Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-01-04FILE 4 DATE 2 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2005 The Town of Ithaca. Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, January 4, 2005, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; John Barney, Attorney for the Town (7:16 p.m.); Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering (7:23 p.m.);. Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. EXCUSED: Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner. OTHERS: Robert Nicholas, 107 Updike Rd; Dave Auble, 111 King Rd W; Scott Trelease, 630 Elmira Rd; Paul Ballard, Interlaken; George Frantz, 604 Cliff St; Renatu Ballard, 615 Warren PI; Bob McIntyre, 408 Richard PI; Carol Oster, Conifer Realty; Roger Whalen, contractor; Wally Wiggins; 961 Taughannock Blvd. Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 27, 2004 and December 29, 2004, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on December 29, 2004" 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 7:05 p.m., and invited members of the public to address the board on an item that ,was not on the agenda. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: SEOR Determination: Finch 2 -Lot Subdivision, 904 Coddington Road Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, Herb Finch is a former member of this Planning Board. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Robert Nicholas, 107 Updike Rd Mr. Finch, who is currently in Baltimore, wishes to sell this parcel of land of approximately 3 acres to us, his next -door neighbor. The plan is just to take it from his property and attach it to ours and the use of the land would pretty much be the same as it is now. We have no plans to do anything with it other than use it as a buffer against any possible future development, really. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions from the board? Jon? Mr. Kanter — I mentioned to Fred earlier when I was looking at this subdivision plat I noticed on parcel A the front yard setback is listed at 13.4 feet and the side yard setback is listed as 37.1 feet, plus or minus. Both of those are existing deficiencies. The front yard setback is 30 feet and the side yard is 40 feet. I seem to recall .that when we normally do subdivisions, and this I was hoping that John Barney would be here so he could give you advice on this and we might want to wait to ask .him, that when we are recreating a new lot with those existing deficiencies we are in a sense creating a new set of deficiencies and so have asked that these go to the Zoning Board for those variances when the subdivision is done. I did check with Andy Frost on it. He didn't seem to think it was necessary, but again I thought that before you gave approval you would want to check with John Barney, .the Town Attorney on that and see what he thought. It's really not an environmental issue, although there are a couple of items on the Short Environmental Assessment Form that might relate to that if it does require a variance. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm thinking it might here? Do you have a few extra minutes? Mr. Nicholas — No. I'm fine. be best ... are you in a hurry to get out of Mr. Kanter — There is a big football game on tonight. Chairperson Wilcox - I understand there is a big football game. I'm already feeling the heat from this side over here. Mr. Nicholas — I'm not familiar,. Js this an existing deficiency? Mr. Kanter — Yeah. On parcel a, the house is only 13 plus or minus feet from the front yard and 30 feet is required. So it is a deficiency of the existing house. There is actually no problem whatsoever created by parcel b, which you would be acquiring, but the fact that we are splitting parcel b off of the original parcel I suppose you would say magnifies or just at least allucinates the existing nonconformities and technically the Planning Board can only. approve subdivisions that fully meet the Town's zoning requirements. So parcel A actually itself as a parcel is meeting all of the lot area and width and depth dimensional requirements so in that respect parcel A is fine, but just bringing up the fact that the house has existing deficiencies. PLANNING.BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed from the drawing that that part of the house is the garage, which is closest to Coddington Road, but I don't suppose that makes any difference when the garage is attached to the house. Board Member Thayer — No. It's the structure. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think anybody on this board has an issue with that. The question is just following the rules or the attorney's interpretation of the rules. What I am thinking at this point is, if we could ask you to take a seat and we will move on to the next item, which I don't think will take very long, which is Mr. Wiggins and if that is not an issue... Mr. Nicholas— That's fine. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I thank you for your patience and understanding. Chairperson Wilcox post -poned this segment of the meeting at 7:12 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final . Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-14.2, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves construction of a three level addition on.the west side of the existing Inn, which would include 19 new rooms, a spa, an elevator, and an exercise. room. The proposal also includes additional parking and new landscaping. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant. Wally Wiggins, 961 Taughannock Blvd Walter Wiggins, 961 Taughannock Boulevard. I have brought with me Roger Whalen, whose president of Whalen and McCarty, the company that would be building the facility if it receives final approval tonight. We are here to answer questions that you might have. We went over most of them, I think, in the preliminary analysis and this will be, hopefully, answer any questions you have with regard to the final plan that we submitted in accordance with what I hope will be all of the recommendations made by your associates here. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to make a statement or not or just answer questions? Mr. Wiggins — We're here. to answer questions. Chairperson Wilcox — Mike, I'm going to start with you. Mr. Smith — I have nothing to add. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions from members of the board? : PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Board Member Hoffmann - I have a few because I missed the first meeting and it may have been explained there and in which case I apologize. I was up there looking today and I noticed that the tower, which was added fairly recently to the existing building... Mr. Wiggins - That's been there for 20 years. Board Member Hoffmann - The round tower? I thought it was added more recently and thought there was at least an addition of a walkway between the tower and the building, which I didn't see today. Mr. Wiggins The tower was built at the same time the hotel was built. There was an overhead walkway adjoining the second floor to the existing building. We started to build an elevator at that end of the hotel. In order to do so, they took down the walkway. We didn't proceed with that part of the construction so they have put up a temporary walk to the second floor of the tower. The tower has been there since the beginning. Board Member Hoffmann - Okay, but I knew there was something connecting the tower and the building and that is what I was puzzled about. Mr. Wiggins - Yes. There used to be a walkway connecting the second floor room, tower room to the facility. Board Member Hoffmann - And I thought at the time because I remember that was ... that came before the Planning Board, too. I thought at that time there was an elevator planned to go into the main building. Has that elevator been added? Mr. Wiggins - No. That elevator is now part of this new addition and will centrally serve the whole facility. Board Member Hoffmann - And it looks from the drawings as if the entry to the whole complex after the addition is there will be changed to where the two buildings adjoin each other or is that an additional entry? I Mr. Wiggins - No. The entry will remain where it is, but there will be an entrance to the spa from the new facility where the two.join. Board Member Hoffmann - So there will be two entries or actually I thought I saw another entry on the western end of the addition to... Mr. Wiggins - That is a fire exit. Board Member Hoffmann - Lets see. I was wondering whether all the parking that is indicated to be added is really needed and I see that there are some roads already roughed in or you have the beginnings of roads anyway going to the more westerly parts of the property where the tennis courts are. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Mr. Wiggins - That road has been there from the beginning as well. Indeed, if there are more parking spaces than needed, I would be very happy to put it back into green area. We tried to comply with the Code and it seems as if those were required spaces. Board Member Hoffmann — Well the area that I in particular would hope would not have to be built is the one that's south of the existing parking that is there now. It's west of the barn and south of the existing parking because that is just a field and it's down a slope so.. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I interrupt? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me remind you that the proposal has received preliminary approval. Board Member Hoffmann — For all these parking spaces? Chairperson Wilcox — The determination has been made and the purpose tonight is to make sure that Mr. Wiggins has met the requirements in order to receive final approval. The determinations have been made with regard to many of those things. Its not to say that we can't discuss them, but understand that this board has made that determination. Yes? Mr. Smith — I was just going to add that the one parking lot she was talking about down by the barn, approximately 8 spaces have been removed since preliminary approval where that lot originally extended into the pond area has been removed out of there and grading out of that and a few spaces have been removed from the far western parking lot by the existing tennis court. Board Member Hoffmann —,Well the only other thing from looking at the drawings now that) think I have amore definite wish to have changed or to have added is I don't see that there is a light indicated where there is a walkway and set of stairs between the existing parking lot west of the building and the proposed new parking lot where the tennis court is...the one that's closest to the building. You have indicated a walkway there, which has stairs in it, two sets of stairs. Mr. Wiggins — I'm lost. Board Member Hoffmann — There is a walkway indicated connecting the parking lot, which is to be built where the tennis courts are now and the existing parking lot west of the main building it has sort of a jog in it with two sets of steps and I don't see a... Mr. Smith — Right in the center of that loop there is one light shining. Board Member Hoffmann — Really? I was looking for it and I just couldn't see it. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Mr. Smith — It's a little easier to see on the landscaping plan. Board Member Hoffmann — That's what I'm looking at. Chairperson Wilcox — Mike, can you walk over here and just show Eva? Mr. Smith — Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. I thought that was a plant. Now I see it has those little things on it. Good because I felt that was really needed there. All right. That is all my questions. Chairperson Wilcox — You all set then? Board Member Hoffmann Yup, Chairperson Wilcox — Questions from any other member? Board Member Thayer — I assume Dan is happy with the stormwater.. I? Mr. Smith — Yeah. He told me that he had looked through the stormwater prevention plan that was submitted and didn't have any problems. The elimination of the parking spaces that was going into the pond. ..(not audible)... Chairperson Wilcox - Very good. All set then? Board Member Thayer —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Gentlemen, will you have a seat? I have to open the public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:21 p.m. and invited members of the public to address the board. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:22 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Mike, you're all set? Board members?. Motion moved by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe, PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -001: Final Site Plan Approval, La Tourelle Country In —Room Expansion & Spa, 1150 Danby Road, Tax Parcel No. 3644.2 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS. PLANNING. BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 1. This action is consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for. the proposed addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36-1 -4.2, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves construction of a three level addition on the west side of the existing Inn which would include 19 new rooms, a spa, an elevator, and an exercise room. The proposal also includes additional parking and new landscaping. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, did, on November 2, 2004, make a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, on November 2, 2004, did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, for the proposed project, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, on December 13, 2004, did consider and amend the Planned Development Zone No. 1 to allow the spa use, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 4, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Site Plan" and "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" dated Dec. 13, 2004, prepared by Gary L. Wood, P.E., "Landscaping Plan" (L101) and "Site Lighting Plan" (L 102) dated 12129104, "Ground Floor Plan" (A102), "First Floor Plan" (A103), "Second Floor Plan" (A104), "South Elevation" (A105). "West & North Elevation" (A106), dated 0912012004, prepared by William Downing Associates Architects, and other materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 10 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to La Tourelle Country Inn, including 19 rooms, spa, elevator, exercise room, parking and landscaping, located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 14.2, as shown on plans entitled "Site Plan" and "Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" dated Dec. 13, 2004, prepared by Gary L. Wood, P. E., "Landscaping Plan" (L 10 1) and "Site Lighting Plan" (L 102) dated 12129104, "Ground Floor Plan" (A 102), "First Floor Plan" (A 103), "Second Floor Plan" (A 104), "South Elevation" (A 105), "West & North Elevation" (A 106)1 dated 0912012004, prepared by William Downing Associates Architects, and other materials, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 be submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, and ce submission of planting schedule, including planting details and notes, for review and approval of the Director of Planning, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Kevin. NAYS: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: Continuation of SEAR Determination: Finch 2 -Lot Subdivision, 904 Coddington Road Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, I believe Jon whispered in your ear and might have filled you in? Attorney Barney — He did whisper a lot of sweet nothings. Mr. Kanter — It will probably end up being nothing. Chairperson Wilcox — What is your opinion with regard to the need for... Attorney Barney — Just bear with me for a minute and let me review briefly our section for non - conforming uses. I'm inclined to think that it.. well, let me read before I put my foot in my mouth. I . Chairperson Wilcox — We'll remind him that there is a football game tonight. Attorney Barney — Oh, is that what the urgency is? I'm sorry. This is a single - family house? Two family house? Chairperson Wilcox — Single- family house owned by Herb Finch. Attorney Barney — My feeling is that it is not a requirement that. it go to the BZA for the deviation. It is an existing house. Its an existing non- conformity and where we deal with non - conforming structures you can't enlarge or alter in a way which increases its non - conformity, but we are not really altering the structure here and its not destroyed and its not being moved. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Chairperson Wilcox — The subdivision is not in any way changing those front and side yard... Attorney Barney — You are not creating a non - conforming lot by the subdivision. So think. Chairperson Wilcox — So that's the issue. Are we creating a non - conforming lot or is it existing? Attorney Barney — No. The lot itself is .a conforming lot as near as I can quickly tell from... Mr. Kanter —Yeah,. I Chairperson Wilcox — The question is, is parcel A, which is the one that will remain with Mr. Finch since we are essentially creating parcel A because we are taking parcel B out, have we in effect created a non- conformance that needs to go back to the Zoning Board? Attorney Barney — My understanding is that the lot itself as created is a conforming lot. The only non - conformity is the location of the house relative to the side yard and front yard. Mr. Kanter — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Which is existing and we are not doing anything to make it worse. Attorney Barney — So I don't see a need to go to the BZA. Chairperson Wilcox — Good. Good answer, John. We like that answer. We like less government and less need for applicants to go to boards and meetings. All right, having said that, is there any further discussion with regard to the environmental review? There was none. Motion made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -002: SEOR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Finch Two -Lot Subdivision, Coddin_gton & Updike Roads, Tax Parcel No. 47 -1-2 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by George Conneman. WHEREAS. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Finch Two -Lot Subdivision, located on the corner of Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing Tax Parcel 47 -1 -2 into two lots of +1-.711 acres and +A 3.086 acres. Herbert E. Finch, Owner; Robert A. Nicholas, Applicant/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 Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on January 4, 2005, has 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, a survey entitled "Subdivision Map Lands of Herbert ,Finch, Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated September 1, 1983 and amended December 3, 2004, by Allan T. Fulkerson, L.L.S., and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Kevin NAYS: None,. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:26 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 904 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing Tax Parcel 47 =1 =2 into two lots of +/ -.711 acres (containing an existing residence) and +/ -3.086 acres (also having road frontage on Updike Road). Herbert E. Finch, Owners Robert A. Nicholas, Applicant/Agent. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Chairperson Wilcox — Questions of Mr. Nicholas with regard to the subdivision? There are none. You may have a seat Mr. Nicholas. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. and invited members of the public to address the board. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:27 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox — We all set from staff's point of view now? Mr. Kanter — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — We all set over here on the board? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. The motion was moved by Eva Hoffmann, and seconded by Larry Thayer. Chairperson Wilcox Bob, have you read the resolution? Mr. Nicholas — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — You don't have any issues with it in terms of consolidating this lot with yours within the timeframe. Very good. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -003: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Finch Two -Lot Subdivision, Coddinggton & Updike Roads, Tax Parcel No. 474=2 MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed Finch Two -Lot Subdivision, located on the corner of Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing Tax Parcel 47 -1 -2 into two lots of +/- .711 acres and +1- -3.086 acres. Herbert E. Finch, Owner; Robert A. Nicholas, Applicant/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 January 4, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 3, The Planning Board on January 4, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Subdivision Map ~ Lands of Herbert Finch, Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated September 1, 1983 and amended December 3, 2004, by Allan T. Fulkerson, L.L.S., and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision on the corner of Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -2, as shown on the survey map entitled "Subdivision Map ~ Lands of Herbert Finch, Coddington and Updike Roads, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" dated September 1, 1983 and amended December 3, 2004, by Allan T. Fulkerson, L.L.S., subject to the following conditions: a. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, including the name and seal of the registered land surveyor, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and be within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 3.086 + 1- acre subdivided parcel from 904 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -2, with the neighboring property at 107 Updike Road, Tax Parcel No. 47442, and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for the consolidation. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Kevin. NAYS: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a +/- 60 square foot illuminated wall sign on the front fagade of the Southern Tier Cap World building located at 630 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -3, Light Industrial Zone. Joseph & Jeanne Salino, Owners Scott Trelease, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — If you would, a brief overview of what the Salinos are proposing. Scott Trelease, 630 Elmira Rd Yes, I just want to place an existing sign that I own, which is approximately 60 square feet, on the face of the building and the building sits 147 feet away from the highway. Chairperson Wilcox — You own the building? Mr. Trelease - No, I do not. Chairperson Wilcox — You own the sign? Mr. Trelease = Yes. Chairperson Wilcox You own the sign presently? Okay and the sign is on the building Mr. Trelease — No. It is not. Basically I had the sign given to me a few years ago in anticipation of opening another location at some point and the sign fits in the space and I'm just a small businessman and a new sign would cost approximately between $3000 and $4000 and I'm just trying to save some money, in.a nut shell. Chairperson Wilcox — All right. You understand that this board its only purpose is to provide .a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Very good. Questions from members of the board? Eva? . Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I'm familiar with this building because I was there a couple of times under the previous owner and although you do see it from the road, it is back from the road a little bit and perhaps not so obvious, but since I understand there will be a sign by the road as well, I feel hesitant to allow signs that are bigger than what they are supposed to be. We keep having requests for bigger and bigger signs and I'm a little bothered by that. I wonder if you could describe how this sign will be lit. Mr. Trelease — It is lit with florescent lights, backlit. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I have the drawing, but it still isn't clear to me. Mr. Trelease — The sign is just lit with florescent tubes and then there is a panel that would go in front of it so it would be backlit, similar to hundreds of signs on Route 13 that the letters are there and then its backlit. I haven't purchased the panel to go into the sign yet, pending the approval of the Board of Zoning Appeals. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I see from the drawing how you imagine that it might look. What are the colors involved? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Mr. Trelease - It is a white background and blue letters, which matches the trim of the building and my company colors. Board Member Hoffmann - And the light would show through, both the white part and the blue part. Mr. Trelease - Actually the white part would be opaque... Board Member Hoffmann - But the white would still show through the white opaque part. Mr. Trelease - Yes. It would still show through. Board Member Hoffmann - And the letters would also be lit through, so to speak. Mr. Trelease - Yes. Board Member Hoffmann - I'm thinking of the P &C up at East Hill Plaza, which has very, big bright red letters that are lit from behind and they really stand out much more than I thought they would when we approved it and that's why I hesitate when I see this kind of thing. We have had a number of other cases where applicants have wanted bigger signs and we have most of the time resisted. Chairperson Wilcox - The building is setback, what 145 feet from the road? Mr. Trelease - Yeah. I measured it from the road. It is 147 and pertinent to my business, the zoning to get an occupancy permit, the Zoning Board of Appeals has allowed me just to put caps next to the building and trailers and not out next to the road. So I feel it is important to have not only to have the sign next to the road, but a sign on the building to let people know what I do since in my other locations I have truck caps and trailers out front. In this location I'm going to have to have them in the back. There is not going to be more display items for me in front of the building where people can see them from the road. There is only going to be six caps that are allowed and three trailers at any one given time and everything else will be screened from the road from behind. So that is why I would like to have a bigger sign to let people know what I do. I would be willing to not have it lit at 3 in the morning. In fact, I would already be putting a timer on it so I wouldn't be paying the electricity costs of having it lit probably past 11 o'clock in the evening. Chairperson Wilcox - Is it the old Salino Electric Motors building? Mr. Trelease - Yes. Board Member Hoffmann _ I must say that even though it is setback as far as it is as I said before, it is visible from the road any way as you drive by there in both directions. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 sympathize with your situation. I understand that you have this sign and you want to be able to use it, but at the same time, someone who didn't have a sign would perhaps feel that they were unfairly treated if they didn't get to use such a big sign just because they didn't have it and you do have the option of passing the sign on to someone else, selling it to maybe be able to buy one that is sized more appropriately. So its not as if you are stuck with it. Mr. Trelease - Most certainly I can get rid of the sign. I'm obviously just looking to save money that's all. Board Member Conneman - Backlighting would be no different than what the motel has there or.that used furniture place. Mr. Kanter - Which furniture place are you talking about? Board Member Conneman - You know the used furniture place across the road. Board Member Hoffmann - Oh, right. Mr. Kanter - I don't know. Mr. Smith - The motel would be similar. You can see in the picture on the top it shows the florescent tubes that are in there. Chairperson Wilcox - The issue is not the fact that it is backlit. Board Member Thayer - What is the size of the actual sign that is allowable? What could be the size of that? Maximum? Mr. Smith - 40 square feet. Board Member Thayer - Which is 5x8. Mr. Smith - The front of the building is about 40 feet long and the square footage is 40 square feet. Board Member Thayer - So this is 4 feet longer than the allowable size. Chairperson Wilcox - Or its 6x10 instead of 5x8. Board Member Thayer - Its real close and it sits way off the road so I don't have a problem. Board Member Hoffmann - I drew it in on the fagade here using measurements and I think it would be equally visible if it were., Jess height but the same width. It really fills up a lot of that space there.. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED'FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Chairperson Wilcox— Did someone want to make a comment over here? Mr. Barney? Attorney Barney I had just two fairly quick questions. Is the 5 -foot by 12 foot the exterior dimensions of the sign? Mr. Trelease — Yes. Attorney Barney — So we are now looking at a 61 or 62 square foot. Mr. Trelease — No. Its actually 59.5 inches by.. and it was just over 12 feet by a quarter of an inch, the exterior part of the sign. Attorney Barney — The other question I had is what kind of a sign do you have out on the post in front now? Mr. Trelease — I don't have anything currently. I do have a permit just to put a sign in the current existing sign that was out there. Just something that said Southern Tier Cap World. Attorney Barney — And how large is that? Mr. Trelease — 40 x 72 1 believe. Mr. Smith — That sign application was made for and given a permit for that. Attorney Barney — In terms of the need fora variance for a 60 square foot sign, I think you could seriously take into account the size of any other sign that gives essentially the same information. Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Board Member Talty — I think often when these particular proposals come in front of us, we are always looking at the dimension of the sign where sometimes maybe we are not looking as much at the luminescence of the sign. You brought that up with the P &C. Everybody knew how big the letters were going to be but not necessarily what the wattage of the bulbs were going to be. So these are 4 -foot bulbs, right? Mr. Trelease — Yes. Board Member Talty So I think what we need to do because I'm not quite sure I'm sure of the watt. I think that is what we need to look at. I don't really have a problem with the sign at all, but you don't want the maximum. wattage of bulbs in the back versus...but you are going to need something so they can see it. You have to have some sort of happy medium. I think that is more important in this particular application, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 but that is something that we would need to take a look at all the time in the future with regards to signs in genera. Board Member Conneman - It is also setback so far from the road, Kevin, which I think makes a whole lot of difference in this particular case. Board Member Hoffmann - Kevin, what kind of wattage would you propose? Board Member Talty = I don't know. I'm not quite sure the luminescence and feet. We have had people in here in the past with different light meters and things of that sort, but I think you have to take the total...l don't know if they go by watt or candle, but something that would still illuminate and get the affect across so the sign wouldn't be a waste of time, but at the same time it wouldn't be some shiny beacon, but at the same time would also help your electricity costs like you had mentioned earlier. I don't know to answer your question, but maybe some kind of happy medium. Board Member Hoffmann - But we would need to specify that in order for that to actually happen. Chairperson Wilcox - Well, remember, we are not making any determination about what actually happens. We can include in the recommendation that the Zoning Board look at minimizing the impact of the light omitted from the sign or something like that. We can certainly include that in our recommendation if we should forward a favorable recommendation. Board Member Thayer - If the sign face had a blackout of about 6 inches all the way around then if you just measured the actual letters it might be more ... in other words the sign itself, the face could be smaller than the sign. Chairperson Wilcox - Yes. You're right. Board Member Hoffmann - True. Board Member Thayer - Just blackout and measure that part of the sign. Board Member Conneman - So instead of being... Board Member Thayer - Instead of being 5x12 it could be 4x11 or something. Chairperson Wilcox - The Town has a way of measuring signs. Attorney Barney - The ordinance basically says you measure the inscribed area and the affiliated design that goes with it. It would be hard pressed to say that the sign is anything less than 60 square feet. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4; 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Board Member Hoffmann — But the affect of it would be smaller if one were to do that. I think that is an excellent idea to try to modify the effect of a lit up sign. Chairperson Wilcox — You are talking about doing what in terms of the area around the... Board Member Thayer — The lights, again, that is not going to change our proposal. Board Member Conneman — Mike, why does the resolution say 65 square feet? Mr. Smith — I believe just to make sure it covered the size of it in case the measuring was off. Chairperson Wilcox — In case it came in at 60 and a half. Attorney Barney — To add a comment, I'm looking now at the ordinance, the freestanding sign which is what we really have out front could be as much as 50 square feet on each side. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. Say that again. Attorney Barney —. The freestanding sign, the one on much as 50 square feet on each side where he is prol my math reasonably accurate about 20 square feet, what the ordinance would otherwise permit. So in say ... its your decision, but one could say he is taking a could put up in front and putting it up on the building. the post out front, could be as posing one where if 1 have done So that is somewhat less than affect he is taking...one could few square feet from the one he Chairperson Wilcox — You said 20 square feet versus 50? So he is roughly 30 feet less than what is permitted by right. Board Member Hoffmann — Would that, be a two -sided sign? Mr. Trelease — The sign next to the street is a two -sided sign. Board Member Hoffmann — That's what I mean. Chairperson Wilcox — If we have no more questions, I will ask you to take a seat. I need to give the public a chance to speak. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. and invited members to address the board. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:44 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. The motion was moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty. PLANNING. BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Chairperson Wilcox - Are there any changes that we want to propose or any additions that we want to propose? We had discussion about wattage and we had discussion about, in fact that discussion will be in the ... we can include it in our recommendation. That discussion would certainly be part of the minutes, which the Zoning Board generally has access to. Mr. Kanter -They could. Board Member Conneman - It seems to me you ought to put that in the resolution. Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah, I think so, too. Chairperson Wilcox - All right. Board Member Conneman - And let them make the decision on whether it is 40 watts or 60 watts or whatever. Board Member Howe - I don't want to come up with the language. I'm fine with including the language. The board discussed possible language and decided upon, "The Zoning Board of Appeals, in making its decision, consider possibly limiting the luminescence of proposed sign to minimize light emissions beyond the property that are not necessary for appropriate visual identification of the business." Board Member Hoffmann - I still like the idea of shrinking the edges in, in some way, by covering them up and making the effectiveness... Board Member Talty - Ultimately, you have to have a certain sized font for a sign to be readable from the road and if you do that you may alter the font of this sign. So I think if we lower the wattage to an acceptable rating, I don't think we would have to worry as much about the shading the exterior part of the panel. Board Member Hoffmann - But I'm not sure that this particular sign on the building has to say everything. I mean it could have just,the name of the business. It wouldn't have to include the very bottom line. That could be on the sign by the road, which has not yet been designed. Both signs don't have to say exactly the same thing. By eliminating some of the text on this sign, you can make the letters bigger. Mr. Walker - I just want to make a comment that might help. If you notice the whole front of the building below the eave line is glass and it looks like there is at least 6 or 8 florescent light fixtures on the left side of the building that are lit in this picture. I would assume there is going to be more light objecting from these windows than would be shining off this opaque or translucent light panel. Board Member Thayer - Because that is direct and this is behind an opaque panel. 1. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Mr. Walker — Really the only way to enforce any kind of visual impact is with some kind of foot candle measurement and if you want to say that it can't be more than half a foot candle at the road, I know it is not going to project anywhere near that kind of light out there, but its not like a spot light or a street light that is throwing light out. It's going to be glowing and the idea is that you want to be able to see it from the road, but you don't want to blind anybody. Chairperson Wilcox — I think what this board wants to do is make the Zoning Board of Appeals aware of our desire to limit its impact beyond what the purpose of a sign is, which is to inform people of a business that is there as they drive by. Board Member Hoffmann — I think you might agree that the P &C has the same situation. It has a lot of windows that emit light, but yet that triangular sign up on top, which is backlit as well as having the red letters really glows, much more than I like to see glowing quite frankly and I see it all the time since I live near it. I would hate to see this sign doing the same thing. I will vote against it because I don't like to permit signs that are larger than we have agreed they should be in our regulations. Board Member Conneman — The ZBA will have access to the minutes. That important for them to take a look at what Eva said and what else was said. Chairperson Wilcox - Any other discussion? Any other proposed changes to the resolution? The board voted on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -004: Recommendation to Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, Sign Variance — Southern Tier Cap World Inc, 630 Elmira Road, Sign Review Board (Planning Board) MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Tally. RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board, recommends and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for a sign variance for a wall sign on the front facade of the Southern Tier Cap World building, with an area of 60 +/- square feet, where wall signs in industrial districts have an area limit of one square foot per lineal foot of building frontage (40 +/- square feet for said building), be approved,, with the following conditions: a: The proposed sign shall not exceed 65 square feet in total sign area, as defined in the Town of Ithaca Sign Law, and b. The Zoning Board of Appeals, in making its decision, consider possibly limiting the luminescence of proposed sign to minimize light emissions beyond the property that are not necessary for appropriate visual identification of the business. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Kevin, NAYS: Hoffmann. The vote on the motion was carried. AGENDA ITEM: Discussion relating to the visual assessment for the proposed Linderman Creek Senior Apartments (Phase IV) project located off Conifer Drive, north of the existing Phase II and III Linderman Creek Apartments, Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Carol Oster, Conifer Realty We sent a letter to the Board December 21St and we are looking for some input regarding a planned balloon test scheduled for tomorrow morning weather permitting and the test is to assist Planning Board members in understanding the building...the proposed building. We have provided maps of where we think photographs of the balloon test should be taken from, neighboring properties and there are 7 locations. We looking for your feedback if you think, these locations are good ones and if you want to add any additional. Chairperson Wilcox — When we arrived this evening we had an email from Jon Meigs of the Environmental Review Committee. Have you seen that? Somebody was working on New Year's Eve, Mr. Kanter — Actually, I think his suggestions were probably pretty good ones. Board Member Hoffmann — I was going to bring up the same points. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. I will give you a chance to read it. Board Member Hoffmann — While she is reading that, I have forgotten what this proposal looked like, what the building looks like. We have seen several proposals for parcels around there. So I don't remember what this one Was supposed to look like. Do we have any drawings? Mr. Kanter — We do, but they are not actually submitted yet, but we have them. Basically I can describe it as three -story kind of linear shaped apartment building with a pitched roof and the reason where they would need a height variance is primarily because of the pitched roof. Conifer actually provided an alternate building elevation With a flat roof, which would not need any variances. So I think part of what the visual analysis hopefully is intended to do is to show a contrast between the two alternate building forms and what the impact on the surrounding areas of each of those would be, IVVVarG1:7- vvrnrvr.- ,_..- .... -.- _. - -- -• _ - -_. didn't get a chance to get up there, but from Elm Street looking up at it. Those are distance shots, which I think are different from what is being proposed. trying to look from what point of view it might be visible, but it has been so foggy its been impossible. But one of the places that I thought of is from Route 96 right near Longview where there is a pull off, a parking area. Mr. Kanter — Yes. 96B, Danby Road. Board Member Hoffmann —That's right photograph. Mr. Kanter — I was thinking the same thing. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 That would be a good spot to take a Board Member Hoffmann — But you are not going to see a thing until the fog lifts. The other place would be Route 13 coming from Pyramid going south along that road in different spots you might be able to see this development, but I don't know where exactly. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah as you are heading south as you are heading towards the Cayuga Heights Road exit, for example. Board Member Hoffmann —Well, even further south than that. Mr. Kanter — Probably where the bend starts really coming down the hill. Board Member Thayer — I don't know if you can see around that. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we are now up to 20 pictures to take. Ms. Oster — I brought a map and I'm going to try to locate all of these. I understand what you are saying. Once they're flown, get in the car and... Chairperson Wilcox — The interesting issue you have to deal with in the Town of Ithaca, unfortunately, not only the photos from near and around the site, but given we are the donut with the City in the hole and we are the hills, the visual impact of a structure such as this on one hill west hill, might be the impact could be significant miles away on another hill and that's just the way because of the hills and because of the nature of what the Town of Ithaca is surrounding the City. It makes it difficult sometimes and increases the number of pictures that might be necessary to address the visual impact. Board Member Hoffmann — I think I might suggest another location on Mecklenburg Road, too, in addition to the one, the spot near EcoVillage. Perhaps where West Haven Road joins Mecklenburg Road. That might be a spot where it could be... Mr. Kanter — I think they have number 5 somewhere in that vicinity,. Ms. Oster — Yes. And from the email it looks like he wants us to move it north and into the right =of -way. Chairperson Wilcox — Not out in the field, but where the cars and the people are. Board Member Hoffmann — Number 5 should be on the road rather than off the road. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Kevin. NAYS: Hoffmann. The vote on the motion was carried. AGENDA ITEM: Discussion relating to the visual assessment for the proposed Linderman Creek Senior Apartments (Phase IV) project located off Conifer Drive, north of the existing Phase II and III Linderman Creek Apartments, Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:52 p.m. Carol Oster, Conifer Realty We sent a letter to the Board December 21St and we are looking for some input regarding a planned balloon test scheduled for tomorrow morning weather permitting and the test is to assist Planning Board members in understanding the building ... the proposed building. We have provided maps of where we think photographs of the balloon test should be taken from, neighboring properties and there are 7 locations. We looking for your feedback if you think these locations are good ones and if you want to add any additional. Chairperson Wilcox — When we arrived this evening we had an email from Jon Meigs of the Environmental Review Committee. Have you seen that? Somebody was working on New Year's Eve, Mr. Kanter — Actually, I think his suggestions were probably pretty good ones. Board Member Hoffmann — I was going to bring up the same points. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. I will give you a chance to read it. Board Member Hoffmann — While she is reading that, I have forgotten what this proposal looked like, what the building looks like. We have seen several proposals for parcels around there. So I don't remember what this one was supposed to look like. Do we have any drawings? Mr. Kanter — We do, but they are not actually submitted yet, but we have them. Basically I can describe it as three -story kind of linear shaped apartment building with a pitched roof and the reason where they would need a height variance is primarily because of the pitched roof. Conifer actually provided an alternate building elevation with a flat roof, which would not need any variances. So I think part of what the visual analysis hopefully is intended to do is to show a contrast between the two alternate building forms and what the impact on the surrounding areas of each of those would be, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 presumably being with the intent of demonstrating that the pitched roof version would not be significantly any higher impact than the flat roof version. Chairperson Wilcox - Given the terrain, the topography, the location of the building. Board Member Hoffmann - Of course a lot of that depends on what color the roof would be and the.. would be too. Mr. Kanter - And that we with the materials submitted we still don't know what that would be yet. That is definitely something we'll need to find out. Chairperson Wilcox - When Conifer came before us with sketch plan, I don't know if you were here that evening, this board certainly expressed some concern about the proposed height of the building with the pitched roof. The result is this visual study that hopefully will happen tomorrow morning because if it doesn't then we are going to run right into a storm coming. Ms. Oster - We are hoping the balloons will be in place by 8 a.m. and they will be removed about 11 a.m. Board Member Hoffmann - Another thing that I would hope is that there is no wind. Ms. Oster - Right. Board Member Hoffmann - Because if there is ... we had a case on south hill, this was the Longview proposal, where they tried to do the balloon test and they went side ways like this and it was impossible to see the height. Mr. Kanter - Also I would think fog might be an issue. We have been having some fog lately. Chairperson Wilcox - For those of us up yesterday and this morning for quite a time. at the airport, we were fogged in all day Board Member Conneman - I'm not sure exactly they want to take, but I would suggest taking some locations looking back at Conifer. For example, from PRI, it seems to me that you ought to take a look at what this would look like from PRI. I will give you my diagram if you wanted it. The other thing, you ought to take a picture from... photograph from the Town Park because again we are interested in views of this thing. Board Member Hoffmann - The one on the lake, you mean. Board Member Conneman.- Yes, The Town Park that is on Route 34.. 1 also think that there should be a photograph from looking down Route 79 from says the Town line towards Conifer. And last of all, I know there is no reason to take this picture, but didn't get a chance to get up there, but from Elm Street looking up at it. Those are distance shots, which I think are different from what is being proposed. PLANNING. BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Mr. Kanter - Elm Street I don't think yod would see... Board Member Conneman - I don't think you would either, but the other three it seems to me that that would have a visual impact. If you don't know exactly where they are I will give you this diagram. Mr. Kanter - Coming east on Route 79 1 think Jon Meigs suggestion is to have at least one, maybe more than one location probably, I don't think he mentioned specifically, but somewhere near the EcoVillage entrance road. I actually drove up there today hoping to see more distance views from up there, but I couldn't because of the fog, but what I could tell was that from the EcoVillage entrance drive your kind of at the top of the crest of the hill where you can't really see the site, but as you go just 100 or 200 feet further down the hill you begin to open up the view. That is where I would suggest taking that shot from. Board Member Conneman - My point is it should be taken from up there at whatever level so that they can get a good picture. Board Member Hoffmann - Right. And one of the other points he made is that it should be taken from the road where people will see it rather than from a middle of a field where nobody is going to be to look at it. Board Member Conneman = We are interested in the view shed and what you can see from various areas of the Town. Chairperson Wilcox - Where people are. Board Member Conneman - Yeah. Not out in some field where no one is. Ms. Oster - Sure. Mr. Kanter - The other thing that I would suggest is that we might want or prefer flexibility in the area you take shots from because it may not be until you get the balloons flying that you really can tell where it is going to be most visible from and so the applicant should do some incognizance as the balloons are up and take shots from where you notice them. Board Member Hoffmann - Yes and I have also the last few days when I've beem..and trying to look from what point of view it might be visible, but it has been so foggy its been impossible. But one of the places that I thought of is from Route 96 right near Longview where there is a pull off, a parking area. Mr. Kanter - Yes. 96B, Danby Road. Board Member Hoffmann — That's right. photograph. Mr. Kanter — I was thinking the same thing. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 That would be a good spot to take a Board Member Hoffmann — But you are not going to see a thing until the fog lifts. The other place would be Route 13 coming from Pyramid going south along that road in different spots you might be able to see this development, but I .don't know where exactly. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah as you are heading south as you are heading towards the Cayuga Heights Road exit, for example. Board Member Hoffmann —Well, even further south than that. Mr. Kanter — Probably where the bend starts really coming down the hill. Board Member Thayer — I don't know if you can see around that. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we are now up to 20 pictures to take. Ms. Oster — I brought a map and I'm going to try to locate all of these. I understand what you are saying. Once they're flown, get in the car and... Chairperson Wilcox — The interesting issue you have to deal with in the Town of Ithaca, unfortunately, not only the photos from near and around the site, but given we are the donut with the City in the hole and we are the hills, the visual impact of a structure such as this on one hill west hill, might be the impact could be significant miles away on another hill and that's just the way because of the hills and because of the nature of what the Town of Ithaca is surrounding the City. It makes it difficult sometimes and increases the number of pictures that might be necessary to address the visual impact. Board Member Hoffmann — I think I might suggest another location on Mecklenburg Road, too, in addition to the one, the spot near EcoVillage. Perhaps where West Haven Road joins Mecklenburg Road. That might be a spot where it could be... Mr. Kanter — I think they have number 5 somewhere in that vicinity. Ms. Oster — Yes. And from the email it looks like he wants us to move it north and into the right =of -way. Chairperson Wilcox — Not out in the field, but where the cars and the people are. Board Member Hoffmann — Number 5 should be on the road rather than off the road. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Mr. Kanter — One thing I was going to mention to the board is with the distant views from say Route 13 or Route 96B that Eva mentioned, I agree we should look at them, but and you may see the balloons from those points, but the visual impact is not going to be a very large one from that distance with the three -story apartment building. I think the balloon flying will be helpful to demonstrate whatever the impact is. So I'm sort of prejudging it. Don't take that as the word, but this is basically a modest sized apartment building, not a radio tower or. telecommunications tower or that type of thing. I think the balloon flying and the photos will be helpful to me. The more important aspect is to really focus on the architectural and building impacts and the difference between the higher pitched -roof line and the flatter roofline that is within the zoning standard because that's really ultimately what the major decision the board will have to make. Chairperson Wilcox — Without see the plans or anything visual, it may come down to the architecture or aesthetics of a pitched roof and the architectural impact versus the increased visual impact given that the height of the building would be 8-10 -12 feet higher, whatever the number turns out to be. Mr. Kanter — So we have suggested that once the balloon be photographs demonstrating that that at least some of simulations of the building done that would really get character of the building. So again the distance views, you to see the difference between the two building types, but probably can some more. flying is done, and there will the photo points have photo more into that architectural 're really not going to be able the more close in views you Board Member Hoffmann - You know that depends a little bit on what happens east of the building. You can for instance see the hospital, the Cayuga Medical Center complex very well from the other side and if that building were stark white it would really stick out. The other building that was built, I think in the 70s was the one on west hill, I think it is off Elm Street that people popularly call the typewriter. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, the West Village Apartments. Board Member Hoffmann — The West Village Apartments. That really still today sticks out. So unless we know that there are going to be tall trees that hide part of the building from view from. the eastern side of the lake, it could still have a very big impact. It depends on what happens to the east of it and if its up on a height and then it slopes deeply down below it towards the east or what. So..: Mr. Kanter — And also you will have the ability to review a landscaping plan and possibly require additional, landscaping for mitigation if that is necessary. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else? Board Member Hoffmann — I just thought of another place where maybe a photo should be taken. I think Jon Meigs mentioned the potential park that is planned near there, but what about from Bundy Road, from... PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Board Member Thayer — You can't see it from there, I believe. Board Member Hoffmann — You can't see it from there at all ?. The trees are too tall? Board Member Thayer — It's around the corner so you wouldn't see it. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm trying to visualize it. Board Member Hoffmann — And you suggested already from Trumansburg Road from PRI. Board Member Conneman - Yeah, from PRI because PRI has a lot of sites with pretty good views there. Board Member Thayer — I don't think you could see it from there either. Board Member Conneman — I don't know. Chairperson Wilcox - If it shows we can't see it from there then we can't see it from there. Board Member Conneman — I'm not saying that you are going to see it from all of these places, just that you ought to take a picture. Ms. Oster — And what is PRI? Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, Paleontological Research Institute. Ms. Oster — I know where it is now. .Board Member Conneman — It might be that the hospital is a better site, but I think PRI is the better site. Chairperson Wilcox — The plan is to have the balloons up by 7:30 -8:00 a.m. and have them up for roughly, 3 hours and you or others driving around and taking pictures? Ms. Oster — Yes. Mr. Kanter — What we would propose, unless the board wants to do otherwise, I guess just for individuals to go out and go to spots that you think are important for you to view yourself. Chairperson Wilcox — I know I have been getting the emails. In fact I got one today in regards to this, and others on the board are on the list as well. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Board Member Hoffmann — What color will the balloons be? Ms. Oster — I don't know. They will be one color for the 36 -foot height and another color for the 43 -foot height, but I don't know the color. Mr. Walker — How big in diameter, are they? Ms. Oster — I think they are 5 -foot balloons. I'll let you know the color in the morning, in the email. Chairperson Wilcox — At least one person in the back wishes to make a statement or a comment, so I am going to let George do that. George Frantz, 604 Cliff Street My question is actually ... I have been working property, immediately west of Linderman Creek property. I heard about this, this afternoon, and taken from the Sky Gardens parcel. Board Member Thayer — Be our guest, with the owner of the Sky Gardens on a site plan for development of that my question is will there be any photos Board Member Hoffmann — That is probably the one that is .6 or 71 Mr. Kanter — Or pretty close, but 7 could probably be done a little bit further up the hill. Chairperson Wilcox — So we are pushing that direction, but we may not actually be on the property. I'm not sure. Seven is on the property shown as owned by the Eddy's. Mr. Frantz — Okay. Well, actually, then that is the Rancich property. He has since purchased it from Alfred Eddy, Chairperson Wilcox — Presumably he won't have a problem with us or someone being on his property. Mr. Frantz — I wasn't able to speak with Mr. Rancich today, but what I can do is certainly call him first thing in the morning to alert him to the fact that this is happening. Chairperson Wilcox — So you are all set, George? Mr. Frantz — We're set. Thank you very much. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Sir? Bob McIntyre, 408 Richard PI My question is basically two questions. You were talking about the view shed and how it can be seen from south hill and from east hill. I hold my hand out at arm's length, it PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 doesn't matter whether it is 36 or 42 feet high, but if I hold it next to my face it makes a big difference. How will this impact the immediate neighbors? You are talking about a variance increasing the height, which will certainly block out a large portion of the opposing hillsides. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me respond in two ways. One is the purpose of the pictures is to try to make the determination what the impact would be of that additional height. Second of all, there hasn't been much discussion about pictures close to the property because I don't think there is any disagreement about the ones that they proposed that are in the vicinity. Do you have the map in front of you that you proposed that shows photos 1, 2, 31 4? And I'll give you a second just to look at it. So there are a number of photos proposed in the neighborhood and we didn't talk about them much because they seem appropriate. Mr. McIntyre - Photos 14 appear to be taken from the downhill side and 5 -7 from the uphill side. I know there is a neighbor uphill on the west side. So on the west side I would worry about the view from the opposite side of the street. I believe there are a half a dozen houses over there. Ms. Oster — (comments not audible). Mr. McIntyre — I would request a couple of additional photos from the front yards of the neighboring properties. Board Member Hoffmann — Across on Route 79 you mean? Mr. McIntyre — On all sides. My second question is that it is my understanding that these proposed units are senior citizens' apartments? Chairperson Wilcox — She's nodding her head. We don't have anything in front of us yet. We saw a sketch plan a while ago about what they are proposing and the height was the immediate issue, but:.. Ms. Oster — (comments not audible) Mr. McIntyre — My question then becomes is this 100% senior or some mix and if so, how many small children will be in that area? Ms. Oster — One and two bedroom apartments proposed senior, 55 and older. We don't anticipate children, I mean there could be children living in the building, but its at least one family member is 55 and older. Chairperson Wilcox — Which certainly raises the potential for a grandchild and for that matter the occasional child. PLANNING. BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Mr. McIntyre — I raise the question just because I know the school district right now is concerned with the capacities of the existing elementary schools and the middle school feeder plans and are currently discussing that topic. Any proposed development in the Town should take into account the impact upon the school district as well. Chairperson Wilcox — I guarantee you we will I guarantee you we will when it comes before this board. School, traffic, traffic will be as big if not bigger, the impacts of traffic on west hill, visual, drainage, I mean we'll go through the whole list. Mr. McIntyre — Thank you very much. Board Member Hoffmann — I hope you will come back when we do hear more about the proposal. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? You got a zillion pictures to take. Board Member Talty — So the letter of the day is the more pictures the better. Board Member Thayer — Exactly. Mr. Kanter — If we left out any and you see some others that look like. they might be important than take them. Chairperson Wilcox — The one thing I would like to ask this board to try to avoid is when they eventually come back and say can you take one more picture. We can sit here and say I wish we had taken a picture there, but its difficult to ask them to go out and do it again. All set? Very good. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:17 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Discussion relating to scheduling a site visit to the proposed park site for the Ithaca Estates Phase III 13 -Lot Subdivision located off East King Road. Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:17 p.m. Paul Ballard, Interlaken am a site designer. I work with Thomas Associates during the day, but Mr. Monkemeyer has retained me to talk about the site visit here with you guys tonight and schedule that. Attorney Barney — Is Mr. Monkemeyer planning to be at that site visit? Mr. Ballard — Yes and he said he would make himself available any time that you wanted to meet. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Chairperson Wilcox - Let me ask the question, do we want to do this in the winter? A couple of reasons, one is obviously the weather, but that is not the important one. For those of us who took the walking tour of the proposed College Circle addition, remember how wet it was? It was and we did it in the spring and it was extremely wet. We have a neighbor of these properties whose name I have forgotten who has sent an email, which I read, which seemed with some detail to indicate the potential areas that are extremely wet on this property. Board Member Conneman - If it's frozen, you don't have to worry about it being wet. Chairperson Wilcox - But if its frozen, do we know where it is wet? Mr. Ballard - I was actually up there this afternoon and there are some wet areas. I wore a pair of boots, six inches high. Chairperson Wilcox - I want to go when it's wet. I want to know where the wet areas are. I'm sorry if I didn't come across, its not that I want to avoid going up there when there's mud, I want to know where there are potential drainage issues and where this property has either underground tiles or drains or whatever or issues with drainage that are a problem. I don't want to go out in the winter and say this looks like a great site for a park and then we find out in the spring that it's extremely wet. If we can do that successfully in the winter months, then I'm fine, but I'm concerned that maybe we can't. Mr. Kanter - We are certainly going to have some change in weather, it sounds like coming up with a possible snowstorm Wednesday night, Thursday. I was thinking of one possible date being Friday and the end of this week, but that might mean that there is snow on the ground and that makes it harder to see what conditions are like, but then by over the weekend it will be back in the 40s and its probably just going to be wet and muddy again. Next week might mimic spring conditions where you do see the wetter conditions of the year. I don't know. What do you think, Dan? Mr. Walker - Its wet today. Chairperson Wilcox - That's for sure. Mr. Kanter - The least we can do is at least try and see what happens. Chairperson Wilcox - And see if we can do it sometime next week. The board discussed possible dates and decided on a site visit for Saturday, January 8, 2005 at Noon. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:27 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2005 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 =005: Nomination and Election, Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2005 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by George Conneman RESOLVED, that the Town. of Ithaca Planning Board does hereby nominate and elect Eva Hoffmann as Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2005. FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the .Town Board The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The vote on the motion was carried. AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes: December 7, 2004 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 =006: Approval of Minutes — December 7, 2004 MOTION by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the December 7, 2004 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meetings as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Wilcox. The motion was declared to be carried. OTHER BUSINESS. Mr. Kanter informed the board that there was only one item scheduled for the January 18, 2005 Planning Board meeting, which was a small subdivision. The board decided to leave it up the Mr. Kanter to cancel the meeting 'if needed. The board discussed alternate Planning Board members and the possibility of having a detailed discussion at a meeting with a light agenda. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES JANUARY 4, 2005 APPROVED FEBRUARY 1, 2005 Mr. Kanter informed the board that the Town received from the City of Ithaca the plans and the Environmental Assessment for the Cornell University Life Sciences and Technology building, which is the site where the Game Farm Road athletic fields were located to make room for the building. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 =007: Permission to Cancel January 18, 2005 Planning Board Meeting MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby gives the Chair of the Planning. Board permission to cancel the January 18, 2005 meeting, upon consultation with the Director of Planning. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the January 4, 2005 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 8:34 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, January 4, 2005 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Finch 2 -Lot Subdivision, 904 Coddington Road. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the .proposed two -lot subdivision located at 904 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 47 -1 -2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes subdividing Tax Parcel 47 -1 -2 into two lots of +/- .711 acres (containing an existing residence) and +/ -3.086 acres (also having road frontage on Updike Road). Herbert E. Finch, Owner; Robert A. Nicholas, Applicant/Agent. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1-4.2, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves construction of a three level addition on the west side of the existing Inn which would include 19 new rooms, a spa, an elevator, and an exercise room. The proposal also includes additional parking and new landscaping. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant, 7 :20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign variance to allow a +/- 60 square foot illuminated wall sign on the front fagade of the Southern Tier Cap World building located at 630 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -3, Light Industrial Zone. Joseph & Jeanne Salino, Owner; Scott Trelease, Applicant. 7:30 P.M. Discussion relating to the visual assessment for the proposed Linderman Creek Senior Apartments (Phase IV) project located off Conifer Drive, north of the existing Phase II and III Linderman Creek Apartments. 7:45 P.M. Discussion relating to scheduling a site visit to the proposed park site for the Ithaca Estates Phase III 13 -Lot Subdivision located off East King Road, 8. Consideration of Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2005. 9. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 10. Approval of Minutes: December 7, 2004, 11. Other Business: 12, Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4). members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, January 4, 2005 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, January 4, 2005, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 904 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -2, Low Density Residential Zone.. The proposal includes subdividing Tax Parcel 47 -1 -2 into two lots of +/ -.711 acres (containing an existing residence) and +/ -3.086 acres (also having road frontage on Updike Road). Herbert E. Finch, Owner; Robert A. Nicholas, Applicant/Agent. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.2, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves construction of a three level addition on the west side of the existing Inn which would include 19 new rooms, a spa, an elevator, and an exercise room. The proposal also includes additional parking and new landscaping. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant. 7:20 P.M. Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a. sign variance to allow a +/- 60 square foot illuminated wall sign on the front fagade of the Southern Tier Cap World building located at 630 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33 -3 -3, Light Industrial Zone. Joseph & Jeanne Salino, Owner; Scott Trelease, Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not.less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, December 27, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 i TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE January 4, 2005 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME W PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION Ka �'YZT A. N i C to o L-A S A 3 sue. AK�1, TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, January 4, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: December 27, 2004 December 29, 2004 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of December 2004. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 0ln