Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2001-04-03FILE� DATE Town of Ithaca Planning Board Tuesday, April 3, 2001 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, April 3, 2001, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (8:00 p.m.); Rod Howe, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Jon Kanter, Director of Planning (8:30 p.m.); Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Town Planner; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner, EXCUSED: Larry Thayer, Board Member, ALSO PRESENT: Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road; David Herrick, TG Miller; Bill Seldin, 120 North View Road; Frank Rogan, 825 Route 9613; Joe Salino, 484 Troy Road; Todd McGill, 330 Nelson Road; Thomas Schickel, 330 East State Street. 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 March 26, 2001, and March 28, 2001, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on March 28, 2001. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:34 p.m. With no person present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:35 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Wilcox - This is Ms. Ritter's last meeting at Interim Director of Planning. I would like to thank Ms. Ritter and Mr. Smith for the job that they have done. Thank you for making my job easier. It is appreciated. I . PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision of a 55,089 ± square foot lot located at 1502 Slaterville Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel no. 57. -1 -11.2, Residence District R -15. The 55,089 ± square foot lot will be divided into two lots of 18,961 ± square feet and 36,128 ± square feet (containing the house and the garage). Henry Theisen, Owner; Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., Agent. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 2 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED'- APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Larry Fabbroni, 127 Warren Road - I was before the board three weeks ago for approval of a two lot subdivision. The discussion was regarding adequate access to the newly created parcel. l went to the County Highway Department and discussed with them the letter that was sent to the Town. It was agreed that there were certain factors overstated in the letter. We subsequently presented a plan to the County Highway Department. The plan is a driveway to the lot. The County issued a permit for the driveway based upon the plan. Chairperson Wilcox - The board has a revised plat that shows the location of the driveway. Is it sufficient to force the owner of the lot to put the driveway in that location? Attorney Barney - The board could make it a condition of the resolution that the driveway be no further south than as shown on the plat. The condition could be noted on the plat. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann - Was there an issue of the survey not having an engineer's seal? Mr. Smith - The final survey has an engineer's seal. Subdivision, Intersection of Pine Tree Road & NYS Route .79. Tax Parcel No. 57- 1-11.2. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision of a 55,089 +/- square foot lot into two parcels, approximately 18,964A square feet (Parcel A) and 36,128 +A square feet (Parcel B). The property is located on the east side of the intersection of Pine Tree Road and NYS Route 79 on Tax Parcel Number 57 -1 -11.2; Residence District R -15. Henry Theisen, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence Fabbroni, P. E, L. S., 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 Subdivision Approval, has, on March 13, 2001, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, .and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on April 3, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat entitled, "Final Subdivision Plat, 2 -Lot Subdivision of old Marion Homestead, Pine Tree Road and SR 79 East, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York, "prepared by Lawrence Fabbroni, P.E., L.S.,' dated January 8, 2001, revised February 12, 2001 and date stamp received by the Town March 28, 2001, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 3 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that the such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 57- 1-11.2, consisting of 55,089 +/- square feet, into two lots; located the east side of the intersection of Pine Tree Road and NYS Route 79, Residence District R -15, as shown on a plat entitled, "Final Subdivision Plat, 2 -Lot Subdivision of old Marion Homestead, Pine Tree Road and SR 79 East, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, State of New York," prepared by Lawrence Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., dated January 8, 2001, and revised February 12, 2001; and date stamped received by the Town March 28, 2001, upon the condition that the driveway on Parcel A be located no further south than as shown on the subdivision map and that a note to that effect be placed on the map prior to its being signed by the Planning Board Chair. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Howe. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Rogan's Corner Modifications, 825 Danby Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Bill Seldin, 120 North View Road - I appeared before the board with Jim Rogan in 1991. The major variances were granted at that time to permit building number 3. Jim Rogan turned the business over to his son Frank Rogan in 1994. Mr. Frost has called to our attention to certain deficiencies in the use of the property. The board. has been given a detailed historical analysis of the evolution of this property, would like the board to be mindful that the deck and the seating associated with it has been in existence, for over four years. The restaurant and the pizza/convenience store has been used as such for over eight years. We have a letter from New York State Department of Transportation. It expresses their concern regarding the seven parking spaces that infringe on their right -of -way. We would welcome a condition that would require the applicant to do all things necessary as required by NYSDOT. We will move the seven parking spaces and relocate the retaining wall. The parking spaces are sufficient and are in excess by one. This takes into account that we have leased several spaces from Ted Fish, the adjacent owner, for the past ten years. These spaces are used as parking for employees. We would be pleased to enter into a condition as part of any PLANNING BOARD PAGE 4 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED approval for a long term lease cc expire June 2001. The lease was There is an encroachment shown Attorney Barney that was drawn agreement to Mr. and Mrs. Rogan week. mmitment with Mr. Fish. The lease we signed ten years ago will filed with the board. on the map. l have given a proposed encroachment agreement to by the attorney for the adjacent neighbor. We are sending the in Florida for their signature. We expect to have it back within one A traffic study was completed by Jim Napoleon, Mr. Smith states in his review that the 53 parking spaces on the site are reserved for customers. He stated that the current arrangement and the number of parking spaces has been working. It should provide adequate space in the future. Access to the site is either from Danby Road or Coddington Road. Visibility and access appear to be adequate to both roads from the site. The amount of patronage use at Rogan's Corners has been established over a six year period. There is no evidence that this has created any significant impacts on traffic volumes in the area. The configuration and use of the property has been working. David Herrick, TG Miller - There was an addition of a wood deck to the site. It is in close proximity to the neighboring parcel. We have less than the 30 feet required for a building setback. We are less than what is usually required for a buffer between this zone and a residential zone. Building 2 currently houses a laundry mat and storage facility. This was previously approved for a reduced setback. We are looking to obtain the same setback variance for building 3. Another significant change was the location of the waste recycling bin area. It was previously located adjacent to the entry doors at building 1. It was moved up the hill to separate its use from the restaurant use. A small wood storage shed has been constructed adjacent to building 2 on the north side. It is used to house restaurant equipment. It is about 225 square feet. The shed is within the limits of the property, but is less than one foot from the property line. Another wood storage shed was added to building 1. The setbacks are less than what is required. There are seven parking spaces in the front yard. The 1991 approval allowed four spaces to be located in the front yard. The striping in the front parking area has been modified and the number has been increased to seven spaces. The NYSDOT would like to see the pavement area moved and replaced with lawn. The modification can be made. The parking spaces can be restriped without encroaching on any other functions of the restaurant or gas pump island. There are no real environmental impacts to address from the modifications. Board Member Hoffmann - I visited the site this afternoon. I saw a structure which is not shown on the map. It is a wooden structure which has been added to the south side of the restaurant. It completely covers the sidewalk. It makes it impossible to walk on the sidewalk. The structure partially covers at least two parking spaces. Frank Rogan, 265 Lansing Station Road - The structure was constructed in 1997. We did obtain a building permit for the structure. It is a walk -in freezer that is extended off the kitchen. Board Member Hoffmann - The drawing needs to reflect the structure. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 5 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Seldin - The concern is that the structure interrupts two parking spaces. We appreciate it being called to our attention. Jim Napoleon, Syracuse NY - I did a survey at the site on March 16, 2001. 1 surveyed the driveway volumes in and out of the site. I also surveyed where the traffic went and came from that was using the driveways. I looked at the volumes and adjusted them for the maximum period of usage. I looked at when the outdoor seating would be used and when college was in session. The counted volumes were checked against the volumes that were reported by the State of New York. I found that the volumes I counted on Route 96B were in line with what the State counted. I then analyzed the driveway capacities. I found that we are looking at "A "s and "B "s for levels of service. The level of service is very low. It is very minor, if any delays with the peak loading condition. We looked at the noon time hour. We found there is more site activity during the noon time hour than the peak highway period. The volumes on Route 96B are significantly lower at noon time than the afternoon rush hour. We also looked at the accident record. There are very few accidents in the area. There are no accidents at the site driveways. This was the most recent three year period the State had data for. It is my feeling that the site is operating with a synergism. The activities at the site do not peak at the same. time. The traffic volumes generated are such that it works. It does have adequate parking capacity. Overall I did not find a significant impact on traffic. I was pleased to see the report delivered by Mr. Smith to the board. I assure you that Mr. Smith's statements were completely independent of my report and study. My conclusions are the same as Mr. Smith's. Attorney Barney - The day the traffic counts were taken was the first day of spring break. Mr. Napoleon - I realized it was the beginning of spring break and that a number of students would not be there. Mr. Rogan researched his records. He found that the customer volume for the previous Friday was 60% greater. I increased my volumes by 60 %. Attorney Barney - Was there an adjustment made to the count depending upon the time of day? Mr. Napoleon - Student movements do not coincide with peak hours for everyone else. Their activity is spread out across the day. I would not expect to see a significant difference between the 60% expansion factor and the students being in town. It is difficult to predict the movements of students. Students do not typically drive during the typical commuter hours. Mr. Seldin - We have a configuration that has been in existence for over four years without incident. The synergism that Mr. Napoleon referred to stems from the fact that the peak hours of operation associated with the restaurant, convenience store and pizzeria are segmented. They do not overlap. The best test is the history , of the property and that it. has worked so well without incident. The restaurant has been in operation for eight years. We are aware of the fact that we will have to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals to convince them of the appropriateness of the number of variances associated with the setback deficiencies. We hope the Planning Board will see that the layout has served this property well without incident and in a way that does not infringe on the environment. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 6 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann - I cannot understand how someone who has been before the Zoning Board of Appeals and Planning Board previously can go ahead and make changes without coming back before the board. Chairperson Wilcox - The changes have been made. It is always difficult for the board to be asked after the fact. Board Member Mitrano - What are the reasons for the backward process? Chairperson Wilcox - Over the past few years changes to the site were made without necessary approvals. The changes were noticed by the Zoning Officer. Board Member Hoffmann - It is unfair that some people go through the process backwards. It is unfair to all of us but especially to those applicants who go through the proper process with the Town. 1 am not inclined to vote for this. Chairperson Wilcox - There is also a risk involved. The board could choose not to grant the necessary approvals. Then the applicant is required to remove the modifications. Board Member Mitrano - What was the intent? Was there a lack of knowledge? Mr. Seldin - I appeared before the board with Jim Rogan in 1991. We received a variance for the third building. Mr. Rogan and his wife then moved to Florida and turned the business over to Frank Rogan. Mr. Rogan felt something had to be done with the restaurant. He put up the deck. Did he do it with the intent to annoy and harass, thinking he was flaunting the law? No. It was stupid on his part and he will be stuck if this is not approved. It was done. Board Member Mitrano - Did he know of the rules and regulations? Mr. Seldin - I do not think Mr. Rogan thought about it. The Zoning Board of Appeals will be looking to see if this is a self- created hardship. The reality is that my client did something that was not in keeping with Town Law, Town Law says that while self - created hardship is an ingredient, but it does not stand in the way of approval. Board Member Mitrano - What could be done for more education in Town so that more people know that these regulations need to be followed? Ms. Ritter - We could encourage public education. Attorney Barney - The Town could institute a proceeding. It is clearly a violation of our laws and has been for four years. We need to explore if proceedings should be started or if there needs to be a payment of a fine by the applicant. It would eliminate and slowdown the practice if the Town implemented those proceedings. I sense that the Zoning Board of Appeals is also going to be exercised over the fact the site has been this way over four years. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 7 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED A few years ago people started building houses without permits. They had to pay fines for the work that was done ahead of time. The permit was ultimately given. Board Member Hoffmann - I am concerned about lot coverage. There is not much green left on the. lot. It is mostly covered by buildings or paving. What is the limit on how much coverage there can be on the lot? Attorney Barney - There is a limit on lot coverage, but it might be one of the variances previously obtained when the restaurant opened. Board Member Hoffmann - The lot coverage has been pushed further by these additions. Ms. Ritter - It is not a lot more coverage. Attorney Barney _ I am not sure if the deck is included in the lot coverage. It depends on how far off the ground the deck is. Mr. Rogan - The deck is approximately 12 inches from the ground. Attorney Barney - The deck is not considered to be part of the building if it is less than 6 inches off the ground. Board Member Hoffmann - The deck is an enclosed part of the building. It has a roof and railings. The wood storage shed adds to the lot coverage. The extra seven parking spaces adds coverage. I wonder if the coverage that was.permitted in the earlier variance has been exceeded. Attorney Barney It is possible. Chairperson Wilcox - Ms. Ritter, could you ask the Zoning Officer to look into lot coverage? Ms. Ritter - Yes. The lot coverage might not have been addressed. I do not see the percentage as being a huge increase over the current percentage. There is a great deal of asphalt on the site. Chairperson Wilcox - I would like to move a motion on the SEQR Determination. Board Member Howe - I will second the motion. Board Member Hoffmann - I am not inclined to vote favorably for this application. I feel that I need to vote against the SEQR resolution as well. We do not know at this time if the coverage of the lot is exceeded. In general this is not a very environmentally positive application. There is no room for additional landscaping. We did not see the traffic report until this evening. I do not feel it is appropriate to vote for SEQR without being able to review it. Board Member Conneman - What is the consequence of voting down the SEQR motion? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 8 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Attorney Barney - It would be no action if there are not four votes either way. It would be a positive declaration of environmental significance if four votes are against SEQR. The consequence of that is an environmental impact statement would need to be prepared. Chairperson Wilcox - Is an environmental impact statement necessary given the changes before the board? Attorney Barney - The board does have another option. SEQR comes into play if you are going to approve an action. It is has been my position that if the ultimate decision is to disapprove the action, then the board would not have to deal with SEQR. It is the law with respect to discretionary acts of the Town Board. It has not been clarified if it applies to discretionary acts of Planning Boards or Zoning Board of Appeals. The Planning Board could skip over SEQR. I would prefer it to be done in that manner. It creates a rather interesting record when one has to defend the action if the board votes there is no significant environmental impact and then proceeds to vote against the action because of environmental matters. Chairperson Wilcox - When we started the discussion series of events that occurred which brought us to changes that are being proposed to the site plan. I want to make sure that this does not happen again. stated that I was not happy with regards to the this point. I do not have a problem with the am comfortable with approving the changes. I Board Member Conneman - The applicant has done things that they should not have done. There needs to be a system by which this does not happen again. I am not sure if we should fine people or make the applicant remove the changes. There is a case where some one purchased development rights, and then built a 4,000 square foot house on the property. They were forced to remove the house. Attorney Barney - There is a New York City case where an additional 13 stories was built on a building. The contractor was forced to remove the additional stories. Board Member Mitrano - Board Member Hoffmann, what recommendations would you make to the applicant if this was coming to the board as a plan? Board Member Hoffmann - We would not approve some of these items if it came to us as a plan. We would not allow something to be built across the property line onto the neighbor's property. There are a number of items we would not approve if this had come before the board as a plan. This is something that we have seen before. Another variant of trying to get the board to approve plans which are not conforming to Town regulations happens when people come before the board with a plan they know we will approve, even if it is not what they ultimately would have liked. Then they keep coming back asking for adjustments to the plan in order to try to get what they originally wanted. Chairperson Wilcox - I do not like the site plan, but the modifications being proposed are minor. They make difficult situations even worse. They narrow the setbacks to the neighboring properties. I leave it to the Town to set policy in terms of what should be done to make sure that such things do not happen. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 9 APRIL 31 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann - I do not want to approve the application. Board Member Mitrano - Board Member Hoffmann, could anything be done to secure your vote if the application is adjourned this evening? Board Member Hoffmann - I cannot answer the question until I hear suggestions of what could be done. Board Member Conneman - I am concerned about the lot coverage. Mr. Smith - The lot coverage was previously violated. Ms. Ritter - The lot coverage was either not an issue or it was ignored during the last approval. It is obvious that most of the lot coverage was already there. Board Member Mitrano - Could anything be gained by an adjournment? Board Member Hoffmann - I cannot say that I would change my mind about the application for the next time it is before the board. The applicant needs to propose the.changes to the board. It is not my job to do so. At the very least the board needs an opportunity to read the traffic report. An adjournment might be appropriate. Mr. Seldin - It is apparent to me that we need an adjournment. Attorney Barney and I need to have a discussion about an appropriate penalty for what has happened. I have discussed this with Mr. Rogan this evening. Mr. Rogan is prepared to pay any reasonable fine. The recent operation of this business is accomplished by these modifications. The modifications are very important to his business. We would like to resolve this issue. A message has to be sent from this and the message has to be received. The board needs to do what they feel is necessary. Board Member Mitrano - I feel an adjournment is appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox - What is the purpose of an adjournment to a later date? Are we expecting the applicant to come back with a revised set of plans? Are we expecting a penalty to be worked out between the Town and the applicant, and therefore will make us feel better in voting in favor of the application? I am unclear as to what purpose the adjournment serves us. Board Member Mitrano - It is up to the applicant to come forward with a proposal. It puts the board in a very difficult situation to approve something that has already done. Obviously, anyone with reasonable sensibility, understands that these are economic commitments the family has made to this business. We are not trying to hold them out as examples to be crucified in front of the public. The board does not like to be put in this position. Mr. Seldin - Board Member Hoffmann posed the question that the burden should be up to the applicant to make a suggestion. I was responding to it. We would like an adjournment so that Attorney Barney and I can sit down with the powers that be and work out an appropriate sanction in PLANNING BOARD PAGE 10 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED light of the self- created hardship. It will also give the board an opportunity to digest the lengthy traffic report. It is obvious that this is an important issue with the board. We cannot get around it. I respect the position of the board. I would like to push back our Zoning Board of Appeals date so that we have time to resolve this matter. Attorney Barney - The other issue is to see if something could be done with the site plan. Mr. Seldin - There are some things that could be done. Chairperson Wilcox - Is it appropriate that this proposal come before the Planning Board before it goes before the Zoning Board of Appeals? Attorney Barney - This does not require a Planning Board recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Tradition has always been approval of the site plan with the condition of variances being granted. Chairperson Wilcox - I need to withdraw my motion for approval of SEQR. Board Member Howe - I am withdrawing my motion for approval of SEQR. Ms. Ritter - We could schedule this application for the May 1 st Planning Board meeting. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:40 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -25 - Adjournment of Rogan's Corner, 825 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 40 -4 -2. MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. RESOLVED, that this board adjourns the application of Rogan's Corner until the Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, May 1, 2001 or at such later date as advised by the Director of Planning. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was determined to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, Italian Carry -Out, Danby Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:43 p.m. Thomas Schickel, Schickel Architecture - The proposed project is an Italian Carry-out. It is defined as a retail food store in the Zoning Ordinance. This would be a family owned business. They have had other businesses in the past. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 11 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED The property is in a commercial zone. It is bounded by only one house. The proposal is for a 32 foot by 32 foot building. The building would be located to the immediate south of Ziebart. The Salino family also owns the Ziebart property. The grade of the site drops off sharply at the middle of the building. The idea is that it is a two -sided approach to the site. The main level of the building is facing Danby Road with eight parking spaces. One parking space will be handicap accessible. There is a driveway to the lower level. The employee parking and the loading area will be in the back. There will also be another handicap accessible parking space and three extra parking spaces in the lower level. The site drops approximately ten feet. The existing contours versus the new contours are almost the same. We are doing very little adjustment to the contours. We are making very good utilization of the existing site. There will be a sitting area in the front of the building. The kitchen area is on the upper level as well. The exterior stairwell will bring you to the basement of the building. The basement will be used as storage and a small office. It might also be used for some sandwich preparation. A dumbwaiter would be used to bring the sandwiches upstairs. We would not have an interior stairwell. The front parking lot will be asphalt. The driveway to the rear of the building and rear parking lot will be gravel. There is a New York State Department of Transportation right -of -way that runs along this property. We will be sending most of the water flow into the open ditch just below the property. We have proposed vegetative screening in the front. We do not want to block the building. The building is set further back than Ziebart. I met with NYSDOT. They reviewed the plan and thought the plans looked okay. The NYSDOT felt we could have the parking ten feet closer to the right -of -way to allow for a buffer. We are proposing two street lights on the property. The front light will shine out into the parking lot. The second light will be for the back area. The projection in the back of the building will protect vehicles from the rain while they are unloading. There are existing Pine trees in the back of the site. The property directly behind the site is zoned residential. Attorney Barney - Is the property located diagonally from this parcel zoned residential? Mr. Schickel - It is a residence, but it is zoned commercial. Mr. Schickel presented the elevation drawings to the board. The front of the building will have large windows. The roof slopes up and the wall sign will be located on the wall in the front of the building. The intent is to have some illusion to Italian architecture, but not to have it overwhelming. There is another sign at the midpoint of the site. The Sign Law permits a sign of 50 square feet. The sign will be within the required limits. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 12 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED I have been working with the owners for a couple of months. They will be taking good care of the property and will hopefully have a highly successful business. Board Member Conneman - Mr. Walker, are you satisfied with the drainage? Mr. Walker - Yes. They are handling the drainage. The area has been disturbed. They are directing the water away from the house behind the site. Board Member Hoffmann - Why are the backup areas in the two parking areas different? The backup space in the back is smaller. Mr. Schickel - We have forty feet in the back lot. It is adequate. We have forty -five feet in the front. It is more generous. It comes to the issue of the anticipated frequency of use. The back would not be used as frequently. Board Member Mitrano - It seems like a lot of parking for the business. Mr. Schickel - The parking in the back of the building is for the occasion where the they might be busy. The spaces in the front are for customers under normal circumstances. They would have two or three persons working. We have two handicap accessible spaces. Attorney Barney - What percentage of the lot is not covered? Mr. Schickel - I did the calculation. I recall that we were just slightly under the allowable. Mr. Smith - The requirement is to have at least 30% of the site as open space. The applicant has over 40% open space. Board Member Hoffmann - There is a minimal amount of windows into the basement area. Is there a reason for it? Mr. Schickel - It is not an area where people would be working all day. They might work there only a few hours per day. Board Member Hoffmann - It is better to have more natural light coming into the building. Joe Salino, 484 Troy Road - We will not be working in the basement as an everyday occurrence. We will be working there if we are overloaded with orders. Part of the reason why we did not want to have too many windows in the basement was for security. I previously owned Hilltop. Several times we were broken into through the back windows. We had to put bars across the windows. It was my personal preference. Board Member Hoffmann - Are you anticipating that the area downstairs might be used as seating? PLANNING BOARD PAGE 13 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Mr. Salino - No. We would like to keep the business small. We will be employing our immediate family. We do not have plans for expansion into the basement. We do not have plans for expanding the business. Board Member Mitrano - Is the name specific for something? Mr. Salino - We are very close with the Lucatelli family. They had an Italian Carry-Out and named it the Italian Carry-out. Mr. Lucatelli passed away around the same time that my dad did. We wanted to call it the Italian Carry-Out as a tribute to Mr. Lucatelli. It was my dad's favorite place to eat. Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Schickel, have you seen a copy of the proposed resolution? Mr. Schickel - Yes. The only concern we had was the idea of a fence along the north property line. Mr. Salino talked with the owner of the property. The owner of the property did not seem to like the idea of a fence. Chairperson Wilcox - This board has encouraged and required applicants to put sufficient buffering around commercial areas. Board Member Hoffmann - There is a hedgerow along this property line and the residence to the north. Is it located on the neighbor's property? Mr. Schickel - Yes. It is a thick hedgerow. Board Member Hoffmann - There still needs to be buffering on this property. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:15 p.m. RESOLUTION NO. 2001- 26 - SEOR, Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Italian Carry -Out, Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 39 =1 -16.1. MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Rod Howe, WHEREAS. 10 This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed Italian Carry-Out located on Danby Road, north of the intersection of Danby Road and West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -16.1, Business District "C." The proposal includes the construction of a 1,024 + 1- square foot building, 14 parking spaces and associated drives, and related lighting and landscaping. Joseph Salino and Todd McGill, Owners /Applicants; Thomas M. Schickel, Schickel Architecture, Agent. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 14 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED 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 April 3, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Lands of Joseph F. and Jeanne M. Salino, Danby Road NYS 96B, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, P.L.S., and dated September 7, 2000; a topographic survey entitled "Topographic Survey, Tax Parcel No. 39- 1-16.1, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Robert Russler Jr., L.L.S., and dated January 27, 2001; a site plan entitled "Italian Carry-Out Site Plan, Joseph Salino & Todd McGill - Owners," prepared by Schickel Architecture, and dated March 7, 2001; and elevation plans entitled "Italian Carry-Out Elevations, Joseph Salino & Todd McGill - Owners," prepared by Schickel Architecture, and dated March 7, 2001, and other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Boar d significance in accordance with the New referenced action as proposed, and, t required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: hereby makes a negative determination of environmental York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above herefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed Italian Carry -Out located on Danby Road, approximately 150 feet north of the intersection of Danby Road and West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -16.1, Business District "C ". The proposal includes the construction of a 1,024 ± square foot building, 14 ± parking spaces and associated drives, and related lighting and landscaping. Joseph M. Salino and Todd M. McGrill, Owners /Applicants; Thomas M. Schickel, Schickel Architecture, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:15 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - There is an approved site plan in the Town of Danby. Has the plan been abandoned? Mr. Salino - Yes. We have abandoned the site plan. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 15 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED Board Member Mitrano - What was the site plan? Mr. Salino - We were considering a gas station and convenience store in Danby. We decided not to pursue the project. Board Member Hoffmann - How many parking spaces are required? Mr. Smith m Five parking spaces are required according to the Zoning Ordinance. It appears that more parking spaces are appropriate for peak times. We do not want cars parking on Danby Road. It is an appropriate layout for the site. Attorney Barney - How many employees will be working at one time? Mr. Salino - There will be approximately three to four employees at the busiest times. It will normally be two employees. Board Member Hoffmann - The conditions of the resolution address the items that I would like to see. Chairperson Wilcox - The board has allowed the applicant to reduce the number of parking spaces and allowed the site plan to indicate the reserved parking. It reduces the amount of space allocated to parking while giving the applicant the opportunity to add parking if they need it. The board generally does not like parking. Ms. Ritter - We had some concern with the neighboring house. Mr. Schickel has discussed the project with Mr. Monkemeyer. Mr. Monkemeyer has expressed that he is not interested in a fence. Board Member Hoffmann - The ownership might change. We need to look at what kind of buffering we would like to see for another owner. Mr. Smith - The suggested of the fence came up because there is only five feet between the property line and the driveway. There is not a lot of room for landscaping or plant material. Mr. Schickel - There is some interest in not spending a lot of money for landscaping along the right - of -way that might be tom up by the NYSDOT. Board Member Hoffmann - There could be a few trees that would develop crowns. It would help buffer the view of restaurant from the residence. Mr. Schickel - The resolution enumerates a series of conditions for us to look at. This is a preliminary review. We did not come with a complete plan. I talked with Mr. Frost. We had come up with nine parking spaces as the required number of parking spaces. The five parking spaces was based on not counting the basement in the square footage. Chairperson Wilcox - Town staff needs to make sure they agree on the number of parking spaces. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 16 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -27- Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals Regarding Special Approval, Italian Carry -Out, DanbV Road, Tax Parcel No. 39-1 -16.1. MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeal Regarding Special Approval for the proposed Italian Carry-Out located on Danby Road, north of the intersection of Danby Road and West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -16.1, Business District "C." The proposal includes the construction of a 1,024 + 1- square foot building, 14 parking spaces and associated drives, and related lighting and landscaping. Joseph Salino and Todd McGill, Owners /Applicants; Thomas M. Schickel, Schickel Architecture, Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on April 3, 2001, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part Il prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 3, 2001, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a survey entitled "Lands of Joseph F. and Jeanne M. Salino, Danby Road NYS 96B, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Kenneth A. Baker, P.L.S., and dated September 7, 2000; a topographic survey entitled "Topographic Survey, Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -16.1, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by Robert Russler Jr., L.L.S., and dated January 27, 2001; a site plan entitled "Italian Carry-Out Site Plan, Joseph Salino & Todd McGill- Owners," prepared by Schickel Architecture, and dated March 7, 2001; and elevation plans entitled "Italian Carry -Out Elevations, Joseph Salino & Todd McGiX Owners, prepared by Schickel Architecture, and dated March 7, 2001, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED. 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of . the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Italian Carry-Out located on Danby Road, as shown on the site plan entitled `Italian Carry-Out Site Plan, Joseph Salino & Todd McGill - Owners, "prepared by Schickel Architecture, and dated March 7, 2001, subject to the following conditions: PLANNING BOARD PAGE 17 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED a. revision of plans to include description and labeling of construction materials, including colors, prior to final site plan approval; be revision of plans to include details of any proposed signage, including size, height, colors, lighting, prior to final site plan approval; C, submission of a complete landscaping plan and schedule, including location, number, size and species of all material to be planted, including appropriate buffering or screening of neighboring residences, prior to final site plan approval; do obtaining of the Special Approval and the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals; e. submission of documentation to the Planning Department showing a curb cut permit has been obtained from NYS Department of Transportation; fe submission of cut sheets for the proposed lighting, prior to final site plan approval; go submission of a drainage plan, including sedimentation and erosion control measures, prior to final site plan approval; he revision of the plans to include border lines bounding the sheets and labeling of Town, County and State, prior to final site plan approval; io revision of the plans to clearly identify the handicap accessible parking space(s); j. submission of an original or mylar copy and two paper copies of the final site plan, reflecting the above changes, prior to building permit. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board, in making its recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant; be the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project; co the specific proposed change in use as a result of the proposed project is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca. 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved. PLANNING BOARD PAGE 18 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, NAYS: None, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: MINUTE APPROVAL: RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -28 =Approval of Minutes; June 20, 2000, July 18, 2000, August 22, 2000, September 5, 2000, September 19, 2000, October 3, 2000, October 24, 2000, November 7, 2000, November 21, 2000, December 19, 2000, January 16, 2001, February 6, 2001, February 20, 2001. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Tracy Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does 2000, August 22, 2000, September 5, 20( 2000, November 7, 2000, November 21, 2( 2001, February 20, 2001 as the official mir meeting as presented. hereby approve and adopt the June 20, 2000, July 18, 10, September 19, 2000, October 3, 2000, October 24, 90, December 19, 2000, January 16, 2001, February 6, utes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Howe. NAYS: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: Chairperson Wilcox - We need to welcome our new Director of Planning, Jonathan Kanter. I would like to thank Ms. Ritter and Mr. Smith again for the job that they have done. Attorney Barney - Ms. Ritter and Mr. Smith did a great job during Mr. Kanter's absence. Mr. Kanter - I am here symbolically more than anything else. I will get the high salary and they will continue their hard work. Board Member Howe - We interviewed two candidates for the Planning Board position. We will send a name to the Town Board for approval. Ms. Ritter" EcoVillage is submitting the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. We are looking at it to see if it is adequate. We will have a presentation on April 17t . The board has forty -five days to PLANNING BOARD PAGE 19 APRIL 3, 2001 APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED - APRIL 17, 2001 - APPROVED - APPROVED - APPROVED comment. The Town Board will be looking at the project for rezoning. Mr. Smith has the transportation study. The transportation study has been summarized in the report. Mr. Smith - Mr. Frost looked into the secondary access road of EcoVillage. It is mentioned in the SLUD that the road is to be maintained through all seasons. EcoVillage has a contract for the road to be plowed. As far as they are concerned it has been plowed and maintained. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the April 3, 2001 meeting of Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted: ra" A im Carrie Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receive of Taxes