy, and pumps. Coming north, because of the relocation of the building, as opposed to where it was presently, the cars would not see any thing but this sign. In his mind, the sign would make cars notice what was there, as opposed to driving by. Board Member Hoffmann asked if it was the largest size sign that they had. Mr. Herzing stated he doubted it, but could not say for sure. Board Member Hoffmann asked if there were smaller signs. Mr. Herzing replied there was, but not within the image package he chose, which was a very big financial consideration of why he chose BP. There are things, as he mentioned before, their lettering on the canopy was part of the image package. It almost doubled the price of the canopy by having that, but it was part of what BP requires. Board Member Thayer asked if they dictated to him what he should have for that particular package. Mr. Herzing stated to get that package, which had financial considerations, that was what they dictate. There were rebates involved in how many gallons were sold. There were financial considerations within the units and dispensers, which was called pay at the pump. Board Member Thayer asked if they could have package one with package three signing. Mr. Herzing responded no, in order to receive the rebate, they needed to have the sign size required by the package. He does not know who was on the board when they first put the canopy up, but it was also an issue when they did it with Sunoco. They had Sunoco diamonds on the canopy, and it was the same thing with them. They had requirements as to how they wanted it if he was to receive rebates. • Board Member Ainslie asked if he knew what level the gas station in Jacksonville was at. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 18 MAY 19,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Herzing stated he did not think they were addressed as a level. They chose a different flavor of gas. He does not know if there were rebates and financial consideration involved with the image program because they were Nice 'N Easy colors also. They were not happy with that, but they were trying to keep two establishments happy, BP and Nice 'N Easy franchises. Jacksonville had to meet both programs. Jacksonville does not have the regulations like the Town of Ithaca. Board Member Ainslie stated they also had a different set up. Jacksonville had a club to receive gas at a reduced price. Mr. Herzing responded one of the reduced clubs was obtaining a BP Visa Card. If you use a BP Visa Card, the same would be true for them, you would save two or three cents a gallon. Board Member Ainslie stated in other words, they had their prices listed, but the listed prices were if you had the Visa Card. Mr. Herzing stated he thought they had both prices listed. On the big sign were the regular prices, regardless of the method of payment. They also have a small freestanding sign which advertised the Visa prices. He had noticed the same thing with the BPs in Binghamton. Attorney Barney asked Mr. Herzing that when he talked about financial considerations, he understood it as financial advantages, if a certain package was adopted, they would give a certain amount per gallon. It was not some thing Mr. Herzing was compelled to take, it was an economic advantage. Mr. Herzing stated he was not compelled, but it fit into the business plan as far as projections and budgets. He calls them gasoline rebates, and was a large factor in his decision to choose that particular package. He does not have to do it, though. Board Member Thayer asked if the profit picture would change. Mr. Herzing stated the project would end right there. He does not think the public realizes what one penny on gasoline means to, not so much him, but oil companies. His one distributor does sixty -five million gallons a year, add a penny to that. He was projected to do approximately a million gallons at his location for one year. It was a big factor in choosing that way to go. Attorney Barney asked how they worked it, if he were to take level five, would he receive a bigger rebate. Mr. Herzing stated it was a bigger rebate depending on how many gallons were sold. Attorney Barney stated that BP owned the signs, so Mr. Herzing was not paying BP to erect the signs. It was done as an accommodation to BP, and they would give Mr. Herzing a bigger discount. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 19 MAY 19,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Herzing explained gasoline franchises were different from a fast food franchise. In those situations the franchise was being bought. In gasoline situations, the franchise was not being bought. It does not cost him anything to do the franchise other than to meet their requirements. Chairperson Wilcox stated he was licensing the right to use their name. Mr. Herzing stated that was pretty much it. If the requirements were not met, they come in and slap your wrists. They come in and do inspections so that you maintain their image. Director of Planning Kanter asked if he had any of the square footage of the free standing sign for any of the other image packages. Mr. Herzing stated he was not sure of what they required. He does know there were other size signs, but was unsure of what the other packages require. Board Member Hoffmann stated she was troubled by the fact these companies push what they want on local communities, or on the dealers. She remembers the board holding Santini s sign for their restaurant to the size permitted by the town. The same was true for the Classen Health Care on Trumansburg Road. They stayed within the limits. Here, because of the requirements of this outside company, the board was asked to permit some thing that was twice as big in every respect. Twice as many signs, twice as large, the lettering being more than twice as high. The maximum height was six inches, and this was thirty -one inches. It did not feel right to her that they were making exceptions because of these big companies. Board Member Thayer stated you have to consider the type of business also. Stopping cars at 55 mph, might be an impulse, you have to attract them. They have to capture them, and he assumes nationwide the companies have made many studies on this to come up with this particular size for this particular package. Mr. Herzing stated that the other side of it, though, also if you take the six inch requirement of the lettering on the canopy, the canopy was up about fourteen plus feet with a two to three foot facia. To put six inches up there, it was not going to be seen from forty feet away. He stated that was one of the vague points as far as gasoline canopies. The size of the canopy and the speed of the cars, was why they were dictated by the companies that way. BP was the third largest gas company in the world, he was sure they have done numerous studies. Board Member Bell asked if the speed limit at that point was 55 mph. Chairperson Wilcox stated it was 50 mph, but they drive 55 mph any way. Board Member Bell stated he had two basic types of concerns and wanted to support what Board Member Hoffmann was saying. But more specifically, what was going on was a worldwide corporate modulation of every community to look like every other community. It was a major point ,the historic preservationist make, constantly, that historic communities look different from each other. One of the reasons they look different was they grew unjustly out of the needs of the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 20 MAY 19,1998 • APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 -APPROVED - APPROVED -APPROVED community. He stated Mr. Herzing had come before the board a number of times and had put together a nice building which was a great improvement. But Mr. Herzing was being put into a difficult position, and equally the board was being asked to share that position. He thought the board should feel more than comfortable to send a message to big companies, via Mr. Herzing, unfortunately, that the Town of Ithaca does have rules. They may not be appropriate to what BP looks like in Spain or Toledo. In order to level the playing field, not be so anti- competitive to Mr. Herzing, he felt the board should look at the other standards for gas stations in the Town of Ithaca. He stated that when the board looked at the gas station at East Hill Plaza, the proposal for the vertical sign was to be considerably bigger than what the board allowed. Board Member Bell stated it was a bit of a retrieval problem, but the board should look at their decision from before. Attorney Barney stated he did not think it had the number of signs as being requested by Mr. Herzing. Mr. Herzing replied the East Hill Plaza gas station was a gas stop. The store was a 900 square foot store, and they were there only to sell gas. He proposed nothing near a gas stop. Attorney Barney stated that what Mr. Herzing was asking was because he wanted to have a broader sized business to increase, geometrically the number of signs needed in order to accomplish all of that. He was able to see why people were struggling with it, its quite a variation. There are • communities that get along without this size of signs. Board Member Bell stated he was in Columbia, Maryland which was a model of what planners love as a totally planned community. They made all of the corporate signage minimal, and it was a graceful community and at the same time it was a really nice place. They had the benefit of what existing communities do not have, being able to start from scratch and uniform plan. In any case, the East Hill station was the only recent sign that was similar. He felt the board should know what their signage requests were, and what the board's decisions were. Board Member Bell stated he felt the board should not make Mr. Herzing jump through a worse hoop than what the Citgo did, but on the other hand, he did not see why he should get more of an advantage over them. Since Mr. Herzing was doing a lot of pizza, and other functions, the number of signs and the location of signs on the building did not bother Board Member Bell very much. His only concern was the huge one which posted the gas prices. Mr. Herzing stated with all due respect, he agreed with everything Board Member Bell stated. But Board Member Bell could not compare what he was proposing and what they approved on East Hill. East Hill was very similar to Mr. Herzing's gas station in Mc Lean, every car stopped at the intersection. They do not need a big sign, cars do not go by 50 mph, it was a different scenario in that respect. Board Member Hoffmann stated she would like to be reminded of what the signs were at �Rogari s Corner where there was gas. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 21 MAY 19,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6. 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROG ED Director of Planning Kanter stated he was going to mention there was a free standing sign which received a sign variance. He stated the board had to remember part of the reason for the square footage of the sign was that it included a message panel of the prices. Chairperson Wilcox stated it might have some thing to do with the weights and measures. He believed there was a minimum height of each of the numbers which indicated. the price of the gasoline. Mr. Herzing stated there was a regulation to the size of the numbers on the dispensers. Board Member Bell asked if they should be talking to Weights and Measures about whether they are at a different level than the local government. Chairperson Wilcox stated it would be nice to know what the Weights and Measures regulations may or may not be imposing. He felt that depending upon how they proceed with the proposal to recommend to the Zoning Board, that if it is approved, may be the Planning Board as part of their deliberations could get that information. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. Ed Frankquemont, stated he agreed with Board Member Bell and Board Member Hoffmann • on this matter. It was not strictly the size of the sign, perhaps it was the appropriate size sign for this type of business. But it should be the decision of the Planning Board, not the decision of a corporation somewhere else, who was using the structure of its pay, pressuring the citizens of the Town of Ithaca to conform to a standard they set without knowing any thing about the town. This was why there were planning boards to review this kind of stuff. The board may want to change the sign ordinance to accommodate this situation, but it should be the decision of the board. He urged the board to look into that and not accept the policy that was set by the corporation. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:17 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Herzing if he had any information on the sizes of signs in the next package down. Mr. Herzing stated he did not look at that package, and that was why he did not know that information. Board Member Hoffmann stated that was something she would like to see. She would like to know the difference. Mr. Herzing stated it would be a big financial considerations for him as far as the next package down. • Attorney Barney asked in what respect did he mean. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 22 MAY 19,1998 • APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Herzing stated in far as rebate monies. Attorney Barney asked for an estimate in dollars. Mr. Herzing stated he did not feel it was the Town of Ithaca's business his rebate program with his gas company. He stated he honestly did not know, and he did not have anything to hide. Attorney Barney stated the town was not trying to pry, but Mr. Herzing was trying to sell the board on larger signs based on financial rebates. Mr. Herzing stated he was talking about $80,000 over four years. Attorney Barney asked if that was the difference between level five and the next level down. Mr. Herzing stated he was correct, and the public did not realize what goes on with gas companies. The numbers were huge. Board Member Bell stated he would like to know what happened in places like Columbia, Maryland that had restrictive ordinances. He wondered if there was some way those communities were able to strong -arm the oil companies. Mr. Herzing stated that they might not be independents. They might be corporate gas • stations. He stated he could not compete with an Extra Mart that has three hundred fifty stores, and twenty -five of which are in the area. They have a little more clout than he does with the company. If Extra Mart who was very large Sunoco branded, they have some clout with Sunoco. He does not have any clout with Sunoco, BP, Citgo, or anybody. Chairperson Wilcox asked Director of Planning Kanter if this board acted as the sign review board, if they were therefore, asked to make a recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals. What if the Planning Board did not make a favorable recommendation, did the application still go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Attorney Barney explained in the Sign Ordinance, it still goes before the Zoning Board of Appeals regardless of what the Planning Board's recommendation was. Chairperson Wilcox stated that when it went to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Planning Board's recommendation went with it. Mr. Herzing asked Chairperson Wilcox if that would be based on all of his signs, or just one sign. Chairperson Wilcox stated the reason he was asking was that he was hearing some issues from the members of the board, and he was trying to decide if it was appropriate to bring this notion to a vote or not. He would like to get consensus among the board. The board seemed to operate very well when they get a consensus. Sometimes it was very time consuming, but a good PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 23 MAY 19f 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED idea. In this particular instance, Attorney Barnev confirms that the board pass the recommendation along, the Zoning Board of Appeals would review the request. Then he would ask the board to vote on a motion. He did not know what would happen with the board. Attorney Barney stated any action of the Planning Board could be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The statue stated "Upon appeal, the Zoning Board of Appeals may grant a variance from the terms of this law. No Zoning Board of Appeals decision shall be made on a variance until an advisory opinion is received from the Sign Review Board. Failure of said Sign Review Board to report an opinion prior to the hearing on the appeal shall be construed as approval of the variance." Attorney Barney stated the board either voted yes, or do not vote which is treated as a yes, or the board needs to vote no. Either way, it still goes to the Zoning Board of Appeals and they may overrule it. Mr. Herzing asked if the board was talking about all the signs, or one particular sign because all of the discussion has been about one particular sign. Chairperson Wilcox stated it was the lettering on the canopy, the free standing sign, and the gas pricing sign. Board Member Hoffmann stated the number of signs was greater than permitted. Mr. Herzing stated he had heard a couple of comments that the sign ordinance needed some • review, and he felt that they did in his industry. He stated if the board was to look at the illustrations provided, he was not throwing in ton of signs on the building. It was recognition as far as the names of the business. The signs did not say Pepsi, Budweiser and Miller, and all those types of signs. Board Member Hoffmann stated he was aware of their sign ordinance. She remembers he came before the board earlier to reduce the number of signs he has on his current building. Mr. Herzing stated if they were to look back on their records, they would see he reduced them from about fifteen to seven or eight. He feels that when they look at his type of business, it can not be compared to other different retail businesses. His business was based on impulse. If he can get you to stop, he has things at his counter he wants you to buy while you are paying for your gas. Attorney Barney stated the large vertical sign had two message panel. He asked if the entire sign with the message panel was required by BP, or could he drop off the two message panels, and still qualify for his level five rebate program. Mr. Herzing stated he would have to check into that. The name of his store would be in the message panel. This sign was very similar to the one he has in Mc Lean. Board Member Hoffmann asked if they could see another package and the sizes included in that package, could the board post -pone the meeting and take a vote at another meeting after they had seen that. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 24 MAY 19,1998 • APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney stated he thought this appeal was on the schedule for the Zoning Board of Appeals for June 10. Board Member Hoffmann stated that seemed like another option to her beyond voting. Mr. Herzing stated he could get them the information, and he understood the board's view point. He stated Slaterville has approximately the same size sign with a much slower speed limit. His store in Mc Lean has a much slower speed limit, they have to stop at the store, and it is approximately the same size sign. He felt that as the speed limit increases, it was normal market advertising, you want the signage to increase in size to promote your business. Board Member Hoffmann stated another question which was related would such towns have sign ordinances. Director of Planning Kanter stated they should still take a look at the signage at Rogari s, East Hill Citgo and see what the square footage was. Board Member Ainslie stated they all would feel better if they could have another meeting and check on the East Hill Plaza sign which they did approve. With the questions the board has had, he feels every one would feel better about it. Chairperson Wilcox stated the consensus of the board was to table further discussion of this agenda item to the next meeting, June 2. The board would like information on other levels offered by BP, the effect of removing the two message panels, and they asked the staff to go back through the records and find some information on Rogari s and the East Hill Plaza, Board Member Bell stated Mr. Herzing ma because people were driving by at 55 mph, that is gas stations with these kind of signs were in strips competing with. Where Mr. Herzing's gas station compete with. Mr. Herzing would not need as difference the board has not talked about. de the point that he needed to have a larger sign not different from other settings. However, most where there were many other signs you would be was located, there was no reasonable pollution to much to catch the eye. He feels that was a big Attorney Barney stated they were not adjourning a hearing, they were adjourning the consideration of the application. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Master Plan proposal submitted by the Cornell Plantations and consideration of a Sketch Plan for several components of the Master Plan as submitted in the development review application, including: construction of a new one -way road entrance that would provide entry and egress off of Plantations Rd., construction of a parking area to accommodate 40 parking spaces, and construction of a conservatory to accommodate a headhouse, visitor information center, and gift shop. The overall project is divided into three phases. Phase I •includes construction of 26 of the 40 total parking spaces, and initiation of the road construction. Phase II and III includes the construction of the remaining 14 parkin g P aces s completion of the com P PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 25 MAY 19f 1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6. 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED roadway, and construction of the conservancy with headhouse and visitor info /gift shop. The proposed project is located on the Cornell University campus at 1 Plantations Road, Tax Parcel No. 670106, R -30 Residence District. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Rick Bogush and Donald Rakow, Agents. Rick Bogush, Cornell University, stated he would first talk about their Master Plan in general and would be referring to a map set up behind the board. The Cornell Plantations Master Plan was completed May 1997 by Susan Child and Associates. The Master Plan process had several phases including research, data gathering and interviews within focus groups, for example Cornell students, community representatives, and plantation staff volunteers. Other phases included analysis, development of conceptual alternatives, and development of the final plan and report, which he believes is before the board. Intended to guide the physical development of the Plantations for the next ten to fifteen years. The Master Plan emphasizes the unique characteristics of the landscape and vegetation of the two hundred acres adjacent to the Cornell campus. Those two hundred acres include the Botanical Garden, the Arboretum, and many of Cornell Plantations natural areas. The plan establishes a major entrance onto Cornell Plantations, in the Arboretum from Route 366, (Nancy Ostman pointed the locations out to the board on a map,) sited to take advantage of the view of the Arboretum and the Fall Creek Valley. The proposed Resource Center, the lavender circle, serves as a welcome and orientation center for all plantation visitors. The Resource Center would provide facilities for both public and Cornell related educational programs and events. There would also be space for plantation administration and visitor service staff. The time table for that would be ten to fifteen years, so sometime fairly far in the future. Improve visitor access to the Wild Flower Garden. Another precinct they looked at in the Master Plan, the yellow circle, includes a redesigned entrance off of Caldwell Road with additional parking. A drop off for tour groups arriving by bus would be provided, and an open air pavilion has been proposed for an orientation center and a shelter for tour groups during bad weather. The overriding concept of the Master Plan was to utilize and develop facilities throughout the plantations in ways that support Cornell's education mission. The Plan develops the Botanical Garden, for example, as an education center that serves Cornell under graduate, and Graduate programs as well as other key audiences. Space for classrooms and other educational facilities were located in a renovated Lewis Building, that is the old Forest Home Elementary School. A proposed Green House located nearby and space for display gardens had been maximized there. The plan also relocates and centralizes facilities for Arboretum/ Facilities Staff from the existing Service Building out to the former University Bus Garage on Route 366. The facilities for the Botanical Garden Staff would be relocated to the existing Service Building in the Wild Flower Garden. A new Lath House, Production Green House, and Nursery would also be located there. The time table for that would probably five to ten years. To improve circulation, the plan separates through out pedestrian, vehicular, and service traffic whereever possible. Proposed pedestrian pathways and bike ways connect the Cornell campus with the major areas of plantations, mainly Beebe Lake, Botanical Garden, Wild Flower PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 26 MAY 19,1998 • APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 -APPROVED -APPROVED -APPROVED Garden, and the Arboretum. Proposed changes to vehicular circulation provide increase parking throughout Plantations, well defined entries, drop offs and orientations as well as logical routes for visitors to follow. They decided to implement plans for the Botanical Garden first because it is their closest area to the Cornell Campus, and felt it was the best way to provide increased support for their educational programs. They will be interviewing architects at the end of May to provide plans and budgets for renovations of the Lewis Building into an Education Center. Plans had been developed to reorganize circulation and gardens. The parking lots and roads are not really what they want to build first. They are what are needed the most. As of January they lost all of their staff parking, twenty spaces when Cornell University began renovation of their old Service Building. Mr. Bogush explained the location of the Service Building. What that means was there are only about twenty spaces for staff and visitors total. Staff would park elsewhere temporarily to maximize space for visitors during the peak season. At times they expect there will not be enough parking spaces for everyone who would like to visit the gardens. To address this critical need, a number of members of the staff began to meet a few months ago to develop a plan. They formed a Plantations Physical Master Plan Committee and the advisory board, Collections Design Committee, and combined forces to look at alternatives and choose the best option. The Collections Design Committee wanted to revisit the parking lot location, proposed by the Master Plan. It interfered with plans for the Hillside Garden located below Judd Falls Road. (Mr. Bogush explained the location of the Hillside Garden.) Also the sight distance between the parking lot exit and the underpass was considered inadequate. The committee decided that was not some thing they • were comfortable with. Mr. Bogush stated that in evaluating alternatives, they looked over alternatives for a period of four or five months. They placed a high value on non - traditional schemes, parking lots that do not necessarily look like parking lots, and on schemes which emphasize pedestrian circulation through the gardens and visitors experience from arrival to departure. Another element they considered was placement of a conservatory in that area. For a number of months they were in negotiations with the University about moving the existing Conservatory on Tower Road down to the site, but that was no longer in the cards. They would be looking at a new facility. The vehicular circulation system and parking represented in the plan incorporates elements of the Child and Associates master plan, as well as some modifications suggested by the Collections Design Committee. Mr. Bogush presented the locations on the drawings as he explained about the changes. The new entrance one -way drive loops through the Botanical Garden, and eliminates the present Loop Road which goes around Comstock Knoll. The Loop Road would become a pedestrian path that would only be used occasionally by service vehicles. A total of forty parking spaces are located along the entrance drive. The parking would be screened by plantings and tucked into gardens also. The circulation system would be built in two phases. The board has the drawings that show phase I and also phase 11 and III. Phase I would provide them with twenty -six spaces immediately. It would temporarily be connected to the existing entrance. The rest of the entrance drive would be constructed later. Probably after the installation of a Conservatory, but not necessarily. He stated they had started to look at new construction drawings for the Sketch Plan, and are starting to work on it at twenty scale. It is evolving a little. One of the changes they are looking at is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 27 MAY 19f 1998 10 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6. 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED angle parking as opposed to perpendicular parking. It would improve the safe 7 of the one way systems, and stop people from going out the wrong way. Basically the location of the roadway and the parking remain the same. Board Member Hoffmann asked if he stated there would be parking not only in the spaces, but along the road also. Mr. Bogush responded the parking would only be in the lots, not along the road. Attorney Barney asked what the definition of a Conservatory was Mr. Bogush explained a Conservatory was a large display greenhouse. The one on Tower Road, for example, was shown as forty feet wide and ninety feet long. It was an old Morgan Birm greenhouse. They would be looking to something similar. People would see a plant collection being housed that related to the gardens which were out beforehand. It would be open to the public in the winter time. Attorney Barney asked if there was some significance of being called a conservatory as opposed to a greenhouse. Mr. Bogush stated a conservatory implies that it was a winter garden open to the public. Not necessarily a production greenhouse. It would be display as opposed to production. Board Member Hoffmann asked what a Head House was. Mr. Bogush answered most greenhouses have a Head House at the head of the green house, usually the north side. That is where plants are potted. Soil and pots are stored, it is where the people work. Chairperson Wilcox stated the current circulation around the knoll was terrible. He stated when he was there recently, he wanted to go out the one way entrance instead of circling around the knoll when it was busy. To solve that problem is a tremendous benefit. Mr. Bogush stated that was one of their major goals. Also some thing they heard from the community when they had the focus group meetings. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there were any buildings designated historical. Mr. Bogush stated that building (pointing to the Lewis Building on the sketch) was considered a historical building by him. But what the official designation was, he did not know. He knows it is a very important to the community and campus. Their renovation plans certainly would include keeping the structure as intact as possible. He believes they have discussed with historians, the • proposed changes. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 28 MAY 19,1998 • APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Bell asked what would become of the store in the school building, would it move up to the Overlook building. Mr. Bogush stated it would possibly move up to the Overlook building, but he stated up until that point it would be housed at the building located near the greenhouse (showed the building on the sketch). Board Member Bell asked if there would be two orientation centers. Mr. Bogush stated there would only be one for ten to fifteen years. There would not be any thing in the Arboretum for ten to fifteen years until the other Resource Center was built. Board Member Bell asked if the new road would go to the Peony Garden. Mr. Bogush stated the Peony Garden would be dismantled as a garden. Instead the plants in the present garden would be arranged in two long borders. They would still have a Peony collection. Nancy Ostman commented there would probably be more of a variety in the new garden. Board Member Hoffmann asked what the structure was at the south end of the center of the Herb Garden, Mr. Bogush stated it would be another pavilion. It might house a map that would show people how to get through the gardens. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the Surge I facility was at all connected to the Plantations. Mr. Bogush stated it would no longer be connected with the Plantations. They manage the land around it, but they have nothing to do with the building. Chairperson Wilcox asked what the function of the Surge I building. Mr. Bogush responded it would house temporary office space for people whose building was being renovated. Certain other offices would be located there permanently. Board Member Hoffmann stated Mr. Bogush gave two reasons for changing the lay out. She stated they were reducing the amount of space in buildings. In the one plan there are two buildings that look larger than the greenhouse. Mr. Bogush stated they had proposed two greenhouses. One conservatory, and one productions greenhouse. Since then, they decided they only needed one conservatory. They also decided they only needed one production greenhouse, and it would be located near the Filter Plant *and Service Building. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 29 MAY 19,1998 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann stated she liked the plan. Chairperson Wilcox stated it was an asset to Ithaca and Cornell, and it was nice to see some money going into it. Especially the area that everyone sees. Mr. Bogus stated one of the reasons they wanted to change the vehicular movement was because when people came around the knoll, they usually ended up in the compost pile. Director of Planning Kanter asked how they expected the timing of phases I, II, and III tying together. Mr. Bogush stated they would like phase I to proceed rather quickly and would hope to have their parking lot Director of Planning Kanter asked if the conservatory was held up for some reason, how long would it take to have the phase III part, completion of the circulation, finished. Mr. Bogush stated he was unsure, but hoped within three to five years. Ms. Ostman stated she thought the other part of moving the buildings and changing the circulation would depend on the renovation of the Service Building on Game Farm Road and Route • 366 and the renovation of the current Service Buildings. So they are bringing in other factors into play. With out the conservatory to push the rest of the project, it would be juggling people and jobs. Susan Ritter stated the project looked great to her. Board Member Ainslie asked about the budget of the project. Mr. Bogush responded that they had funds to do phase I parking lot. They did not have funds to do the conservatory, presently. Board Member Ainslie asked what they planned to do to receive more funds. Mr. Bogush stated they planned to do fund raising. They do have some money put a side for a conservatory, but would need more. That would involve using the Cornell development offices and approaching Alumni, a long process. Environmental Planner Ritter stated the Conservation Board also took a look at the project and did not have any additional comments. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the old conservatory will be maintained where it is. • Mr. Bogush stated it would be renovated on site. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 30 MAY 19f 1998 .APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Frankquemont, representing the Forest Home Improvement Association, stated they were always concerned about more parking lots because traffic's their problem, and parking lots tend to bring cars. They long ago got used to the idea there was going to be parking lots there, and the changes make it better. Most of the people in Forest Home would be happy to support these changes. Director of Planning Kanter asked if they could expect to see plans for the phase I parking and drive within a month or so. Mr. Bogush stated it would depend on the deadline for submission. Director of Planning Kanter stated they had a thirty day submission requirement. So they would be looking at July. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - MARCH 17,1998: MOTION by James Ainsle, seconded by Lawrence Thayer: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the March 17, 1998 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby approve the minutes as written with corrections: • THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYE - Wilcox, Bell, Kenerson, Ainslie, Thayer. NAY - None. ABSTENTION - Hoffmann. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox stated there was a letter in the packets from the Food and Waste Composting people telling about a tour. He would highly recommend that any members of the board who can attend should go because when they approved it last year, the approval was for one year. So they will be coming back to continue that use. Director of Planning Kanter stated he thought they were asking for R.S.V.P.s so if any one wanted to attend, they need to call the number. Chairperson Wilcox stated in terms in filling the board position, a name was passed along to him, Frank Maples. Mr. Maples called this evening and indicated he did not have the time to think about being a member of the Planning Board. So the board still needs a seventh member. Chairperson Wilcox stated he would miss the July 7, 1998 meeting because he would be on vacation. Board Member Thayer stated he would miss the June 8, 1998 meeting. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES PAGE 31 MAY 19f 1998 • APPROVED -APPROVED - APPROVED - OCTOBER 6, 1998 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Director of Planning Kanter stated since they do have one member short, they want to keep track of quorums, did any one else know if they would be out. Board Member Bell stated he would be gone some time in July, but did not know when. Chairperson Wilcox stated they needed to keep track of vacations so they did not get down to four members, and less than four means they can not hold a meeting. He asked if there was any business from the staff, Attorney Barney, or other members of the board. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the May 19, 1998, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Prepared by: Carrie L. Coates Keyboard Specialist/ Minutes Recorder Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary for the • Town of Ithaca Planning Board. • • • • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. Mav 19, 1998 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding a proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to Adult Entertainment Business. 8:00 P.M. SEQR Determination, Site Plan Modification, South Hill Plaza, 930 Danby Road. 8:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification of the previously approved site plan for South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex), located at 930 Danby Road on Town of Ithaca Tar Parcel No's. 40- 3 -9.1, 9.2, 93 and 9.4, said modifications to consist of moving the locations of the proposed buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 4 towards the north and adjusting grades, parking, landscaping and utilities accordingly, "I" Industrial District. The project received Final Site Plan Approval on February 7, 1995. and Final Subdivision Approval and modified Site Plan Approval on December 19, 1995. ICS Development Partners, Owner /Applicant; Jagat P. Sharma, Agent. 8:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances proposed in conjunction with the reconstruction of Big AI's Hilltop Quikstop, located at 1103 Danby Road (Route 96B), Tax Parcel No*s. 43 -2 -1 and 4' )-2-2, Business District "C ". Big Al's Hilltop Quikstop, Inc. Owner /Applicant; Michael Herzing, Agent. 9:00 P.M. Consideration of a Master Plan proposal submitted by the Cornell Plantations and consideration of a Sketch Plan for several components of the Master Plan as submitted in the development review application, including: construction of a new one -way road entrance that would provide entry and egress off of Plantations Rd., construction of a parking area to accommodate 40 parking spaces, and construction of a conservatory to accommodate a headhouse, visitor information center, and gift shop. The overall project is divided into three phases. Phase I includes construction of 26 of the 40 total parking spaces, and initiation of the road construction. Phase II and III includes the construction of the remaining 14 parking spaces, completion of the roadway, and construction of the conservancy with headhouse and visitor info /gift shop. The proposed project is located on the Cornell University campus at 1 Plantations Road, Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -6, R -30 Residence District. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Rick Bogusch and Donald Rakow, Agents. 7. Approval of Minutes: March 17, 1998 (in packet) 8. Other Business. 9. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 -17470 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) 0 • TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Karen McGuire sworn, depose and say that I am a Secretary 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. to Town 7:30 P.M.. as per attached II H MIT, !11 S9M Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Bulletin Board. Front Entrance of Town Hall Date of Posting Date of Publication: May 11. 1998 Mav 13. 1998 Karen McGuire,Secretary Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK ) SS.: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) Sworn to and subscribed before me this/ � th day of `7)� Ct 1998, Qv i Notary Public. Lary J. Saxton H9111 Public, State of New York Aoal'tritlon #01SA5044003 my ComQmission (Expires ColYa f • • • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS By direction of the Chairperson of the GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held of Ithaca on Tuesday, May 19, 1998, at N.Y., at the following times and on the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY by the Planning Board of the Town 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, following matters: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding a proposed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to Adult Entertainment Business. 8:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification of the previously approved site plan for South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex), located at 930 Danby Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 40- 3 -9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4, said modifications to consist of moving the locations of the proposed buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 4 towards the north and adjusting grades, parking, landscaping and utilities accordingly, "I" Industrial District. The project received Final Site Plan Approval on February 7, 1995, and Final Subdivision Approval and modified Site Plan Approval on December 19, 1995. ICS Development Partners, Owner /Applicant; Jagat P. Sharma, Agent. 8:35 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding sign variances proposed in conjunction with the reconstruction of Big Al's Hilltop Quikstop, located at 1103 Danby Road (Route 96B), Tax Parcel No's. 43 -2 -1 and 43- 2-2, Business District "C ". Big Al's Hilltop Quikstop, Inc. Owner /Applicant; Michael Herzing, 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, May 11, 1998 Publish: Wednesday, May 13, 1998 Jonathan Director 273 -1747 Kanter, AICP of Planning TOWN OF ITHACA PLAN - t NING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARINGS Tuesday, May 19, 1998 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, May 19, 1998 at 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:35 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding a pro- posed Local Law Amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Relating to adult Entertainment Business. 8:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the pro- posed modification of the previously approved site plan for South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex), located of 930 Danby Road on Town Of Ithaca tax parcel No's. 40 3 -9.1, 9.2, 9.3 and 9.4, said modifications to consist of moving the locations of the proposed buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 4 towards the north and adjusting grades, park- ing, landscaping and utilities accordingly, "I" Industrial Dis- trict. The Project received Fi- nal Site Plan Approvol on February 7, ) 995, and Final Subdivision Approval and modified Site Plan Approval on December 19, 1995. ICS Development partners, Owner /Applicant; Jagot P. Sharma, Agent. 8:35 P.M. Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals re- garding sign variances pro- posed in conjunction with the reconstruction of Big AI's Hilltop Quikstop, located at 1103 Danby Road (Route 96B) Tax Parcel No's. 43 -2 -1 and 43 -2 -2, Business District "C ". Big AI's Hilltop Quikstop, Inc., Owner/ Applicant; Michael Herzing, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters of objections theretogg. Persons Tay appear ndividuals with visual imps n- ments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will =r be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance in must make such a request not e less than 48 hours prior to the I. time of the public hearings. °t Jonathan Kanther, AICP Director of Planning ee Dated: Monday, M yl l]9 1998 May 13, 1998 E The Ithaca Journal Wednesday, May 13, 1998 • ADOPTED RESOLUTION: SEQR South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex) 930 Dan by Road Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval Modifications to Approved Site Plan Planning Board, May 19, 1998 MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification of the previously approved site plan for South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex), located at 930 Danby Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 40- 3 -9.1. 9.2. 9.3 and 9.4, said modifications to consist of moving the locations of the proposed buildings on Lots 2, 3, and 4 towards the north and adjusting Grades, parking, landscaping and utilities accordingly, "I" Industrial District. The project received Final Site Plan Approval on February 7, 1995, and Final Subdivision Approval and modified Site Plan Approval on December 19, 1995. ICS Development Partners. Owner /Applicant; Jagat P. Sharma, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on May 19, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site • plan drawing set entitled "South Hill Plaza. 930 Danby Road, Ithaca, New York" consisting of sheets LI, L2, L31 Al and A2, prepared by Jagat P. Sharma. Architect and dated April 17, 1998, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan. 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. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Kenerson, Thaver. Ainslie. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. CynLc. n \ r / \ �Tn C Karen M • tkk ^,�r . McGuire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca Maev B Admini4frative Secretarv. f • ADOPTED RESOLUTION: South Hill Plaza 930 Danbv Road Preliminary & F Modifications to Planning Board, MOTION by Greuory Bell, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: (formerly South Hill Complex inal Site Plan Approval Approved Site Plan May 19, 1998 I. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modification of the previously approved site plan for South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex), located at 930 Danbv Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 40- 3 -9.1, 9.2. 9.3 and 9.4. said modifications to consist of moving the locations of the proposed buildings on Lots 2. 3, and 4 tox�ards the north and adjusting grades, parking, landscaping and utilities accordingly, '`I" Industrial District. The project received Final Site Plan Approval on February 7, 1995, and Final Subdivision Approval and modified Site Plan Approval on December 19, 1995. ICS Development Partners, Owner /Applicant; Jagat P. Sharma. Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has. on May 19, 1998, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on May 19, 1998, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short • Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan drawing set entitled ''South Hill Plaza, 930 Danbv Road, Ithaca. New York" consisting of sheets L1, L2, L3, 1, 2, 3, and 4 prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect and dated April 17, 1998, and other application materials, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan review nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board. 2. That the Plannina Board herebv grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to the site plan for the proposed "South Hill Plaza' project, to be located at 930 Dan by Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 40- 3 -9.1, -9.2, -9.3 and -9.4, as shown on the drawing set entitled. "South Hill Plaza. 930 Danby Road. Ithaca. New York" consisting of sheets Ll. L2. L3, 17 2, 3, and 4 prepared by Jagat P. Sharma. Architect and dated April 17, 1998, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions. prior to issue of building permit: C] • • • ADOPTED RESOLUTION: South Hill Plaza (formerly South Hill Complex) 930 Danbv Road Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval Modifications to Approved Site Plan Planning Board, ivlay 19, 1998 a. that all conditions outlined in the Planning Board's resolutions of December 19. 1995 granting Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval. for the proposed project not already fulfilled. be fulfilled: and b. submission of size. materials and design details of all proposed signs and lighting fixtures: and C. revision of Sheet L2 to include seals of the registered survevor(s) or engineer(s) who prepared the topographic and boundary survey of the site; and d. submission of and approval of construction details of all proposed improvements and detailed sizing and final material specifications of all improvements. including proposed water and sewer line connections, by the Town Engineer: and e. submission of cut and fill calculations for review and approval by the Town Engineer; and f. revision of the titles of Drawings 1, 2 , 3 and 4 to clearly indicate that these drawings pertain to the proposed building on Lot No. 3 relabelling the building elevation on the lower left -hand portion of Drawing 2 as "North Elevation ". (instead of South Elevation "); and CF. submission of an original or mvlar copy of the drawings entitled, "South Hill Plaza, 930 Danby Road. Ithaca, New York," sheets L 1, L2 and L3, revised as required; and h. record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from all relevant county, state and federal agencies; and i. minor modification of the facade of the proposed building on Lot No. 3 by relocating doors or windows, and main partitions to accommodate tenants; are permitted provided the same do not significantly alter the overall rhythm of the design or impression of the building. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Bell, Ainslie, Kenerson, Thayer. NAYS - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Kccuz)�), Karen M. McGuire, Secretary, Town of Ithaca. Mary Bry�it Adminisfrative Secretary. 4 • • PRELIMTNA-R° S :TE PLAN CHECKLIST P :^. NAL?E )/t T l� / , l llE 2 u ITEM S TSM- - - N/a NGT A?PLIC_�. 7 ` W WfIV= CG�f T Z = COr7L.)_`_OrT C; A= 1. Ii CC m_ 1° =ems a .d s_CneG _o __CCR` ^� cZ_' - =`'v a_ : - - = =- -• a. Dev °_.^.CiCi�a Lr'Ca "i_aSJ =._�. =::J c-�- °- =!"ie: -�. ca'G EaC.C-'�'• W,ch_^_cic (Gn__/ cr__ (_) ccpy each.) 2. Pasrnent CL revI.ew Z . Depcs_t o= escrow. 3. Fully completed and S. Short En -i __ or_men tar Assessment Form, Pa. = i (S .? =) - __� _ _ __=: —z - }- (See Town Pla lr= as to w'r__c^ to s• u� << • _t ) °- • Proposed prelim_ :ate/ s_te plan, w.th the followinc Information, must be =.led in the o: =ice of the Town Planner at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the Plan_? nc Board me=_.nc a= which pr. i rninary a_ p_ oval is requested. Information may be succlied or_ more t an one drawinc i_ necessary. a. w� vicinity Map showinc the cen eral location_ of the property and prcpcsed projec= at a scale cr 1" =1000' or 1 "= 2000'. Natural features w.= =_ -- and immed.ately adjacent to the site ircludinc but r_ct l.m.ted to streams, lakes, ilOCdD1a�P_S, pCnGS, w...ancs, wccd....QS, b�usi . =nCs f S.Cni =Kant r_a_u=a_ ha:__ar..s or ct11.e_ L°_a`.ures pertinent to review of the propcsed project. C. V, Exact boundary li.neS of the t=act, ]indicated by a hea -r./ 1 t ne S .owing loc =i=?. an: C°_5C.ri _ _ C of a-,- ...: monuments , CiyinC croce_. ti/ me =es and boL'_^_ds to th_ a-g_ -es least Cne d• Si'e, ICCa =ion , and use C= all exist4ag Structures, Dar.' {_ - ^.0 areas, a'C :eSS Cr.'ves, C = =-szr==: load_..c a'r'e a S' C'1S, 11Cnclnc, peaescr.an L3Ci i c_e=, 1�naSCap .nC, and Ccher es_st_nc Le ::'., e_s pertln_r. a plan review. e. S_'. °, loca=_Cr., DrJD ^Sed us=., deSiC. and c^.r.s'rilct_on mate. _als of all = rows -2d s =_uctu:es . 2, ITEM S TSM- - - N/a NGT A?PLIC_�. 7 ` W WfIV= CG�f T Z = COr7L.)_`_OrT C; A= 1. Ii CC m_ 1° =ems a .d s_CneG _o __CCR` ^� cZ_' - =`'v a_ : - - = =- -• a. Dev °_.^.CiCi�a Lr'Ca "i_aSJ =._�. =::J c-�- °- =!"ie: -�. ca'G EaC.C-'�'• W,ch_^_cic (Gn__/ cr__ (_) ccpy each.) 2. Pasrnent CL revI.ew Z . Depcs_t o= escrow. 3. Fully completed and S. Short En -i __ or_men tar Assessment Form, Pa. = i (S .? =) - __� _ _ __=: —z - }- (See Town Pla lr= as to w'r__c^ to s• u� << • _t ) °- • Proposed prelim_ :ate/ s_te plan, w.th the followinc Information, must be =.led in the o: =ice of the Town Planner at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the Plan_? nc Board me=_.nc a= which pr. i rninary a_ p_ oval is requested. Information may be succlied or_ more t an one drawinc i_ necessary. a. w� vicinity Map showinc the cen eral location_ of the property and prcpcsed projec= at a scale cr 1" =1000' or 1 "= 2000'. Natural features w.= =_ -- and immed.ately adjacent to the site ircludinc but r_ct l.m.ted to streams, lakes, ilOCdD1a�P_S, pCnGS, w...ancs, wccd....QS, b�usi . =nCs f S.Cni =Kant r_a_u=a_ ha:__ar..s or ct11.e_ L°_a`.ures pertinent to review of the propcsed project. C. V, Exact boundary li.neS of the t=act, ]indicated by a hea -r./ 1 t ne S .owing loc =i=?. an: C°_5C.ri _ _ C of a-,- ...: monuments , CiyinC croce_. ti/ me =es and boL'_^_ds to th_ a-g_ -es least Cne d• Si'e, ICCa =ion , and use C= all exist4ag Structures, Dar.' {_ - ^.0 areas, a'C :eSS Cr.'ves, C = =-szr==: load_..c a'r'e a S' C'1S, 11Cnclnc, peaescr.an L3Ci i c_e=, 1�naSCap .nC, and Ccher es_st_nc Le ::'., e_s pertln_r. a plan review. e. S_'. °, loca=_Cr., DrJD ^Sed us=., deSiC. and c^.r.s'rilct_on mate. _als of all = rows -2d s =_uctu:es . • pq ^- ran =v•,�•r S.-*. nr.��7 C::=C {=,rte'=' Pace 2 _cn , and cC~str- sc�_Cr. ma= er_a =s of all f . Location_, deS; proccsed park -_ ^_c areas, ac_=_SS d=_'Tes, a ^C C ==- SC- °_e: load -ng areas . g. reacl Size, lccacior_, design, and cons =r•;ction ma_er_a =s c. igr_s and liar_ = =. ^_c. all prcposed s h. Lccaticr_, des_c, , and ccnstr,cticr. ma_er_a.s c= a location _..C..S Location, des_c-, and c ,-str�cticr_ ma=e__a_s C. a=; propcsed water.a -d sewa-e .ac11- - = -es. k. y Lccaticr_ c= y e:c -sc_-c ^r ^^ red =.re a-d cc: -�- emercenc:r zcres, i- c_ad -nc t e lCCa =ion o= f__e hydrants. Locaticr_, name, and d_-_-___c s o= eac:^_ exisz:inc or proposed str_et a a =_�_T a_ d eac^ exlsti.c or C= cs_d utility, ara -Wage, Cr eaSeT;ent W;t.__=?, . abutting, or 1n the 1Timed -a = °_ ViC =_.it�t of the p=CCCSed project M. �/ Existing aria proccsec site topocra_ ^y r°_ resent =_d b.T contour lines w -t.. inte=-ra_s as reC~�ired b:r the Planning Boa_ but r_cc to e:cce_d (._ve? fee` including a grading D' deSCrlblriC file volumes O= Cut and f i 11 mate= -al s and their ccm,_ es_ti or_, and i -cludi nc elevations of proposed bu_ldincs, s_cr_age, lighcinc, and other features . n. WF Drainage plan which irc_udes a description of method user for analysis, the Calculation Ol drainage area above point of en_ry for eac water course entering or aZu""cli ng the S -te, and pr :CCSed m= :' cd of cr -s -t =_ retention if required. o. ��`� Border lines boun d,nc site pia. s:_eets one 1 ^c from t11e left edge a_ ^_d Cre- _ ^_al_ l.Oci? =ram each o= the Ct..ge= edges . All reguir =_d in.or:aa =iCr includi nc s i cr_atures , seals, dates a-d suc:_ i_..or.. ;vatic. s ~a'_1 be w_ =b_ the border. r 01 Name of low:', C.JL'. ✓, a'; S:=Ze. S. �// Date o= S_t °_ P! an any a_ C- lca_^.le 'f dates. t. �y Key ma_ (when more tom=__ Ci_ °_ ji_e °_= '__ Su"m_L = °_G, • • P??ELIMINhRY SITE PLAIN CHECKI.,IS^' Page 3 U. s 5 7, 8. Name and seal of the registered land sur-revor(s) or engineers) who prepared the topographic and boundary AM survey and the date of survey. Name(s) and add. ess(es) of all property owners and persons who have are interest in the site and of parcels abutting the site, or within Soo' of the site, including easements or rights -of -way, plus the tax parcel numbers. Estimate of the COS= C= improvements (excluding the purchase cost of lanel tc be prepared (pr..erab.y) by a licensed profess _ ona = e .c_ eer. Three (3) dark -line =: nts o= the pr�c ^sed S_te P:a and 25 copies of all s.e=.ts of the propcsed Site Plan_ in reduced format (re l ZArger than II" x 1711) and cpv of all other items rec^u_ red above (Except De-zrelopment Review Application and =escrow forms) planbard \ pre Iimis.i[e mb \5/li/?6 1. • • • FINAL SITE PLAN CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME PROJECT NUMBER q Z "7 `i PREPARER = ITEM SUBMITTED N/A = NOT APPLICABLE W = WAIVE COND = CONDITION OF APPROVAL Completed and signed Development Review Application, Development Review Escrow Agreement, and Back -up Withholding Form (if required). (Only (1) copy each.) 2. aV& Payment of additional review fees as needed and deposited in an escrow account. 3. % All other items submitted with the preliminary site plan application with modifications made according to the approval given by the Town Planning Board. 4. coo Record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies. Submit copies of all permits or approvals so granted. 5. -olv,0 Detailed sizing and final material specifications of all required improvements. 61 ni0 Construction details of all proposed structures, roads, water /sewage facilities, and other improvements. 7. cN� One (1) Original or.mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. PLANBORD \FINALSITE mb/5/14/96 • 0 LJ ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Local Law Providing For Regulation of Adult Entertainment Businesses Recommendation to the Town Board Planning Board, May 19,1998 MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffman: WHEREAS: 1. The Town Planning Department has conducted a studv, entitled "Adult Entertainment Use Study," outlining the potential negative secondary effects associated with adult entertainment uses, so as to enact a Local Law limiting the location of adult uses to the Light Industrial zone to protect the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the public from said secondary effects, as well as preserve community and neighborhood character, and 2. The Town Board has proposed a "Local Law Providing for Regulation of Adult Entertainment Businesses" and 3. Said proposed local law would establish regulations limiting the establishment of adult entertainment businesses to the Light Industrial zones of the Town, with additional distance requirements of 250 feet, separating adult uses from the property lines of churches or other places of worship, parochial or private schools, daycare centers or nursery schools, public parks, institutions of higher learning (including dormitory accommodations), and R -5, R -9, R -15, R -30, and MR residential districts, and 4. The Town Board referred said adult use study and proposed local law to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public I- above- referenced study and local Form, Parts I and II, prepared by which will act as Lead Agency in law, Tearing held on May 19, 1998, has reviewed the law, and a Short Environmental Assessment the Town planning staff for the Town Board, the environmental review of the proposed local NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby- finds that: ADOPTED RESOLUTION: Local Law,Providing For Regulation of Adult Entertainment Businesses Recommendation to the Town Board Planning Board, May 19, 1998 a. There is a need for the proposed local law providing for regulation limiting adult entertainment uses to the Light Industrial zone, and b. The existing and probable future character of the Town will not be adversely affected by the adoption of the local law, and C. The proposed local law is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town Planning Board has reviewed the submitted Adult Entertainment Use Study and recommends that the Town Board accept the study as adequately documenting the secondary effects of adult uses, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact the proposed "Local Law Providing for the Regulation of Adult Entertainment Businesses." AYES-Wilcox,Hoffman, Kenerson, Ainslie, Thaver, Bell. NAYS -None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Karen M. McGuire,Secretary,Town of IthacaMary Bryan ,Administrate; e Secretary J 2