HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-04-19FILE
DATE
TOWN OF. ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2005
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, April 19, 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; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member;
Kevin Jones, Attorney; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering (7:14 p.m.); Susan Ritter,
Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra,
Planner; Nicole Tedesco, Planning Intern.
EXCUSED: Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter,
Director of Planning.
OTHERS: Jean McPheeters, Chamber of Commerce; Noel Desch, Chamber of.
Commerce; Heather Weber, Chamber of Commerce; Phillip Albrecht, Egner
Architectural; Carol Stewart, 18 Penny Ln; Anne Morrissette, Coddington Road
Community Center; Carol Bayles, Coddington Road Community Center; Laurene
Gilbert, Cornell University; Steve Mohlke, Friends Meeting; Mary Tierney, Friends
Meeting; Tom, Berta, and Emma Clausen, 1421 Slaterville Rd; Thomas and Ellen Bonn,
110 Penny Ln; Ernie Bayles, 209 Utica St; Wally Wiggins, 961 Taughannock Blvd; Dick
Craypo, Mount Pleasant Rd; Jim Madden, 106 Penny Ln; Paul ?, 89 Penny Ln.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:01 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 April 11, 2005 and April 12, 2005,
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 April 12, 2005,
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.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chairperson Wilcox — We have Kevin Jones sitting in of Barney, Grossman, Dubow and
Marcus, the newest member of the law firm. Welcome, Kevin. Kevin is not unfamiliar
with what we do. He was a member of the team that worked on defending us in the
Overlook at West Hill lawsuit.
Board Member Mitrano — That's done now, right?
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox— As far as I know. So Kevin is familiar with us. He has seen piles
and piles of paperwork.
Attorney Jones — It's a pleasure to be here.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:02 p.m., and asked if any
members of the public wished to speak. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson
Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:03 p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: SEOR Determination: Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce
Addition, 904 E. Shore Dr
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:04 p.m.
Jean McPheeters, Chamber of Commerce, 904 East Shore Drive
Good evening. I'm Jean McPheeters. I'm President of the Tompkins County Chamber
of Commerce located at 904 East Shore Drive in the Town of Ithaca. for your
consideration tonight, you will be looking at the SEQR determination and.the preliminary
and final site plan approval for the Chamber addition and renovation. You had already
determined that we only needed to do the short form environmental assessment, which
we have completed and we have sent in all of the appropriate forms and pieces of
paper, I hope. I think we have answered all your questions and I don't think there are
any particular objections that I have come across so we think that essentially this should .
not cause any new traffic that we have taken care of, in or plans, rain water runoff and I
think that we have answered the questions that we were asked by. the Planning
Department.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions with regard to the environmental review?
BoardMember Mitrano — No.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well I was looking at the short EAF and I was wondering
whether under point number 10 one. shouldn't include under other the. railroad, Conrail
Railroad, which is right adjacent. And also I wasn't sure if Stewart Park is adjacent to
this piece of land or not.
Ms. McPheeters — It isn't actually adjacent because the railroad owns the property
between us and the park
Board Member Hoffmann. — Okay so the land one sees on this map here to the
northwest of the railroad, that doesn't belong to Stewart Park then? That's pretty
adjacent.
Ms. McPheeters — That is actually the Greater Ithaca Activities Center on this side of the
railroad as far as I understand.
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — I thought that was south of your property, isn't it?
Ms. McPheeters — This piece of property?
Board Member Hoffmann — Fred, do you know?
Ms. McPheeters — Stewart Park is on the other side of the railroad
Chairperson Wilcox — But on the other hand, the question asks what is in the vicinity not
what's neighboring so I think...) would add park, forest and open space as a use in the
vicinity.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think I would like to add the Conrail, too. .
Ms. McPheeters — Its actually Norfolk Southern now.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think it said Conrail on the map.
Ms. McPheeters — It probably does, but it's changed to Norfolk Southern. .I would be
happy to add those.
Chairperson Wilcox — We'll add them. Anything else at this point?
Board Member Hoffmann — No. I think that is it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Dan is not here yet.
Board Member Hoffmann — Actually, I did have another question while we are waiting.
It says in part two of the environmental assessment, which was prepared by Town staff,
that this and I guess the information came from you, that this addition is not anticipated
to mean that an addition of employees will be added, maybe one over the next two
years.
Ms. McPheeters Right.
Board Member Hoffmann — And that currently there are nine full time and three part
time employees.
Ms. McPheeters — Right. We do intend to go to ten full time employees.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, so I guess I was wondering why you would want to
have it increased from 10 to 20 if there is no anticipation of that many more employees.
Ms. McPheeters — The only reason that we want to go to 20 is we have butted up
against the 10 limit right now in the summer times when we occasionally have people in
M
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
like students, interns from the colleges and so sometimes during the summer we will
have three interns in working and I have sorted juggled things to try to not go over the
ten number. I don't anticipate us going to 20 and we could certainly deal with that,
however, if we were ever in a situation where for instance we lost the contract with the
County to run the Convention and Visitor's Bureau, what we would clearly do with the
downstairs is to try to make it into space that would not need as much public space in it
and our... according to the SLUD that we are operating under now we would need to
rent to a non - for - profit organization and we would need to have the additional spaces in
order to be able to rent to anybody. So that's really the only reason.
Board Member Hoffmann — In such a. case you might have more than ten employees,
too, is what you are saying..
Ms. McPheeters — Exactly, but we wouldn't have the visitors.
Chairperson Wilcox — Sue, are you sitting in for Jon on this one?
Ms. Ritter — He wrote up the material. I'm somewhat familiar with the addition.
Chairperson Wilcox— Any comments?
Ms. Ritter — I don't have anything additional to say.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Mitrano moved the motion, and Board Member Conneman seconded
the motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -034: SEOR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval,
Chamber of Commerce. Addition and Renovation, 904 East Shore Drive, Tax
Parcel No. 18 =2 -10
MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Conneman.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed addition and renovations at the Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce located at 904 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18 -2
10, Planned Development Zone (PDZ) No. 5. The proposal includes a two -story,
+/- 2,000 square foot addition on the north side of. the existing building for new
bathrooms, office space, storage, and meeting space. The proposal also
includes a request to amend the Special Land Use District (PDZ) No. 5 to
increase the number of persons employed in the building at any one time from 10
to 20, which requires a recommendation by the Planning Board to the Town
n
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Board. Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, Owner; Jean McPheeters,
President, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on April 19, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and
Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, a cover letter from the Tompkins County
Chamber of Commerce with a description of the project, a parking study (June
16- August 29, 2003), a set of drawings, entitled Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce Addition and Renovations, Site Plan (C -011, dated 3125105), Partial
Site Plan Downspouts and Lighting (enlargement of C -011, dated 3125105), Floor
Plans (A 101 and A 102, dated 1/13105), and Elevations (A200, dated 1/18105), all
prepared by . Egner Architectural Associates, LLC, 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 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.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Tally.
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for
the proposed addition and renovations at the Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce located at 904 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18 -2-
10, Planned Development Zone No. 5. The, proposal includes a two- story, +/-
2,000 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building for new
bathrooms, office space, storage, and meeting space. The proposal also includes
a request to amend the Special Land Use District No. 5 to increase the number of
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
persons employed in the building at any one time from 10 to 20, which requires a
recommendation by the Planning Board to the Town Board, Tompkins County
Chamber of Commerce, Owner; Jean McPheeters, President,. Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions about the site plan? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — I just have one question about the light fixture. It's unclear
to me which one it is you are going to be using or are you using Might 12 type I and type
II?
Phillip Albrecht, Egner Architectural
The lamp type I is a wall mounted one that will be at the southern most door of the
building.
Board Member Hoffmann - Is that the main entrance?
Mr. Albrecht — No. The main entrance is a canopy. Type II will be ceiling mounted
underneath a canopy and that will be at the main entrance. It won't be wall mounted; it
will be ceiling mounted. So it will be shining down.
Board Member Hoffmann — That makes me feel much better.
Mr. Albrecht— Where type I you will see definitely pointing straight. down.
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, I see. This is what the wall mount looks like straight on.
I was hoping there would be a photograph because it is a little hard to imagine how you
would see the light source.
Mr. Albrecht — The whole, point is just to shoot down right over the doorway, minimize
the amount of any light.
Board Member Hoffmann — So there won't be any glare. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Albrecht — Your welcome
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. and invited members of the,
public to address the board. With no persons wishing to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox
closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board
Chairperson Wilcox - Jean, have you seen the draft resolution? It simply asks for a few
additional details.
Ms. McPheeters - I have
Chairperson Wilcox — No issues? No problems? Okay.
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Ms. McPheeters _ So after this I will come back to the board?
Chairperson Wilcox — If we should pass the resolution as drafted possibly with some
small changes, then you won't have to come back to this board. We would grant the
Director of Planning essentially the right to review and approve those additional
submittals that we have asked for. All set over here on the staff side? Any other
questions. or discussions?
Board Member Talty — Just a comment. I love this parking study, by the way, versus all
the other parking studies that we have that come in front of this board. If we could
emulate this all the time, this would be wonderful.
Ms. McPheeters — Thank you. I invented that parking study.
Board Member Talty — Outstanding. Way to go, Jean.
Board Member Conneman - Do you have a license to do that?
[laughter]
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the motion as drafted?
Board Member Talty moved the motion and Board Member Hoffmann seconded it.
PB Resolution No. 2005 -035: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Recommendation . Reparding Proposed Zoning Amendment, Chamber of
Commerce Addition and Renovation, 904 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 18 =2 -10
MOTION made by Board Member Tally, seconded by Board Member Hoffmann.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and
proposed addition and renovations at the
Commerce located at 904 East Shore Drive, Toy
10, Planned Development Zone (PDZ) No. 5. T
+/- 2,000 square foot addition on the north side
bathrooms, office space, storage, and meeti
includes a request to amend the Special Lai
Final Site Plan Approval for the
^ompkins County Chamber of
Fn of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-2 -
ie proposal includes a two -story,
of the existing building for new
ig space. The proposal also
d Use District (PDZ) No. 5 to
increase the number of persons employed in the building at any one time trom 10
to 20, which requires a recommendation by the Planning Board to the Town
Board. Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, Owner; Jean McPheeters,
President, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval has, on
i7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
April 19, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 19, 2005, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, a cover letter from the Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce with a description of the project, a parking study (June 16- August 29,
2003), a set of drawings, entitled Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce
Addition and Renovations, Site Plan (C -011, dated 3125105), Partial Site Plan
Downspouts and Lighting (enlargement of C -011, dated 3125105), Floor Plans
(A101 and A102, dated 1113105), and Elevations (A200, dated 1118105), all
prepared by Egner Architectural Associates, LLC, and other application
materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
is That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site. Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor. the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
24 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed Chamber , of Commerce Addition and
Renovations, located at 904 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18-
240, as shown on the set of drawings, entitled Tompkins County Chamber of
Commerce Addition and Renovations, Site Plan (C -011, dated 3125105), Partial
Site Plan Downspouts and Lighting (enlargement of C -011, dated 3125105), Floor
Plans (A 101 and A 102, dated 1113105), and Elevations (A200, dated 1118105), all
prepared by Egner Architectural Associates, LLC, and other application
materials, subject to the following conditions, prior to issuance of any building
permit, unless otherwise noted:
a. Revision of the Site Plan (C -011) to include the appropriate survey data of
the boundary lines of the parcel, giving property metes and bounds to the
nearest 1 110th foot, angles to the nearest minute, and at least one bearing,
and the name and seal of the licensed architect, engineer or surveyor who
prepared the topographic and boundary survey, and
b. Revision of the Site Plan (C -011) to show the location of any existing or
proposed fire or other emergency zones, the location of any fire hydrants
on or accessible to the site, and the location, type and dimensions of any
existing or proposed utility, drainage, or similar easements within,
abutting, or in the immediate vicinity of the site, and
n
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
c. Revision of all of the site plan drawings to include border lines bounding
each sheet, as required in the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, and
d. Revision of the Site Plan (C -011) to include the names and addresses of
all property owners of all parcels abutting the site or within 500 feet of the
perimeter boundary of the site, together with tax parcel numbers for. all
such owners, and
e. Submission of one original set of the revised final site plan drawings on
mylar, vellum or paper, . signed and sealed by the registered land
surveyor(s), engineer(s), architect(s) or landscape architect(s) who
prepared the site plan materials, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, and
f. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all
necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies, or
documentation that no such approvals. are required,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town
Board enact the proposed local law to amend the Planned Development Zone
No. 5 (Section 271- 7(F)(2) of the Town of Ithaca Code) to increase the number of
persons permitted to be employed in the building at any one time from 10 to 20,
determining that:
a. There is a need for the proposed zoning amendment to increase the
number of persons permitted to be employed in the building at any one
time to accommodate future growth in the operations of the Chamber of
Commerce and Visitors Bureau, and
b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected by the proposed zoning amendment, and
C, The proposed zoning amendment is in accordance with a comprehensive
plan of development of the. Town.
A vote on the motion resulted as. follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano,. Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Coddington Road Community Center
Pavilion, 920 Coddington Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:16 p.m.
Anne Morrissette, Coddington Road Community Center
I. am the Director of the Coddington Road Community Center. I reside at 1058.
Coddington Road. The center is located at 920 Coddington Road. We are proposing
another pavilion to be built for our summer camp activities and it's slightly larger than
the existing one, which is 8 =9 years old.
Ernie Bayles, 209 Utica Street
Basically the proposal is for a wood frame structure. Generally open, although there's
an area probably a fifth of the footprint of the area, which will be enclosed for storage of
camp equipment, tools and whatever else. The proposal will be to simply build
freestanding pavilion. When the funds are available, we do hope to extend electricity to
the site, but that is just generally to be able to run a small refrigerator and video
machine on really bad days. There is no intention to use this thing at night or anything
else.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions?
Board Member Hoffmann — I just need to state for the record that I have two
grandchildren that attend the preschool program I
up at the Coddington Road Community
Center, but I think I can probably still participate in an impartial way.
Chairperson Wilcox - I have one question. Why did you choose to put the new pavilion
where it is proposed to be located?
Ms. Morrissette — Well, we had a little help from your.parks department actually, who
know our site very well and came out in the depth of winter, tromped through 2 feet of
snow. It was a good opportunity to see without the vegetation and they pointed out to
me where we had originally located it would mean cutting down some of the nicer trees.
We had thought we would locate it right on the edge of the ball field so it would be kind
of open out to the ball field and minimize the need the pathways and so forth. But it
really would destroy that hedgerow and, which is kind of a nice feature of the landscape
right now. So by putting it back, we moved back to where it was scrubbier and there
was nothing but a few locus trees that would have to be removed and program wise it
should still not be an issue. It's area that we are familiar with. The kids already have
trails up in there. As a matter of fact, that's probably the biggest drawback, is that we
will have to destroy a few little special trails and create new ones. We think that it will
add to the ambiance of camp and make it woodsy. Plus, it will keep that nice hedgerow
along the ball field.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, my simple mind said, would you just put it over next to the
other one.
10
Ms. Morrissette — No, actually in terms of
pavilions for different age groups and some
gotten fairly large since we built the first one,
organizing the kids to have some separation.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
programming, we will be using the two
separation is beneficial. Our camp has
It really helps in terms of distractions and
Board Member Mitrano — What ages do you take, Anne, during the summer?
Ms. Morrissette — Entering kindergarten on up. Sixteen they are officially not campers
any more. Then we have a counselor in training program for the preteens and then they
start applying for jobs. So they are really there for indefinitely. Actually, a couple of our
college students who work there went to preschool there.
Board Member Mitrano — That says a lot of positive things about you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to the environmental review?
Board Member Talty = I think Nicole did a very good job putting this together. On
lighting, there was indication that you are not sure what type of lighting you are putting
up right now. Is it incandescent or going to be florescent?
Mr. Bayles — The lighting that we currently have in the pavilion, which I think is
appropriate unless you tell me different is there are six probably 100 incandescent
ceiling mounted fixtures in that and I don't see that we really need anything more than
that. So there is some mention of exterior lighting, no. There is no security lighting.
There is no grounds light. Although the existing pavilion is used occasionally after dark
and the lights are useful, that use is probably not going to extend out further into the
woods, not at least in the foreseeable future.
Ms. Morrissette — We only times it is used after dark currently would be for an event that
started in the daylight and wound up in the evening. So we would use the main
pavilion, which is not far from the main building and the building has lighting that shines
out towards that pavilion so it is well lit. Yes, I agree, I guess it hasn't been discussed
but we had no intentions of using this one for evening events.
Board Member Hoffmann = The kind of lighting you have on the building that you say
shines. out towards the pavilion, are those spotlights?
Ms. Morrissette — Well, the building has security light and then the back yard, which
goes up towards the current pavilion has two big floodlights that on the peak. .,they are
in the peak of the roof of the new addition so that they shine up and illuminate the
blacktop. We only use those if we are there. The other lights on the building come on
automatically. They are on a timer.
Board Member Hoffmann = Well, we are a little bit concerned about spot lights and flood
lights because although they may work well if you walk from the building to the pavilion
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
when you have them in the back of you, if you go back towards them in the dark they
may blind you more than help you see.
Mr. Bayles — There is no proposal for any kind of flood lighting or exterior lighting on this
building. This will all be essentially interior except since there are no walls they are
somewhat exterior.
Board Member Hoffmann - I wouldn't have any problem if you were to put up exterior
lighting. It just has to be the right kind of lighting, which doesn't blind you. It actually
helps you see the ground where you are walking.
Board Member Talty - Incandescent, if you could recess them into the peak even
though it is just going to be. it's going to be open peak, right?
Mr. Bayles — Its open peak.
Board Member Talty So if the lighting could just be slightly recessed.
Mr. Bayles — I think if you go and look at what is there, which is really I think what will be
done, its very casual because the overhang of the roof comes down below the ceiling
line just because of the nature of construction. The cutoff is very good. It kind of
creates a glow around the building like a front porch. And because it is going to behind
a kind of wooded area anyway, I think that any light would be quite reduced and less
than a typical residence.
Board Member Hoffmann - I'm still a little worried about the spotlights or the floodlights
from the main building.
Ms. Morrissette — Maybe I was confusing. They don't relate to this. They are existing.
They are on the daycare center building.
Mr. Bayles — They are already there.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, but if they point out towards the new pavilion...
Ms. Morrissette — No. They point to the old one. Maybe that is where 1 misspoke and
will take that into consideration. I didn't really...) wasn't aware of that.
Mr. Bayles — The new pavilion is so far away that it is not going to receive any benefit
from lighting from any of the adjacent buildings. at all. I I
.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any further discussion? Questions?
Board Member Hoffmann - One little thing and that is on the...the Environmental
Review Committee did make some comments and on page 2 of the short EAF, there is
a spot to indicate that comments have been received and are attached.
12
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 1% 2005
APPROVED
Ms. Tedesco – Yes. That is in section a of part II of the environmental assessment and
there should be a check mark next to the line CB. The comments from the
Conservation Board were simply that they had no comments and that they saw no
problems with the proposed action.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions about the environmental assessment?
Board Member Talty moved the motion and Board Member Conneman seconded it.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -036: SEOR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval,
Coddington Road Community Center Pavilion, 920 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel
No. 47.441.3
MOTION made by Board Member Tally, seconded by Board Member Conneman.
WHEREAS.
1: This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed pavilion at the Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47. -1 -11.3, Low - Density Residential Zone.
This action proposes the construction of a +/= 11200 ftz open pavilion in the
southern corner of the parcel to provide additional protected outdoor space for
summer camp programs at the Center. Coddington Road Community Center,
Inc., Owner; Anne Morrissette, Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Site. Plan Approval, and.
3. The Planning Board, on April 19, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and
a Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, a plat entitled "Survey Map Showing
Lands of Coddington Road Community Center, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins
County, New York," prepared by Allen Fulkerson, dated February 15, 2002, and
revised March 24, 2005 to show the site plan for the new pavilion, and plans
including sheets numbered one and two, entitled, "CRCC Youth Pavilion —Final
Plans," prepared by Ernie Bayles on July 2, 1996, and revised on March 24,
2005, and other application materials, and
49 The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance. in accordance with the New York State Environmental
13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Tally.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:27 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for
the proposed construction of a pavilion at .the Coddington Road Community
Center located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47mal A 1.3,
Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed pavilion (approximately 24' x 50')
will be located to the west of the ball field and will be used for summer camp
programs. Coddington Road Community Center, Inc. Owner /Applicant; Anne
Morrissette, Director, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. and invited members of the
public to address the board. With no persons wishing to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox
closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the board.
Board Member Mitrano moved the resolution and Board Member Talty seconded it.
Ms. Tedesco — The resolution has some conditions, but I would like to point out that the
Town is working with the Coddington Road Community Center on a lot of the site plans
and so on.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think there might be a word missing in the last paragraph d
on the second page of the resolution. Submission for review and approval by the Town
Attorney. I think it should be of a revision or something like that.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -037: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval,
Coddington Road Community Center Pavilion, 920 Coddington Road, Tax Parcel
No. 47. =1 -11.3
MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed pavilion at the Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47. -1 -11.3, Low - Density Residential Zone.
iL!
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
This action proposes the construction of a +/= 1,200 ftz open pavilion in the
southern corner of the parcel to provide additional protected outdoor space for
summer camp programs at the Center. Coddington Road Community Center,
Inc., Owner; Anne Morrissette, Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on
April 19, 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 a Part II prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 19, 2005, has reviewed
and accepted a plat entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands of Coddington Road
Community Center, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by
Allen Fulkerson, dated February 15, 2002, and revised March 24, 2005 to show
the site plan for the new pavilion,: and plans including sheets numbered one and
two, entitled, "CRCC Youth Pavilion —Final Plans, ". prepared by Ernie Bayles on
July 2, 1996, and revised .on March 24, 2005, 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 Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
26 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a +/= 1,200 ft2 open outdoor
pavilion as shown on the plat entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands of Coddington
Road Community Center, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York,"
prepared by Allen Fulkerson, dated February 15, 2002, and revised March 24,
2005 to show the site plan for the new pavilion, and plans including sheets
numbered one and two, entitled, "CRCC Youth Pavilion —Final Plans," prepared
by Ernie Bayles on July 2, 1996, and revised on March 24, 2005, subject to the
following conditions to be met prior to the issuance of a building permit, unless
otherwise noted:
a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper to
be retained by the Town of Ithaca; 1.
bo submission for review and approval by the Director of Engineering of the
Town of Ithaca the details of the grading, drainage, and sedimentation and
15
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
erosion control measures for the site, as well as plans specifying the
amount and nature of vegetation to be removed from the site;
ca submission for review and approval by the Director of Planning of the
Town of Ithaca the details of the location of access and/or paths to the
pavilion, any planting and/or revegetation plans, and submission of lighting .
details;
d. submission for review and approval by the Town attorney of a revision of
the existing easement and/or any other applicable agreements between
the Town of Ithaca and the Coddington Road Community Center to
.include the public use of the new pavilion, prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Tally.
NAYS: None,
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: La Tourelle Country Inn Tower Connection,
1150 Danby Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Wally Wiggins, 961 Taughannock Blvd
I appreciate your indulgence in letting us come back from time to time. We are on a fast
track, which means sometimes the plans are being developed and handed to the
contractor who is waiting for them so he knows where to put the next board. We didn't
have time to present this part of the project, before we were trying to get into the ground
before frost. So we have come back to you to ask you to look at this and hope that you
will see that it is reasonable. It is designed for the accommodation of the guests at the
hotel and is not a major facility, but to provide a decent convenience for them for
breakfast, lunch and a light dinner because we have a restaurant there to accommodate
the serious dinners. It has, I think, five, possibly six stools at the bar and two chairs in
front of the fireplace, which will open into the existing fireplace in the lobby. I think one
possibly two tables for two in the lobby. The restaurant, usually you figure 15 square
feet per seat so I think we are going to be limited to about 20 seats in the restaurant or
cafe portion of the project/facility. I think that is the essence of the description.
Board Member Mitrano - Is the 15 square feet for just the seating area or does that take
in the kitchen area?
IN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Wiggins — Depending on the kind of seating that you have, if it's in a restaurant you
have 15 square feet per person in the restaurant. That includes the space behind the
chair, the table, and the other chair, so forth. If you have seating like in a theatre then
its 10 square feet.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think it's a good idea to fill in that space between the tower
and the main building and create something usable out of it.
Mr. Wiggins — I hope you will find it appropriate and pleasant when you come to visit us
at some point.
Board Member Hoffmann = Just one more thing, again on the EAF, on point 10 on the
first page, the present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project only commercial is
marked off, but I think there is also residential and the Buttermilk Falls State Park. So I
think one should mark off park, forest, open space as well and residential.
Chairperson Wilcox - Your property actually borders state land, right?
Mr. Wiggins — No. This...there are 70 acres here. This property was zoned 20 years
ago on a 20 -acre piece in the center of the 70 acres. I will be coming back to the board
the next time it is appropriate to ask for a subdivision. That is to say, dividing this
project from the balance of the land. The balance of the land has now been sold to my
son -in -law and his wife, my daughter, and actually there is a subdivision off to the south
here that was approved some number of years ago. We are going to withdraw that and
not go forward with the subdivision. So it will just revert to residential all around this
project. So it is surrounded by land owned by family.
Chairperson Wilcox - But the State parkland is certainly in the vicinity.
Mr. Wiggins — The State parkland surrounds.that 70 acres.
Board Member Hoffmann - Are you all agreeable to marking off the two additional ones
that I mentioned? I don't know if there is any agricultural land nearby, but I don't think
so.
Chairperson Wilcox - Does La Tourelle have its own liquor license or does it share the
liquor license with the restaurant?
Mr. Wiggins — It has its own liquor license.
Chairperson Wilcox - And you don't advertise for people to come to La Tourelle and
drink?
Mr. Wiggins — We do not.
17
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - So its there for the purpose of people staying. Is there a kitchen
in La Tourelle?
Mr. Wiggins — There is a kitchen where food is prepared generally. If it is a big banquet
it is usually prepared some other way. We proposed to have it in the facility. We will be
able to prepare food in that kitchen, but up to this point we haven't done that.
Chairperson Wilcox - So small items might be prepared in the kitchen, but larger things
will be in the restaurant. Dan, any comments with regard to drainage?
Mr. Walker - No. It's a small area of disturbance. Its basically been disturbed. already.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think the footprint is something like 800 square feet or
something like that.
Mr. Walker - The sidewalk and roof before pretty much (inaudible).
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions with regard to the environmental review?
There being none, would someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Conneman moved the motion and Chairperson Wilcox seconded it._
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -038: SEAR. Preliminary &Final Site Plan Approval,
LaTourelle — Tower Connection & Cafe Addition, 1150 Danby Road, Tax Parcel
No. 36 -1 -4.2
MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed +/-
1,479 square foot, three level addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn located at
1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 14.2, Planned
Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves construction of an addition on
the south side of the existing Inn between the Inn building and the tower suite
building, including a storage room on the ground floor level ( +/- 384 sq. ft.), a
cafe, lounge and bar on the first floor ( +/- 800 sq. ft), and a hallway connection to
the tower room on the second floor ( +A 295 sq. ft.). Walter J. Wiggins,
Owner /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on April 19, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and
ffeeli
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, plans titled "Site Plan" (SP -1), "Floor
Plan" (A -1 and A -2), "Section / Elevation" (A -3), dated 03- 07 -05, prepared by The
Crissey Architectural Group, and other 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 Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann,
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Conneman, Mitrano, Tally.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for
the proposed +/ -1,479 square foot, three level addition to the La Tourelle Country
Inn located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 14.2, Planned
Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves construction of an addition on
the south side of the existing Inn between the Inn building and the tower suite
building, including a storage room on the ground floor level ( +/= 384 squ ft.), a
cafe, lounge and bar on the first floor ( +/= 800 sq. ft.), and a hallway connection to
the tower room on the second floor ( +/= 295 sq. ft.). Walter J. Wiggins,
Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. and invited members of the
public to address the board. With no persons wishing to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox
closed the public hearing at 7:40 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board.
Chairperson Wilcox - Michael, you have some information that you want to provide.
Mr. Smith - I have an extra map here for you dealing with a condition that we wanted to
add to the resolution. The map really doesn't have anything to do with this proposal
tonight, but to be able to understand the condition a little bit better, I wanted to pass
these maps out that I got from Wally this afternoon. The condition .when we originally
approved the spa and the room addition, we didn't include any operation or
maintenance agreements or any recording to deal with the stormwater facilities like we
19
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
had with some of the other projects in the past like the Cayuga Medical Center and
those types of things. So originally we were looking to add a condition to the approval
tonight to ask for an operation maintenance agreement along with a recording
agreement that deals with stormwater, but since talking with Wally he may be coming
back with some modification, which show up on this new plan that was just passed out
to you and the majority of modifications deal with the storm water facilities. So this will
give you an idea of what he may be coming back with. Staff really hasn't looked at it
and we haven't gotten a lot detail, but we just wanted to show you the quick plan to
show that something most likely will be coming back with modifications. So the
condition we are suggesting tonight is asking for an operation and maintenance plan
that references the old design and plans, but in case that has changed, we have kind of
an or in the condition to reflect if the agreement isn't needed any more if these
modifications are made and something different is done, but it will still give us a way to
get the maintenance agreements for the stormwater. facilities on the site, even if
something doesn't happen in the future, the modifications don't happen, if that makes
sense.
Chairperson Wilcox - Does everybody understand that?
Board Member Mitrano - Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox - I specifically ask that Mike not introduce this to the end until we
go through the existing application in front of us so that it would prevent us from going
off on a tangent.
Attorney Jones — If the or contingency happens, who is going to determine that the
stormwater is being handled in a way that the agreement is not necessary?
Mr. Smith - I think if the or happens, most likely it is coming back to the site plan
approval for site plan modification and the Town Engineer and staff will be looking at it.
Most likely the Planning Board will be giving their opinion at that point, too.
Attorney Jones — Maybe we should make that clear. Submission to the Planning Board,
agreement with stormwater plans and details.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any further discussion or questions with regard to the proposal in
front of us this evening? There being none, would someone like to move the resolution
as drafted?
Board Member Mitrano moved the resolution and Board Member Talty seconded it.
Mr. Smith read the new condition.
Mr. Walker - I don't think its just submission is what we need though. I think it should
be submission, review and approval by the Planning Board for the or. Basically what he
is saying is he is going to come back with a modification to the original site plan showing
20
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
that the stormwater management does not require the new pond that was originally be
proposed, which may very well be possible on this site. This condition for stormwater
plans is something that we are going to be needing. It will be a feature of our new
stormwater ordinance that will be required of all projects in the future.
Chairperson Wilcox - Until such time that we have that ordinance we are going to be
adding conditions which indicate that we need. ..(not audible).
Attorney Jones — I would put review and approval prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Mr. Smith - Read the revised new condition.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can l ask you to read it again?
Mr. Smith - Starting from the beginning it says, "submission of a stormwater operation,
maintenance and recording agreement between the property owner and the Town of
Ithaca prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy satisfactory to the Director of
Engineering and the Town Attorney or prior to the Certificate of Occupancy, for review
and approval by the Planning Board, submission of new stormwater plans and details
showing that the previously approved stormwater facilities for the spa and room addition
are being modified and that the stormwater is being handled in a way that the
agreement is not necessary.
Chairperson Wilcox - Change acceptable? Essentially, he is going to do what we are
approving, or if he comes in and changes it, he has got to do that instead..
Mr. Smith - Well, approving the tower piece tonight and the maintenance agreement for
the whole site the stormwater or he is going to come in with new plans for modifying the
stormwater and other site elements and we would get the agreement at that point if it is
necessary based on what the design is.
Chairperson Wilcox - I understand it. Wally, do you understand it?
Mr. Wiggins — Yes.
than an acre of land
understand it, would
added so that if that
the Planning Board i
first place.
We have been advised by the engineers that there has been less
disturbed, which means that there ordinarily would not be any, as l
not be any stormwater plan to be needed. I would like that to be
is what they find that to .be the case I don't have to come back to
they find indeed there was no need for the stormwater plan in the
Mr. Smith - I think you would still need to come back to the Planning Board because it is
going to be different than what they approved. with the pond and other stormwater
features and you are showing on here differences in parking and other elements. So I
think you would still have to come back and the stormwater, even though you wouldn't
21
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
necessarily be over the one acre, you would still need to be able to show that you are
treating the stormwater on the site. It just won't be on the same level.
Mr. Wiggins Under what circumstances do I come back then?
Mr. Smith - I think that is what we are going to figure out once we have a chance to
look at the plans a little bit more and. see what has been changed.
Mr. Wiggins — My hope is, of course, whatever can happen we can do it in time to be
able to open when we are suppose to open.
Mr. Smith - Right. All of the changes that are being proposed really don't affect the
actual construction or the building. All of the changes that have been shown proposed
deal with the site elements, the stormwater, parking and walkways and those types of
things so the construction that is happening wouldn't be affected by any of the
modifications that would come up in the future.
Board Member Mitrano - So very briefly, again, what would be the conditions under
which Mr. Wiggins would have to return?
Mr. Smith - With what he is showing here, it looks like he probably will. Taking out the
pond and changing where the stormwater is going and how it's handled. There is taking
out some of the parking, a couple of the walkways and steps are being. changed or
moved.
Board Member Mitrano - So those kind.of changes trigger the new legislation and the
proactive measures.
Mr. Smith - There are requirements in the site plan approval that there are minor things
that staff can do if it is under $20,000, if it involves three parking spaces and there is a
list or series that can be done. I think that just looking at this quickly it is going to trigger
coming back to the board for the modification.
Board Member Mitrano - Okay.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -039: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval,
LaTourelle — Tower Connection & Cafe Addition, 1150 Danbv Road, Tax Parcel
No. 36 =1 -4.2
MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Talty.
WHEREAS.
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed +/-
1,479 square foot, three level addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn located at
1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 3644.2, Planned
22
PLANNING BOARD. MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves construction of an addition on
the south side of the existing Inn between the Inn building and the tower suite
building, including. a storage room on the ground floor level ( +/- 384 sq. ft.), a
cafe, lounge and bar on the first floor ( +/= 800 sq. ft.), and a hallway connection to
the tower room on the second floor ( +/- '295 sq. ft.). 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, has, on
April 19, 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 a Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a .Public Hearing held on April 19, 2005, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, plans titled "Site Plan.' (SP -1), "Floor Plan (A -1 and
A -2), "Section / Elevation" (A -3), dated 03- 07 -05, prepared by The Crissey
Architectural Group, and other materials, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that.such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed +/- 1,479 square foot addition, including a
storage room on the ground floor level ( +/- 384 sq. ft.), a cafe, lounge and bar on
the first floor ( +/- 800 sq. ft.), and a hallway connection to the tower room on the
second floor ( +/= 295 sq. ft.), as shown on plans titled "Site. Plan" (SP -1), "Floor
Plan" (A -1 and A -2), "Section / Elevation" (A -3), dated 03- 07 -05, prepared by The
Crissey Architectural Group,. and other application material, subject to the
following conditions:
a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper,
signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or
landscape architect who prepared the site plan materials, to be retained
by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and
ba submission of record of application for and approval status of all
necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies, including
but not limited to an updated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, prior
to the issuance of a Building Permit, and
23
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
ce submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting
Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, prior to
the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, satisfactory to the Director of
Engineering and the Town Attorney, OR submission, for review and
approval by the Planning Board, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy, of new stormwater plans and details showing that the
previously approved stormwater facilities (for the Spa and Rood Addition
Project) are being modified and that the stormwater is being handled in a
way that the agreement is not necessary.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann,
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
Conneman, Mitrano, Talty.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Cornell University Rice Hall Parking Lot,
Tower Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:52 p.m.
Laurene Gilbert, Cornell University
Tonight I will be presenting three unpaved, gravel parking lots that will be improved by
paving, curbing, lighting, draining and landscaping them. The locations for each one of
them, just before we start so that we know what we are talking about. The first one that
will be presented is the Rice Hall parking lot and that is to the east side of Rice Hall
along Tower Road, near.. Ao the east of the Ag Quad. The second lot I believe is the
Friedman Wrestling facility parking lot, which is to the east of Barles Hall and to the
north of the Friedman Wrestling facility. Along campus road to the south and between
Campus Road and Tower Road to the north. The third lot is a gravel lot on the corner of
Tower Road and Campus Road next to the large animal research teaching unit.
I'll begin as it is shown on the agenda for public hearings with Rice Hall. Well, let
me just back up a little bit. Currently these lots are being used for contractor materials
and storage parking. We will be assigning them as faculty and staff. parking and in one
case visitor parking. Previously two of the three lots had already been employee
parking before being dedicated for contractor use and I'll discuss that further as I get
into the detailed explanation for each one.
The Rice Hall lot, which l have indicated, sits right here along Tower Road. This
is the first lot and the layout for this lot will accommodate 90 parking spaces. We have
a one -way entrance off Tower Road along here and its one -way now and we will be
keeping it as one -way and the circulation pattern will remain the same as it is now. It
comes in off Tower Road up here and then exits out here., Or comes in here and you
24
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
can cross over and exit out here. So the circulation for cars will be the same. We will
be narrowing this drive a bit in order to design a layout that we feel is more suitable for
the site using pretty much the same footprint that is there now, but in a more organized
fashion and I'll describe that a little bit more as I go on.
We will introduce a set of curbed landscaped islands that serve to define the
parking bays as well as separate the drive though from the building to the lot in a
pleasing way that currently does not exist. Now in this drawing here, the gray that you
see is all existing, all existing hardscape. And as you can see down here on this
drawing, this is an infrareds shot from a satellite showing the existing gravel lot as it is
today. You can see how wide the drive is there and the configuration of the lot is sort of
amorphic. It really doesn't have any definition. So as you can see, you can drive up
this drive and there are cars parked here on the gravel. There is no separation really,
formal separation between the parking lot and the building. So these treed islands here,
which will also be lighted, serve to define the parking lot and make it a more pleasing
experience between those two spaces. The design will preserve the largest mature
mostly pine trees in the area, which currently lend themselves to creating a park like feel
in the area. And I don't know if anybody's been over here, but where this information
booth is, the space between the information booth and the parking lot, which is defined
by the dark striped area is very woodsy. It's very shady. It's really a nice feel and we
want to enhance that. Not only preserve it, but also enhance it. A lot of consideration
was given to that. The design, we will also be improving the current shared pedestrian
bicycle plan that runs along the north side of the lot, which is wooded and heavily used
and that is this path along here. You can see it along here. We will be upgrading it,
repaving it, narrowing it a bit because right now it was used previously as a drive -
through. Now it is dedicated for a shared pedestrian bicycle pathway. So we wanted to
narrow that down to make it more comfortable for pedestrians and bicyclists.
There will be the addition of new lighting including the blue light, which is an
intrical part of our safety system. The stormwater system was engineered to use
detention ponds to keep the runoff contained to the area so that it is released slowly
back into the stormwater system in a clean, effective and ecological way. Those
detention areas will be in this area over here and then up to the north of the lot over
here. They are our typical detail that we have been using and when we can fit them in a
space, they are a great addition. They are a gravel depression that lets the water filter
through and is caught be a piping system after the solids have been suspended by the
gravel so that there is cleaner water going into the stormwater system rather than just
using catch basins and sending it straight through the stormwater system.
The types of trees that we have chosen for the lot are similar in nature and
compliment the existing vegetation in this area of campus. They include sycamore,
maple, cornelian cherry, winter king hathorne, green ash, eastern. white pine, northern
red oak, and Japanese alcova. And that sums up my description of this project.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? Eva?
25
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - I noticed when I looked at the parking layout, which is on
page C -107, the planting plan, that I don't see any parking spaces for handicapped
people and I was wondering about that.
Ms. Gilbert — Well, we keep our parking space size the same for handicap spaces as we
do for parking spaces, which is actually more of an aisle space than you actually need.
for ADA parking aisle and we do that so that we can shift the amount of handicap
spaces in a parking lot as they are needed for that particular lot rather than just building
a parking lot with x amount of handicap spaces for each parking lot. So many buildings
have so many different types of need for handicapped accessibility. This way we can
have more flexibility to put in as many as we need for that particular parking lot,
depending on who is parking there. So we don't actually designate a certain amount of
ADA parking per lot. Its campus wide. We designate a certain amount of ADA parking
for the whole campus.
Board Member Hoffmann - But these spaces, as I remember, were somewhat smaller
than the ones that the Town usually asks for. And I, myself, needed to have a
temporary handicap permit recently and I need to be able to open my car door
completely to be able to get in and out of my car. A parking space as narrow as these
are supposed to be, I don't think I could do that.
Ms. Gilbert — Well a handicap aisle needs to be five feet next to a car. So what we are
doing here is we can have two handicap spaces with one whole car space in between
used as the aisle for both of the parking spaces.
Board Member Hoffmann - Right, but I don't see it can work. I mean if I need to find a
space to park I need to find to adjacent empty spaces in order to park there.
Ms. Gilbert — No. Normally you would just have a five -foot aisle next to your car. Now
you have an 8.5 -foot aisle next to your car.
Board Member Hoffmann - I still don't understand what you are saying..
Board Member Mitrano - In other words because of the tight control that the University
maintains over transportation, when they know how many people require spaces in that
particular lot then they go ahead and designate those spaces and when they do it is
somewhere in the ballpark off a 2 to 1 ratio.
Ms. Gilbert — Yes. Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox - So lets try this again. At some point...
Ms. Gilbert — The size of the handicap aisle is actually larger than the required ADA
requirement for a handicap aisle.
26
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - We haven't gotten there 'yet. Hold on. At some point Cornell will
make the determination the number of handicap parking spaces that are necessary in
this lot. Lets assume you need two. You will take three of these parking spaces as
proposed to create to handicap spots.
Ms. Gilbert — That's correct.
Chairperson Wilcox - The left and right side parking spaces will become the actual spots
and the third parking spot in the center will become the shared handicap access lane, if
you will between the two and depending upon if you determine you need two or three or
four, you will allocate the appropriate number of spaces including spaces that will
become the lanes necessary for access.
Ms. Gilbert —Thank you.
Board Member Hoffmann - So if I understand you right then, at some point when you
have determined how many of these spaces will be needed in each lot you will mark
them in some way.
Ms. Gilbert — Oh, yes. They will be striped accordingly and signed accordingly and then
that can be flexible because when it is kept this way we can more easily move then
around as needed. We also take great care in trying not to put handicap spaces in the
corners of parking lots because that is where most of the snow gets pushed up. So you
have handicap spots that are covered with snow, which doesn't serve anybody.
Board Member Conneman - Does the 8 ft 6 or 130 feet what ever it is accommodate a
big SUV ?:
Ms. Gilbert — Its tight, but yes it does. They can park in there. Actually we have the
minimum amount of space that we have for parking vehicles in a parking lot so that you
can maneuver and park. We worked that out with the .City of Ithaca and they reduced
their parking lot size requirement based on our recommendations because this was a
number of years ago, We did this to try and reduce the amount of asphalt area by
having larger parking spaces that accommodate larger vehicles more easily, the asphalt
area increases. I guess you could say that we really are not encouraging large
vehicles. We might be encouraging smaller vehicles, but in any . case, they can
maneuver and park.
Board Member Conneman - In Cornell parking lots you have big vehicles.
Ms. Gilbert — Yeah, that's the case now, but that changes. That comes and goes as the
gas prices goes up and down.
Chairperson Wilcox - Not just big SUVs but two door cars, which have longer doors. I,
too, when I read this wasn't particularly pleased with an 8.5 because the zoning
ordinance set it at 180 square feet it is usually 10 foot wide, 18 feet deep or 9 feet wide,
27
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
20 foot deep. Then I was thinking about College Circle and I believe we allowed 8.5 foot
wide at College Circle. I don't think they were trying to save asphalt. I think they were
trying to squeeze in more parking spaces.
Mr. Smith - And that was under the old zoning ordinance where they had to go to the
Zoning Board to get the variance.
Ms. Gilbert — If you look at some of the AIA standards and landscape architecture
standards you will see that over the last 20 years or so it has changed. It went from
being the size that the Town has down to the size that we have and then I don't know if
it can be argued again to make them larger, but those standards have been reduced.
Board Member Talty - It's not just the size of the parking lot, though. It's the
maneuverability within your 22 feet. That is the whole issue because on some of these
spots you have 16 feet and 18 feet and that additional two feet is significant especially
in wintertime.
Ms. Gilbert — The 16 foot length accommodates an overhang where a car is parked up
against a curb and the front end the car is overhanging the curb. That is where we take
off the other two feet.
Board Member Talty - I would guestimate again that most cars do not overhang unless
they scrape: I'm not talking the SUVs now, I'm talking the Hondas, Camrys, etc., that
they pull up, including my own, I will scrape the curb. There is no question about it.
Now what I do is I back off that and I don't pull my car all the way up to that overhang.
So I don't know if that is a...l know it is a conscientious decision on what you are doing,
but in reality of it, I don't think that it...
Ms. Gilbert — Well standard 6 -inch curbs, we could lower the curb height. I still think a
car is able to easily get up to; we are pretty close to the curb without scrapping it if it's a
normal 6 -inch curb. We used to do a curb 7 inches, but that was when we used to allow
an inch for an overlay of pavement when it came time to repave the lot. Now we mill the
top of the lot and we and we always keep the elevation the same so we stick with the 6,,
inch curb.
Board Member Talty - So even given that, the 22 feet in between both vehicles as they
are parked, I am not so sure the maneuverability or the turning radius on the vehicles is
as good as they used to be. I
.
Ms. Gilbert — It might be more comfortable to have it wider, but 22 feet is pretty standard
for an aisle length coming off a parking aisle.
Board Member Mitrano - If it were between maneuverability and being able to find a
parking space, I would always prefer to find a parking space. I can always .manage the
maneuverability. I have had to search for parking numerous times when construction
ism ..l would rather find a parking space myself.
28
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - Well I personally feel that it is better to keep the parking lots
smaller, make the parking spaces as small as one can get away with, with still having
them useable and I think as you said, it might encourage purchase of smaller cars. One
of the things that I have often wished for in parking lots, I don't have a big car, I have a
regular sedan, is if the rows in the parking lot were segregated so that SUVs could only
park in certain areas and sedans could park in other areas so that you wouldn't find
yourself pinned in by big cars on either side. It is not just a question of maneuverability,
but it's a question of safety if you don't see past those cars when you are backing out
into the space where you have to maneuver to get out of the parking lot. You can very
easily bump into a pedestrian or another car if they are not watching that you are
coming out, too. I know that I always feel very nervous and its happened several times
that somebody has whizzed by as I have been inching out and I just haven't seen them
until they are right on me, practically. Have you ever thought of segregating the
different cars that way?
Ms. Gilbert — I think that might be more applicable
one of those lots where you have many, many
segregate, but in a small lot like this, you might
parking spaces because people...and also I don't
could actually pickup driving through a small lot
slowly@
on a large lot, like B lot or A lot, or
more cars and maybe you could
end up with an awful lot of empty
know how much speed somebody
like this. They tend to drive more
Board Member Hoffmann — Well that lot is fairly small, but the ones...
Ms. Gilbert — It is something to take into consideration at some point.
Board Member Hoffmann -
one has more spaces and
handicap spaces you migl
lot, too. You might decide
so many sports cars, and
areas. It's just an idea.
. You have the. larger one by the large animal research. That
if you are anyway having sort of floating parking spaces with
it do it with the type of vehicles that people park in a certain
after a while that you have so many SUVs, so many sedans,
so many pickups and then assign the cars to park in certain
Ms. Gilbert — And this is basically just striping so if something like that were to change
the philosophy... if the philosophy were to change, it would just be a matter of restriping
the lot to accommodate that.
Chairperson Wilcox Some of those minivans are as big as midsized SUVs and cause
almost as much problems when you are backing out.
Ms. Gilbert — It is the same problem we have with trucks and fire trucks and things like
that. The vehicles keep getting bigger and bigger and the roads have to accommodate
them, but who stops first.
29
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Any more discussion with regard to the environmental review?
Christine, any comments?
Ms. Balestra — No.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have the same comment about all three parking lots and
the EAF forms. The Environmental Review Committee made comments about all of
these, too, which consisted of no comment, but still the form needs to be marked on the
second page that there has been Conservation Board comments for all three.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEOR motion with regard to the
proposed Rice Hall parking lot?
Board Member Mitrano. moved the motion, seconded by Board Member Hoffmann.
PB RESOLUTION
NO.
2005 -040: SEOR,
Preliminary
& Final Site Plan
Approval,
Cornell University
Rice
Hall Parking Lot,
Tower Road,
Tax Parcel No. 67 -1
-13.2
MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Hoffmann.
WHEREAS.
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Cornell University Rice Hall Parking Lot located on Tower Road east of Rice Hall,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -13.2, Low iDensity Residential Zone. The
proposal involves paving the existing gravel parking lot for approximately 92
spaces along with additional lighting, landscaping, and stormwater facilities.
Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent, and.
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on April 19, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and
Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, plans titled "Rice Hall Parking Area
Materials and Layout" (C -103), "Rice Hall Parking Area Grading and Drainage"
(C -104), "Planting and Striping Plan" (C -107), "Details" (C -108 and C -109), "Rice
Hall Parking Area Lighting Plan" (E -102), "Details" (E -104), all dated 01/31/2005,
and prepared by Cornell University Planning, Design, and Construction, and
other materials, and
49 The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval;
30
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Tally.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:17 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and .Final Site Plan Approval for
the proposed Cornell University Rice Hall Parking Lot located on Tower Road
east of Rice Hall, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67 =1 -13.2, Low Density
Residential Zone. The proposal involves paving the existing gravel parking lot for
approximately 92 spaces along with adding new lighting, landscaping, and
stormwater facilities. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent
Board Member Hoffmann — It is an improvement over what, there is now.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's for sure.
Mr. Smith — We have a similar condition to add to all the parking lots.
Chairperson Wilcox — With regard to the stormwater management and inspection?
That's fine.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. and invited members of the
public to address the board. With no persons wishing to be heard,. Chairperson Wilcox
closed the public hearing at 8:18 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board.
Chairperson Wilcox = You are right, it is an improvement. I guess the aerial shows how
bad it can be or is right now. It will also increase the efficiency of the lot. Gravel lots
that are not lined at all are not used efficiently. You don't get as many vehicles there as
you need that and the improved landscaping will help tremendously. Questions? We
all set with regard to site plan? Would someone like to move the resolution as drafted?
Board Member Hoffmann moved the resolution and Chairperson Wilcox seconded the
motion.
31
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Ms. Balestra — We wanted to add a condition regarding the stormwater maintenance,
like we discussed on the previous project. So this one would be submission of an
operation and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater facilities including the
requirement of an annual report to be submitted to. the Director of Engineering by the
first of October of each year for review and approval of the Director of Engineering prior
to the issuance of a Certificate Occupancy.
Board Member Hoffmann — Where would that go?
Mr. Smith — That is another condition. It would be 2c. We mentioned it to Laurene.
Chairperson Wilcox - She was back there nodding her head. Just so we understand,
the plan is to add these sorts of conditions in all resolutions that require it until such time
as the Town drafts a stormwater management law or. regulations. That change is
acceptable?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — And to me as well.
Ms. Ritter — The only additional thing, just so you know, is it requires annual reporting,
which is slightly different than what was required for some of the previous parking lots at
Cornell.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 =041: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Cornell
University Rice Hall Parking Lot, Tower Road, Tax Parcel No. 674-13.2
MOTION made by Board Member Hoffmann, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox.
WHEREAS.
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Cornell University Rice Hall Parking Lot located on Tower Road east of Rice Hall,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The
proposal involves paving the existing gravel parking lot for approximately 92
spaces along with additional lighting, landscaping, and stormwater facilities.
Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on
April 19, 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 a. Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
32
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 19, 2005, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, plans titled "Rice Hall Parking. Area Materials and
Layout' (C -103), "Rice Hall Parking Area Grading and Drainage" (C -104),
"Planting and Striping Plan" (C -107), "Details" (C -108 and C -109), "Rice Hall
Parking Area Lighting Plan" (E -102), "Details" (E -104), all dated 01/31/2005, and
prepared by Cornell University Planning, Design, and Construction, and other
materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the, Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed improvements to an existing parking lot for
approximately 92 parking spaces with additional lighting, landscaping, and
stormwater facilities, as shown on plans titled "Rice Hall Parking Area," including
sheets C -103, C -104, C -1071 C 408, C -109, E 402, and E 404, and other
application material, subject to the following conditions:
a. submission of an original set of the final site plan drawings on mylar,
vellum or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor,
engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan
materials, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, and
bo submission of record of application for and approval status of all
necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies, and
ca submission of an "Operation and Maintenance Plan" for the proposed
stormwater facilities, including the requirement of an annual report to be
submitted to the Director of Engineering by the first of October of each
year, for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Section 270 -227 (A)(4) of
the Town Code, hereby allows a reduction of the standard size of a parking
space to no less than 136 square feet, as shown on the plan titled "Planting and
Striping Plan" (C -107), finding that the reduction will not have any adverse effects
on the project, on the surrounding area, or on the neighborhood..
33
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Tally.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Cornell University Friedman Wrestling
Facility Parking Lot, Campus Road
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Ms. Gilbert Okay. This parking lot is the only one of the three that is not part of our
existing parking inventory prior to becoming a gravel staging area. You can see the
gravel staging area up here. This fly over, this infrareds shot was taken during the
construction of the Friedman Wrestling facility and this is the gravel area that is being
used and has been used for contractor staging for this project and for other projects as
well that are winding down at this point. The Friedman Wrestling facility is located to the
north of Campus Road and to the north of the Friedman Wrestling facility to the east of
Bartel's Hall. There is an existing parking lot now. It is a visitor lot and this project
would make a connection and be an extension of that lot. The lot will add 34 more
parking spaces to the 89 existing spaces. These spaces will be dedicated as visitor
parking and add to the visitor lot. Stormwater will still be held on site by making use of a
landscaped drainage depression and that will be located right along here. Another blue
light will be added to the proposed conventional lighting and besides the addition of
trees that includes sycamore, maple, American hornbeam, northern red oak and spruce,
we will be using a relatively new product called a green screen. That will allow us to
grow vines'along the back of the Wrestling. facility to soften the fagade of a rather.. .a
bland looking wall. It will help give us a vegetative, vertical element back there and the
type of vine we selected .is called five -leaf aceebia, which has exceptional seasonal
interest. Other points of interest on this lot are ... there will be a set a bicycle racks
installed along here and a new connecting walkway up along side of the new lot and a
new connection to.the walkway that runs north of the lot in the east/west direction.
Board Member Hoffmann — As a visitor lot, how is this one different from the Rice Hall
lot?
Ms. Gilbert — The Rice Hall lot is dedicated for faculty and staff.
Board Member Hoffmann — And how does a visitor work on campus?
Ms. Gilbert — It is a machine here that you park and you pay for your parking space for
the amount of time that you are using the space.
34
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — This is the lot where you park there and quickly run over to
Bartel's Hall to purchase your tickets to sporting events and then you quickly run back
and get out of there hoping you do it before somebody comes around and gives you a
ticket.
Ms. Gilbert — Also I wanted to mention before somebody brings it up, the circulation
pattern will remain the same in the existing lot and the way to get into the new lot would
be just one connection at the north end and the last time I was here there was some
question about where the City/Town line exists and I was mistaken. I thought the
City/Town line ran along the edge of Bartel's Hall. It does indeed run up through the
middle right here. So there is a small piece of the connection drive that is in the City
and I spoke with the City about that and they had spoken with the Town staff and
corrected that by having a letter written to the City stating that the. Town would be lead
agents for this project and that was all they wanted for that small piece right here. They
didn't think it needed site plan review for that.
Chairperson Wilcox— Do you want to follow up on that?
Mr. Smith — Sure. We got a letter back from the City on the project and they don't have
any concerns and it doesn't appear that they need to do any approvals as part of this. I
did add a condition in the resolution in case they did need to do something and it was
there. The one thing that was mentioned in here was about the lighting on the site and
believe it was probably my mistake because I just went through this packet and pulled
out the sheets that applied to the parking lot and I probably missed the sheet that
actually showed the lights on the site. So they are there and they are the ones that she
already mentioned are there.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would you give Joanne a call tomorrow or if you already have...
Mr. Smith — I haven't yet, but...
Ms. Gilbert — Did I mention that there would be a blue light installed for this parking lot
also?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Any questions with regard to environmental review? Same
small sized parking spaces? Yes. Is this going to become the new Cornell standard, do
you think?
Ms. Gilbert — It's the old Cornell standard.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, maybe in the City, but not in the Town.
Ms. Gilbert — Right.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think this is the first time that we have seen Cornell come to this
board with a smaller sized parking space.
35
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Ms. Gilbert No. I've been. a.its been for about 15 years.
Chairperson Wilcox — The only one I can remember is College Circle.
Mr. Smith — Previous to the old zoning ordinance it would have gone to the Zoning
Board for a variance.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's right.
Mr. Smith — So it may not have been this board.
Ms. Gilbert — That's right.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the SEAR motion?
Board Member Conneman moved the motion and Board Member Talty seconded the
motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -042: SEOR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval,
Cornell University Friedman Wrestlingg Facility Parking Lot, Campus Road North
of Wrestling Facility, Tax Parcel No. 67443.2
MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Tally.
WHEREAS.
16 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Cornell University Friedman Wrestling Facility Parking Lot located off Campus
Road to the north of the wrestling facility, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67-1-
13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves a new paved lot for
approximately 37 parking spaces with new lighting, landscaping, walkways, and
stormwater facilities. A small portion of the project is located within the City of
Ithaca. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene. Gilbert, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, and
30 The Planning Board, on April 19, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, plans titled "Friedman Wrestling Center
Parking Area, Materials and Layout" (C 405), "Friedman Wrestling Center
Parking Area, Grading and Drainage" (C -106), "Planting and Striping Plan" (C-
107), "Details" (C408 and C -109), "Friedman Wrestling Center Parking Lot
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 199 2005
APPROVED
Lighting Plan" (E -103), "Details" (E -104), dated 0113112005, prepared by Cornell
University Planning, Design, and Construction, and other 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 Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Tally..
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN. None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:29 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan. Approval for
the proposed Cornell University Friedman Wrestling Facility Parking Lot located
off Campus Road to the north of the wrestling facility, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 67 -1 -13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves a new paved
lot for approximately 37 parking spaces with new lighting, landscaping,
walkways, and stormwater facilities. A small portion of the project is located
within the. City of Ithaca. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert,
Agent
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:29 p.m. and invited members of the
public to address the board. With no persons wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox
closed the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions with regard to site plan? .We will have a condition
similar to the previous one?
Mr. Smith - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the resolution as drafted?
Chairperson Wilcox moved the motion and Board Member Talty seconded it.
37
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Michael?
Mr. Smith — The new condition d is the same language as the Rice Hall. It says
submission of an operation and maintenance plan for the proposed stormwater facilities
including the requirement of an annual report to be submitted to the Director of
Engineering by the first of October of each year for review and approval of the. Director.
of Engineering prior to the issuance of a Certificate Occupancy.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -043: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Cornell
University Friedman Wrestlingg Facility Parkin_g Lot, Campus Road. North of
Wrestling Facility, Tax Parcel No. 67 =143.2
MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Tally.
WHEREAS:
1. Consideration of Preliminary and. Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Cornell University Friedman Wrestling Facility Parking Lot located off Campus
Road to the north of the wrestling facility, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67-1-
13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves a new paved lot for
approximately 37 parking spaces with new lighting, landscaping, walkways, and
stormwater facilities. A small portion of the project is located within the City of
Ithaca. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on
April 19, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 19, 2005, has _reviewed
and accepted as adequate, plans titled "Friedman Wrestling Center Parking
Area, Materials. and Layout" (C -105), "Friedman Wrestling Center Parking Area,
Grading and Drainage" (C -106), "Planting and Striping Plan" (C -107), "Details"
(C -108 and C -109), "Friedman Wrestling Center Parking Lot Lighting Plan" (E-
103), "Details" (E404), dated 0113112005, prepared by Cornell University
Planning, Design, and Construction, and other materials,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
W
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
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
20 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a new paved parking lot for
approximately 37 parking spaces with new lighting, landscaping, walkways, and
stormwater facilities, as shown on plans titled "Friedman Wrestling Center
Parking Area, Materials and Layout" (C -105), "Friedman Wrestling Center
Parking Area, Grading and Drainage" (C 406), "Planting and Striping Plan" (C-
107), "Details" (C408 and C409), "Friedman Wrestling Center Parking Lot
Lighting Plan" (E403), "Details" (E404), dated 0113112005, prepared by Cornell
University Planning, Design, and Construction, and other application material,
subject to the following conditions:
a. submission of an original set of the final site plan drawings on mylar,
vellum or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor,
engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan
materials, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, and
ba submission of record of application for and approval status of all
necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies, and
cm granting of any necessary approvals by the City of Ithaca for the portion of
the project located within the City, prior to the issuance. of a building
permit, and
ds submission of an "Operation and Maintenance Plan" for the proposed
stormwater facilities, including the requirement of an annual report to be
submitted to the Director of Engineering by the first of October of each
year, for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
10 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Section 270 -227 (A)(4) of
the Town Code, hereby allows a reduction of the standard size of a parking
space to no less than 136 square feet, as shown on the plan titled "Planting and
Striping Plan" (C -107), finding that the reduction will not have any adverse effects
on the project, on the surrounding area, or on the neighborhood.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Tally.
NAYS: None.
39
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination: Cornell University Large Animal Research
Teaching Unit Parking Lot, Tower and Campus Roads
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:31 p.m.
Ms. Gilbert — Okay. This is the Large Animal Research Teaching Unit Parking Lot,
known as LAR -2, which is located along...on the corner of Campus Road and Tower
Road across the street from the Vet Research Tower, Boise Thompson to the north and
Large Animal Research Teaching Unit to the west. B -lot is located over here and that's
that. This parking lot will accommodate 142 spaces dedicated to faculty and staff and
has many of the same characteristics as the Rice Hall lot such as new lighting, paving,
curbing, landscaping, and drainage detention areas. The drainage detention areas on
this parking lot.will be located in this area here up along here and .down in between the
building and the parking lot over here. This gray area here is the existing lot and this
gray area is an existing gravel lot, which will become lawn. As you can see over here,
there is right now a gravel drive that connects right through here. We will be ending that
gravel drive so that this building will still have access to it from over here, but this whole
area will become landscaped lawn, so there will be no connection between this area
and this area, which is really what this facility wanted because there is a lot of traffic
going in and out and passed their building and this will stop it.
A new blue light will also be installed as part of this project as will a new
connection to an existing sidewalk with the existing sidewalk being here and the
sidewalk connection being here. Most of the people parking in this lot generally flow in
the northeasterly direction.
Further considerations were given to softening the views along Campus Road
and Tower Road by creating a landscape berm, which will be a continuation of an
already existing berm along Tower Road. Right now there is a berm that runs along
Tower Road right here that sort of screens the parking, the view of the parking lot as
you are driving down Tower Road. We will be skipping that road and continuing that
berm to about here where this grouping of trees ends and then slowly bringing the berm
down to the existing grade. This will help soften the view of this parking lot coming from
either this direction or that direction.. Trees included in the landscape plan are kitsora,
ginkgo, tulip tree, hop hornbeam and northern red oak. We view this project as a
definite improvement from the existing gravel lot.
Chairperson Wilcox — Stormwater drainage?
Ms. Gilbert — Stormwater detention areas?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes.
,o
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Ms. Gilbert — Yes. I mentioned that they were located in here and then over here to this
area.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to the environmental review?
Board Member Hoffmann There was something puzzling in part II of this long
environmental form. That is on page 19. It's marked no, but yet there are two dots,
actually three dots in the small column and I was just wondering what happened there.
Ms. Balestra - I think they are stray dots, yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. They should be taken out.
Board Member Talty — How high is the berm?
Ms. Gilbert — I would guestimate that the existing berm along here is about five feet and
this berm will be a.smaller berm because we want to sort of gradually taper it off. So it
will be a four foot berm and then gradually taper off down.
Board Member Talty — Where would it be say zero?
Ms. Gilbert — Then the trees on top.
Board Member Talty - So where would it decline? It would gradually decline to zero at
the end of that parking lot?
Ms. Gilbert — It would be at its highest point right here in this corner and then slowly go
down to meet the grade right about here and then continue with this grade along here.
Chairperson Wilcox — Where is the fill going to come from for that berm?
Ms. Gilbert — That is part of the contractor's.. Ao supply that fill.
Board Member Hoffmann — One of the comments that we got from staff is that right now
there are big trailers on that parking lot, but there is no striping indicating that they
would be able to park on this new lot. Does that mean there aren't going to be any
trailers?
Ms. Gilbert — That's right. These trailers are contractor trailers and they will be removed
by the contractor.
Board Member Hoffmann —There was something in the text about large animal trailers.
Are there any trailers with large animals there, too?
41
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Ms. Gilbert — No. Not at this time. There are no trailers for a large animal. When
people brought horses and large animals that were ill to the Vet School, they used to
park them over in B lot and they no longer park them there. They have been bringing
them here as needed and then for as long as they need to and transport the animal
back and forth. The Transportation Department is working with the Vet School right
now to determine a more appropriate location and to work that out with the Vet School,
but they won't be in this parking lot.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to environmental review?
Board Member Talty moved the motion and Board Member Mitrano seconded. it.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -044: SEOR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval,
Cornell University LARTU Parking Lot. Corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Tax
Parcel No. 67 -14.2
MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Mitrano.
WHEREAS.
1. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Cornell University Large Animal Research Teaching Unit (LARTU) Parking Lot
located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 63- 1 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves paving the
existing gravel parking lot for approximately 140 spaces, and adding new lighting,
landscaping, and stormwater facilities. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant;
Laurene Gilbert, Agent, and
2. This is a Type 1 Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning. Board has indicated
its intent to act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, and
30 The Planning Board, on April 19, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate
a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and
Part ll prepared by Town Planning staff, plans titled "LARTU Parking Area
Materials and Layout" (C -101), "LARTU Parking Area Grading and Drainage" (C-
102), "Planting and Striping Plan" (C -107), "Details" (C -108 and C 409), "LARTU
Parking Area Lighting Plan and Details" (E401), all dated 0113112005, and
prepared by Cornell University Planning, Design, and Construction, and other
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.
42
PLANNING .BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other
Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the above - described actions,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
That the .Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required..
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:39 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for
the proposed Cornell University Large Animal Research Teaching Unit (LARTU)
Parking Lot located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 63 =1 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves
paving the existing gravel parking lot for approximately 140 spaces along with
adding new lighting, landscaping, and stormwater facilities. Cornell University,
Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:39 p.m. and invited members of the
public to address the board: With no persons wishing to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox
closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board.
Board Member Hoffmann —
planting and striping plans,
that you have pointed out.
which ones are they then?
I have one question. On our drawings, which cover the
I don't see the plants that you have indicated on that berm
On your plan, it looks like maybe they are evergreens and
Ms. Gilbert — Yes. They are the eastern white pine, five eastern white pine on the
planting plan.
Board Member Hoffmann You don't have that on this one. You have five different
species on this plan.
Ms. Gilbert I know what happened. When this went out to bid, right before this went
out to bid I realized or we realized in our office that. we missed putting the trees here
43
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
that we intended to put there so they don't show up on your plans, but they are on the
contractor's plan, which I will be providing you with an updated version.
Chairperson Wilcox — Someone will be working on an addition. We will add a condition
to provide a revised...
Ms. Balestra — We could add that to item a.
Chairperson Wilcox — So we.will need a revised sheet C -107 to reflect the...
Board Member Hoffmann — Has something similar happened with the other parking lots,
too, or is it just this one?
Ms. Gilbert — No. This was just a last minute before it went out the door to go to bid.
Board Member Hoffmann — Now
was missing, but in that area, it is
side of Judd Falls Road there is a
evergreens, which look like they I
find I don't like. I wonder if these
sit on top of a berm.
the reason I asked about it wasn't really because it
off Judd Falls Road, I guess, there is on the eastern
very high slope and on the top of it are planted some
lave died, but they are sort of up on a ridge, which I
are going to be very tall evergreens that are going to
Brief discussion regarding the trees on the ridge.
Board Member Hoffmann — What I don't like are trees that are planted.on the very top of
a ridge and in sort of a uniform row. That is sort of a personal thing with me only, but 1
like to see part of the ridge and trees on the slope, but not sort of right up there. It just
makes the slope seem so much higher.
Ms. Gilbert — I agree. I truly do. The intention here is to make this berm appear more
natural than unnatural that is why it is not very high. The trees that will be planted won't
just be planted on the top. They'll be planted along side the slope on the edge.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Would someone like to move the motion as
drafted?
Board Member Conneman moved the motion and Board Member Mitrano seconded it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Chris?
Ms. Balestra — I wanted to add a "c" and a "d ". The "c" would be submission of a
revised sheet C -107 that accurately reflects the landscaping for the LAR -2 project
presented to and approved by the Planning Board at the April 19th meeting. And then
the "d" would be regarding the stormwater submission of an operation and maintenance
plan for the proposed stormwater facilities including the requirement of an annual report
to be submitted to the Director of Engineering by the first of October of each.year for
I,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
review and approval of the Director of Engineering prior to the issuance of a Certificate
Occupancy.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -045: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Comell
University LARTU Parking Lot, Corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Tax Parcel
No. 67 =1 -2.2
MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Mitrano.
WHEREAS.
16 Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Cornell University Large Animal Research Teaching Unit (LARTU) Parking Lot
located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 634-2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project. involves paving the
existing gravel parking lot for approximately 140 spaces, and adding new lighting,
landscaping, and stormwater facilities. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant;
Laurene Gilbert, Agent, and
2. This is a Type I 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 19, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental significance,
after having reviewed and accepted as. adequate a Full Environmental
Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by
Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 19, 2005, has reviewed
and accepted as adequate, plans titled "LARTU Parking Area Materials and
Layout" (C -101), "LARTU Parking Area Grading and Drainage" (C -102), "Planting
and Striping Plan" (C -107), "Details" (C -108 and C -109), "LARTU Parking Area
Lighting Plan and Details" (E-101), all dated 01/31/2005, and prepared by Cornell
University Planning, Design, and Construction, .and other materials.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result'in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the. proposed improvements to an existing parking lot for
approximately 140 parking spaces with additional lighting, landscaping, and
stormwater facilities, as shown on plans titled "LARTU Parking Area," including
45
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
sheets C -101, C -102, C -107, C 408, C 409, and E401, and other application
material, subject to the following conditions:
a. submission of an original set of the final site plan drawings on mylar,
vellum or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor,
engineer; architect, or landscape architect who prepared the site plan .
materials, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a
building permit, and
ba submission of record of application. for and approval status of all
necessary permits from county, state, and/or federal agencies, and
co submission of a revised sheet C407 that accurately reflects the
landscaping for the LARTU project presented to and approved by the
Planning Board at the April 19, 2005 meeting, and
d. submission of an "Operation and Maintenance Plan" for the proposed
stormwater facilities, including the requirement of an annual report to be
submitted to the Director of Engineering by the first October of each year,
for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of
a Certificate of Occupancy.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Section 270 -227 (A)(4) of
the Town Code, hereby allows a reduction of the standard size of a parking
space to no less than 136 square feet, as shown on the plan titled "Planting and
Striping Plan" (C -107), finding that the reduction will not have any adverse effects
on the project, on the surrounding area, or on the neighborhood.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Tally.
NAYS None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed Friends
Meetinghouse located off the north end of Penny Lane, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 58 -1- 14.22, Conservation and Medium Density. Residential Zones. The
proposal includes the construction of a +/ 7,000 square foot building to be used
primarily as a place of worship and gathering. The plan also includes
approximately 45 parking spaces, new landscaping and stormwater facilities, and
an access road to Penny Lane. Ithaca Monthly Meeting of the Religious Society
of Friends, Owner /Applicant; Ernie Bayles, Agent.
EN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
Ernie Bayles, Architect
We have members from the Friends Design Committee, who will be here to answer
questions as well and they will introduce themselves as they come up.
The Ithaca Religious Society of Friends is a religious organization of
approximately 100 members. They have been in existence for many, many years.
They currently have a meetinghouse, which is out on Perry City Road and its quite old,
quite quaint and quite wonderful for their uses, but it is not heated and it lacks any kind
of reasonable area for parking. The Friends have been looking for many years for a
new meetinghouse. They have looked at existing buildings. They have looked at
various properties and about four years ago they purchased this piece of land on Route
79 /Slaterville Road with the idea that they would begin planning to build a meetinghouse
at this location. They contacted me a couple of years ago and we have been working
through programming and planning for the building and now we are starting to address
site planning.
When we approached this project we had certain goals for the site. The goals of
the site plan were to provide some spatial separation for the meetinghouse from
neighbors and from the noise of Route 79 because it is a place of worship, maximize
solar access and other opportunities for green design on the site. Site the building so
that the utility of the outdoor spaces could be maximized for first day activities. First day
is the equivalent of Sunday school, for ceremonial activities and other things that may
go on outside the building as well as inside. We are also looking to minimize the site
infrastructure costs and building costs by minimizing site disturbance. That being out
goals, we came up with the following proposal. We looked at. many different
alternatives and basically we have come up with one that will require a variance as well
as an approval for special permit, which is what this use would normally require under
the. Town zoning laws. That variance is the required because of the fact the building
site, which is outlined here in kind of the light purple is actually bisected by one of the
zoning boundaries so that this side is medium density residential and this side is in the
conservation district. The use is allowed in the conservation district, but the setback
requirements are different in the conservation district. So, therefore, since there is a
200 -rear yard setback requirement the actual line that we would normally be permitted
to build within is here and we are talking about building our building completely outside
of that and in the setback of the conservation district.
That is an important point. The other important point is that we are proposing to
access this property from Penny Lane. We do have other site access. We have two
areas of road frontage on Route 79. This one is nearly impossible. It is already at a
close to 14% slope, very narrow, not much possibility of really making that workable so
that you come out on the site without an enormous amount of fill and even then you
would have an enormous amount of development costs. The other location is up here,
which is not impossible, still difficult. This slope here is at 10% or a little bit greater and
CYI
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
there is no room.to kind of wiggle much so if we are trying to maintain an entrance drive
at 10% with a reasonable access onto Route 79 for safety, we find that we end up into
some fairly serious grading problems down here as well.
So when it became apparent that we actually had the possibility of an access to a
Town road, this became a very compelling connection for us. It minimizes our
construction costs, maximizes the safety of entering and existing onto Route 79 and
allowed us to put our building on the site where it really fit our, goals for the building.
The basic site plan as developed consists of a drive, which would be gravel
initially, is what we hope. It would be setup and sized to accommodate fire vehicle
access. Coming back into parking, parking for approximately 45 cars and to a building
of approximately 7,000 square feet. The building has not been designed. It may be
one -story. It may be two -story. At this point with this sighting we would be looking
probably at a one -story building, slab on grade construction for various reasons. This
particular building site allows us a good solar orientation directly to the south. Allows us
free and easy access to a very lovely part of the site. It is very flat, amenable to
children's games, big picnics, summer camp activities and other things that may go on
at this building. Other developments out here we felt didn't give us any of that. We
would be forced to orient the building pretty much along the contour, which was either
going to be to the southwest or even worst to the west. It was going to involve some
very significant amounts of cut and fill on the site in order to develop it with the parking
lots that we were looking for. We looked at this development up here. We looked at
several different variations on developments further down. We have actually had a
class at Cornell who used this as a semester project and we had 20 different proposals
for this, none of which were particularly beautiful or wonderful.
So that is what we have essentially. Our general feelings are that the
conservation zone, we appreciate what the conservation zone represents, but we feel
that if you take the goals of the conservation zone and the purpose as stipulated in the
Town's zoning regulations, its really about preservation of natural values and the
minimizing environmental degradation to the site and we feel that given this site this
area on this site represents the best place for development to achieve those goals. Are
there any questions?
Board Member Mitrano — I'm a little confused about your last comment with respect to
the concerns that the Town members have. Their comment says that they have serious
initial reservations about the plan. I think that that means that they have reservations
about this being an initial plan, not that they have lost their reservations. Do you still
have reservations about the plan?
Ms. Ritter — This was written by the Environmental Review Committee.
Board Member Mitrano — Right. I'm sorry. Let me just quote this one sentence, "the
project seems to present the possibility of serious erosion impact on the stream ". I'm
picking up from some of the things that I am reading here that there is a concern about
no]
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
the encroachment on that so if you could be a little more specific about how you believe
the site will actually contribute to that conservation that might be helpful for us to
understand.
Mr. Bayles — Basically it is this. All of this land on the entire side of Slaterville Road all
contributes runoff to the conservation zone and the Six Mile Creek watershed. . A
disturbance on the site here is hydrologically as close to that stream as development
here. Everything kind of goes towards a swale that heads down and then connects into
the stream down here or this is steeper on this side and comes down and connects to a
stream down here. So the general sense is that the spatial clearance between
environmentally sensitive slopes is the same whether we are developing here or here.
When you kind of narrow down your focus and you start to say, well, or given two
options that are essentially the same distance from an environmentally sensitive area,
which one can be developed with the least amount of impact and we say, obviously, the
flatter area. This zone here has an average slope on it of about 3 %, one foot in 30.
This slope here there is some areas down here that are 8 %, but most of this is 10%
slope. That is one foot in 10. So when you are trying to take a building, which is
nominally 50 feet wide, you start to get a fair amount of drop over that building and that
has to be accommodated either by cuts or fills from the land and then the concomitant
corrections of those cuts with grading out and filling. So you end up disturbing a much
larger area of land than you do when you do things on a flat site.
Board Member Mitrano — I see the comparison between the alternative and the
proposed site. Could you make any comment with respect to just the proposed site?
How and what way you anticipate reacting to the concerns about the environmental
protected area as well as the creek?
Mr. Bayles — Well, I think that we would make every effort to control the stormwater
runoff and erosion that we would make on any development on this site and that would
be a normal requirement here. I think fundamentally we just have a situation where
don't know how to quantify the amount of dirt that gets moved in, this plan versus
another plan, but its significant. There are economic consequences. I don't know
where exactly you are trying to get to.
Board Member Mitrano — I'm only trying to focus on the proposed site and the concerns
about the protected area. So for the moment I am not concerned about the alternate
and the greater attributes of the proposed plan by comparison to the alternate plan. I
am just concerned about how you plan to address the concerns that 1 am sure are
shared by other people.
Board Member Conneman — Let me state it a different way. The parking lot looks like it
is awfully close to that stream. That would be one of my concerns. If the parking lot
were elsewhere, I might follow your argument, but...
Mr. Bayles — The stream being this that runs down through here. Is that the stream we
are talking about?
. •
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 199 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Conneman — It is indicated on the map that I have.
Mr. Bayles = Six Mile Creek is way down here. It's way off the map. There is an
intermittent stream that comes down pretty much along this property line and then you
can kind of see this very light line that goes down through here and ties into another
little stream that runs down behind Commonland, picks up drainage from here and.goes
on down. I don't see that as being particularly close. Again, the character of the land
changes dramatically right along this edge. It goes from being almost kind of croquet
court kind of flat to all of a sudden dropping off at an angle.. .(not audible). So its really
an effort. here to really set this in and go along that little spine that allows us to access
this larger flatter.area of the land.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there another watercourse on the northern side of the propose
site?
Mr. Bayles — There is a swale here. It starts to be an eroded, something that might be
characterized as stream like here, but again it is intermittent. Out in the field here it is
just seasonally wet area.
Chairperson Wilcox — I assume that that runs...
Mr. Bayles — Then that runs off and down and then ties back into Six Mile Creek. This
is probably a likely area for us to implement our stormwater management facility or
whatever we get into there.
Board Member Conneman — These two things look the same to me in terms of
whatever they are.
Board Member Hoffmann — On the next page you can see the edge.
Mr. Bayles = I'm sorry l don't have a better map of where all those watercourses are.
Chairperson Wilcox — We actually have a couple of maps in front of us that will provide
a little bit of assistance here.
Mr. Bayles — Basically the one blue line that is indicated that Mr. Wilcox was asking
about is actually this. It is drawn as this. This is really not much of a watercourse. I
believe. all of the development along Slaterville Road has altered where all of that water
channels and this apparently carried more water at one time than it does now.
Board Member Mitrano - There still seem to be more questions. Maybe staff could help
me out with conservation issues and variances and all of that. The other question that I
would have is the traffic burden that your proposal would impose on the folks living on
Penny Lane and up around there. I assume that you just weigh that against the
detrimental aspects of going out the other way that you described in your overview.
50
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Bayles — Yeah. I think clearly there are pluses and minuses from everybody's
standpoint.. Basically for us to access the site this is a much more reasonable grade. It
involves very little cut and fill and additional construction costs and it makes for a very
reasonable and gentle access to the site. It is going to be easy to maintain. Easy to
plow in the winter, all those things. It's not absolutely necessary that we come into the
site from this direction. We certainly are aware of the fact that this is going to have
some negative impacts on the people that live down here particularly on Sunday
morning when you have 40 cars piling in here for a couple of hours and then leaving.
During the week it is contemplated that this building will be used, That is part of their
program. They want to see the building used throughout the week and want... probably
the most significant use that has been proposed has been as a daycare facility for
somewhere in the order magnitude of 30 children. So if you had 30 cars coming every
morning, 30 cars leaving in the evening that is another significant amount of traffic.
The Department of Transportation has no objections to a curb cut here. We have
been in contact with them and they say fine. At the same time that creates a situation
out there as well. So we .are really here to get some direction from you guys to tell us
what you think is the best. In terms of the length of the road you can see that
constructing this versus that is not a huge difference, but I would wager that this road is
twice as expensive as that road.
Board Member Hoffmann In looking at the drawing, I'm looking at Sheet number 2
because its bigger and easier to measure, it looks like the building as you have it now
might be a one -story building because it measures out to about 120 by 55 or 60 feet.
So that comes to approximately 7,000 square feet. If you were to build it.as a two -story
building you would have a smaller footprint and you might have other benefits. I
understand building it as a one -story building with the slab on the ground might be less
expensive, but you would have other savings over the long run with a two -story building
like heating costs and so on. One of the things that I was looking at was if you were to
take advantage of the slope, which is north of the parking lot; there is a wooded area
there. If you were to put the building as close to that indicated parking lot as possible,
but in the slope you could have a two -story building with windows facing south and use
the solar effect and all that and a smaller footprint and even if you were to build on the
slope, if you were to do it carefully and protect the area around there, it might not have
such a big impact on the environment.
Mr. Bayles — We actually have looked at that. I can show you that example. I think it
has it here. I will just tell you that basically we have looked at two -story solutions in not
a lot of detail, but basically the problem is that programmatically a lot of these
relationships of meeting room to community space to kitchen to somebody said the
facilities really require those facility be on the same floor. So looking at two -story
solutions hasn't been that good. What we have been trying to do is also create solar
access to a lot of our spaces and when we were looking at that other solution we were
just getting.. well now we have views towards the north and towards the road and they
were not considered to be as nice. There are other issues with regards to that.
51
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Just to give you an idea of where we have been with this project, this was a
proposal that was looking at keeping all of the development within the setbacks required
putting the building as you said next to the slope here looking at the possibility of using
some of the natural drop to get that in. But what we found with this in the objection from
the Friends was that now the building is kind of...you are now surrounding two sides of
the building with all of this parking and drop -off and fire truck turnaround stuff and it
really limits your connection to the out of doors. It is, it is not written off yet. It's just not
the optimal solution for us.
Board Member Hoffmann —The parking lots don't
which doesn't necessarily look so nice. There are
more expensive, but in the long run it might work
concrete tiles set on their side and you fill the hol
there and you have a surface you can park on, but
essentially what looks like a lawn.
have to be either paved or gravel,
other solutions. They are probably
like you can have what looks like
as with soil and you plant grass in
you can mow over it and you have
Mr. Bayles — I would love to have somebody point me to see an example of a working
grass paver parking lot in this climate. I used to work up to Cornell and we had various
experiments with these materials. I think it is obviously a wonderful idea and it is
certainly in keeping with what the friends, what their goals are in terms of a building an
environmentally conscience structure here and trying to minimize their impacts on the
land. I don't know that there is a real viable solution. Those sorts of things tend to work
in very lightly used parking areas. It might be a possibility of developing a development
like this where we had kind of this other parking lot that maybe wasn't going to be
necessarily used heavily initially. Maybe that sort of development here would work, but
in a parking lot that needs to be plowed in the winter and generally maintained, I don't
know of a really viable solution at any cost.
Mr. Walker — Generally that type of solution, the only time I have seen anywhere in the
northeast is when you have a need for a potential overflow parking that will only be used
in the summer season because if you run a snowplow over it I can guarantee you it
won't last a season. It will be ripping those bricks right out and we will have a big mess.
I did see a nice facility where it was used in a university setting for emergency access.
It happened to be in Los Angeles, though.
Board Member Hoffmann —Where I saw it where it worked beautifully was in another
country. It was at an art museum outside Glascow in Scotland. I imagine that they get
snow, too, and have to plow. It was great there and they get probably the same amount
of traffic that you would get in a place like this.
.Board Member Mitrano - Susan, you wrote a very judicious memo to us. Would you be
willing to speak to the two issues that you pointed out here that we have already asked
about? I am curious about your deeper impressions.
Ms. Ritter —Which ones?
52
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Mitrano — Encroachment on the conservation zone as well as the
access.
Ms. Ritter — I guess I don't have much more to say other than what is in the memo.
Obviously we have not done a full assessment of the. a.(not audible)... and as far as the
environmental impacts, I mean we talked about the creek, but when I look at the. large
scale drawing and I measured where I understand the creek, the larger creek the one
that is on the border between Commonland and this property, it was at least 100 feet
away. The other one that they talked about a little bit is a pretty minor drainage. I
guess I haven't gone out to see it after a rainy day, but that is pretty minor drainage. It
shows up on the county gis database, but all kinds of small tributaries show up on that.
That one is also at least, from my measurements, it was at least 50 feet or more away
from what they are proposing. So there is one thing to look at, the creek. If you are
going to be concerned about a natural area. You also look at the slopes and when you
look at this piece of property you look and see it made sense where they are sighting it.
If you are concerned about erosion and long-term affects from erosion, the location is in
the conservation zone that raises red flags, of course, when you first see it, but as you
see why they placed the building there it is an understanding of why on this 8 acre
parcel this site made sense. In terms of just some vegetation just from knowing...its
been a while since I've been on the site and looking at aerial photographs, but it's a little
bit more sparser vegetation than we have seen further south of this property. There will
be obsolete trees and vegetation will be needed to be taken out.
Mr. Bayles — Actually there is virtually nothing bigger than ... there maybe some brush
that is 8, 10 feet tall, but there are no trees. It's all old- field.
Ms. Ritter — I mentioned in the memo, and it was just for information's sake, that in the
late 1990s the more densely vegetated, the more steeply sloped piece of this parcel
was sold to the city and incorporated into the City's natural area. I don't know if they
looked at the rest of the parcel, they choose not to. I don't know any more than that, but
I thought that was an interesting understanding that that parcel, the flatter area was
perhaps left with thinking that something might be developed on that parcel in time. So
those are just sort of the initial thinking in terms of thinking about the environmental
impacts without, giving a...we need more information. Certainly stormwater would need
to be addressed. Certainly erosion control is going to be important during construction,
but I think with the information that I have that was.. about the conclusions that I can
come to at this time.
Board Member Mitrano But your tone is different than the tone of the Environmental
Review Committee.
Ms. Ritter — They don't have the large -scale maps that we do and they are not able to
go out...l think that they were out at the site. I think they saw the large stream. I think
they were concerned that that was going to be closer to what was being proposed to
53
PLANNING, BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
being developed than what is actually on the site and you measure it with a scale and
have the large -scale drawings.
Board Member Mitrano — And on the access issue, do you have anything?
Ms. Ritter - That is a toughie. I think, you know, Penny Lane is a public road so it is
certainly understandable why they would want to use that. It is certainly understandable
because of the two accesses. We are in the midst of developing a transportation plan
for the Town and some important things are connectivity, using existing roadways, but
also another important goal of the plan is livability and making sure that we do not
negatively impact neighborhoods. So I would say as we look at this proposal we want
to do some analysis and we would want to get some feel on precisely how much traffic
would be moving on Penny Lane. How much impact would it have on the neighbors?
So that would be something that we would want to study a little more. I think at this time
they want to get some feedback on is this just out of the question with the Planning
Board. Should they spend more money and do those kinds of analyses and look at that
or not. Those are the two most probably controversial aspects of this project.
Board .Member Mitrano — Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else at this point?
Board Member Conneman — Your objection to that plan is that you wouldn't have as
quiet a facility because you have parking closer to it?
Mr. Bayles — Basically the notion was that the building was out here and three -sides
open to views of the forest and beyond was just a nicer development than that. I think
that was essentially what the thought was. There was also a little bit about concerned
proximity to the residential areas over here. We certainly have members of the
committee who felt very strongly that the further we were away from these residences
the better, just because of good neighbor policy. That is a big reason why we kind of
avoided this as well, just because of the proximity of two very different types of uses.
We just felt better served in the conservation zone.
Dick Craypo, 112 Mount Pleasant Road
If I just might add two additional points that our meeting considered. One was access of
the children in meeting at times when they would want to go outside and play and
something like that. Here in this picture we would have them probably having to cross a
parking lot, which is not particularly safe. A good area for children is down in this flat
area here. Whereas in this picture, that is immediate accessible for the kids leaving the
meeting. And the second thing was as we sit in our Quaker meeting, which is typically a
silent meeting, its very nice to be looking out the windows at the treeline wilderness as
opposed to looking at a parking lot and those are maybe two things that are needed an
emphasized.
54
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, maybe the parking could be reconfigured a little bit. In
that building you would have a view to the woods in the back of the building if it were
built into the wooded hillside and you have a view into the woods west and if you were
to be able to pull the parking lot away a little bit more from the building in some way with
just having a small path leading up to the doors you would have access or maybe you
could even have access on, not on that longer wall facing south, but on one of the
shorter walls. You could maybe achieve three sides of the building having a view over
the woods.
Mr. Bayles — One of our big problems is dealing with fire truck turn around and car turn
around. I mean basically with a dead -end parking lot like this you really need to have a
way for somebody who is coming in to sort of swing around without backing if they find
the parking lot is full because the natural feel is going to be to come in to get to the
closest parking spot that you can. So you are going to go in, feel your way to the back
and then you are going to have to come back out and then, choose your parking spot.
So this sort of solution where you come back, you have to have some sort of a turning .
radius in here that we just simply don't have that when we are inside of the conservation
zone. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying its more difficult and the other proposal,
our basic feeling is that this proposal is no more...l'm sorry, this proposal impinges no
more on the goals of the conservation zone than that proposal or any other proposal
that we have come up with and it satisfied our needs to the best extent.
Board Member Hoffmann — My concern with the proposal that you brought to us is that
there is not the 200 foot setback that is required in the conservation zone and its there
for a reason.
Mr. Bayles — But its just the difference between developing this here where all of a
sudden I am seeing six contour lines going across that building and this one here where
I see three is significant in terms of the environmental impact of that construction from
that site and I would simply, say that the. goals are to protect the stream and the
surrounding countryside from the negative impacts of construction. This does it better
and that's...
Board Member Hoffmann — And you don't feel that those impacts could be mitigated
during construction?
Mr. Bayles — Oh, absolutely, but the type of measures that we would use to mitigate
construction activities on either site are nearly identical. The use of silt fence, the use of
timing or construction activities to coincide with weather cycles are going to be no
different and the net result is that the steeper slope, the one that is going to involve
more cutting down of existing vegetation and what else is going to result in a greater
environmental impact. Yes, it is a potential to do it, but reality is that it won't be.. there
will. always be a qualitative difference in how well those two projects affect things down
the stream.
55
Board Member Hoffmann But you are only talking
the actual construction. It is conceivable that there
the parking and the building structure closer to the
allowed.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
about the environmental impact of
is environmental impact of building
conservation area boundary than
Mr. Bayles — Then that would have to be weighed against those other impacts. I think
that.
Board Member Hoffmann -What I'm saying is that if you weigh that, into the decision of
what is the greater environmental impact, it might look different, but we have to look at
that.
Mr. Bayles Well, from our standpoint, this still has less impact on the scenic character
of the land. It has less impact on maintaining rural values, rules character of the land.
There are a number of issues that we think we would still say that if there were some
way to quantify all of these things this would be a better solution and further more its
really the solution that works best for us programmatically.
Board Member Hoffmann — And we have to look at it from your point of view, but we
also have to look at it from other points of view.
Mr. Bayles — I understand.
Chairperson Wilcox — If I may, it is 9:30 p.m. and I would love to give these good,
patience, polite people a chance to speak as well. Everyone has been very polite and
patient both members of the Quakers and the neighbors as well. I would like to hear
from them and give them a brief opportunity... this is not a public hearing, but
nonetheless we would like to give anybody a chance to speak. Keep it brief, if you
would. We don't go past 10:00 p.m.
Ellen Bonn, 110 Penny Lane
That part of Penny Lane was developed as Commonland Crescent. We are not part of
the condominiums. There is a stretch of houses from 100 to 117 that are townhouses
individually owned. 1 am speaking for a small ad -hoc group that met over the weekend
from that part of Penny Lane and our concerns about this have been addressed
tonight...the beginnings of it, the access and the parking and building in the
conservation zone. I should preface this by saying we want to be good neighbors to the
Friends Meeting and we welcome this into this neighborhood. There are issues that we
think they should be made aware of before they proceed too much farther. The things
that concern us living on Penny Lane that are going to affect them and we would like to
meet with a small representative group of the Friends and some people from Penny
Lane.
Jim Madden, 106 Penny Lane
My house is closest to the access road, I think. My primary concern coming tonight
involves the traffic issue. I think that the volume of traffic would dramatically change the
56
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
character of our neighborhood. A concern for the safety of children was expressed
tonight. Frequently children are walking and playing in our streets. Cars coming in and
out or cars at a heavier volume of traffic would endanger those children as well and just
the noise and disturbance would dramatically affect the quality of the neighborhood.
That's my primary concern. My secondary concern, which is much easier to deal with,
would be the impact of lighting; if the parking lots have to be lit I would like to see some
sort of low impact lighting used for the property.
Board Member Talty — I have a question for you. Are there sidewalks in that
neighborhood?
Mr. Madden — There are not. It really is a lane. It is a public street, but.. that's it.
Tom Clausen, 1421 Slaterville Road
I'm just curious for the access into the meetinghouse, would it be a two -way road or
would be it a single lane? Currently the emergency access road that comes down...
Mr. Bayles and Mr. Clausen discuss the question away from the microphone.
Mr. Bayles - The road would be built to the minimum size required.
Chairperson Wilcox — The proposed driveway goes across a parcel of land which I
guess there are some legal issues regarding it right now only because it should have
been dedicated to the Town and it wasn't dedicated to the Town, therefore, it is still
owned by a legal entity or corporation, which may or may not exist right now.
Ms. Ritter — I think that is true.
Mr. Bayles — (not audible)
Ms. Ritter — I might just add that that was intended to be dedicated to the Town because
there was a notion that perhaps future housing developments on that lot would perhaps
use Penny Lane. That is my understanding, but I was not there for Commonland
development.
Chairperson Wilcox — Tom, the emergency access road is near your house, right? That
is chained, right?
Mr. Clausen — Yes. There is a chain across the base of it to avoid traffic going back and
forth.
Chairperson Wilcox
that runs north that i
aside was probably
running north.
— That is the purpose of the emergency road, but that piece of land
s proposed for the access must have been...the reason to set it
good planning, to leave open the option of future development
57
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Walker - My understanding of this and being involved a little longer than Susan has,
but it was pretty much in place was that this could be, the temporary access was
supposed to be a temporary emergency access. The thought was that some time in the
not too distant future Penny Lane would be extended across the property that the
Friends own now and actually come back out onto Slaterville Road as through road at
some time in the future. The medium density residential would be double loaded on
that road and then it would eliminate the very long cul -de -sac that exists at Penny. Lane.
right now. In fact, the previous owner had talked about doing something like that at
some point.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else, Tom?
Mr. Clausen — No. Thank you.
Paul Barco, 89 Penny Lane
am the cluster representative for Commonland community for the area...for . the
residences that are on that side of Penny Lane (Penny Lane to the north). I guess I
don't add much else to add. We similarly have concerns about the nature of the
community; the affect of the traffic on what is a great deal of pedestrian traffic that goes .
on up and down on that street. What I would like to add to that specifically is a concern
that I have had for a long time about the lack of a posted speed limit on that street.
brought this up to.the Highway Department last year and my understanding is the speed
limit on Penny Lane currently since it is not posted is 55 mph. We would obviously
would not like that posted. However, if there were to be this road extension sent
through there I would certainly hope that the Town would see it's way to putting an
appropriate speed limit. I would suggest something in the order of 20 or 25 mph the
most. We have issues currently with people driving too fast on that street. as it is and
that is just with residents.
Mr. Walker — Has Commonland ever requested an area speed limit in that area?
Mr. Barco — I spoke to Fred Noteboom about it and he indicated to me in fact that what
we would have to do is have to request it first from the Town and then from the State.
Mr. Walker — So what I would recommend no matter what that the Commonland group
petition the Town to make an area wide speed limit with in the whole Commonland that
it would be a good effort and then we would proceed and push that through. .I don't
think the State would deny that because it is strictly a residential area.
Chairperson Wilcox — Hard to believe, but the State controls it. The Town can only
request that the State...
Mr. Walker — I don't see where they would not grant this one. We have just done it in
Sapponi Meadows along Seven Mile Drive.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Clausen — And what is the guideline as far as the appropriate speed limit for a
neighborhood of that kind?
Mr. Walker — It would probably be 30 =35 because it is a dead -end road.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anyone else? Sir?
Thomas Bonn, 110 Penny Lane
I am obviously a resident of .Penny Lane as well. I have been a member of the Dryden
Town Planning Board before moving to Penny Lane and today for me underscored the
need for careful planning. Obviously I have an inherit interest, but also I wear another
hat as a Red. Cross disaster volunteer and I appreciate the work you are doing because
today I spent all day looking at bad planning in the Town of Cortland in a housing built in
a floodplain that housing should not be in. Those of you familiar with the area would
know what the situation around. Yamen Park was. Obviously it had to go through
something similar to this process I'm sure. That not being neither here nor there, I
believe that the common concern of the neighbors about this, if we were to perhaps
have one thing that we were agreed upon at ad -hoc meeting that a small portion of
Penny Lane attended was that we would strongly prefer an entrance off of Route 79.
One point in addition to what was raised was the fact for emergency vehicles, assuming
that they are coming from the City of Ithaca, which I believe they all do, it would be a
shorter access from 79. There is indeed next to the Clausen's house an access road,
but I'm not sure how many are aware of that road. It is chained. It is locked. The
ambulance access would be to come around to the top of Penny Lane and swing
through, which would add for a fire truck would add several minutes of the additional
time before reaching the site...the Quaker site. Just to turn my hat back to the Red
Cross, however, one of the things that I had hoped to do with this when. this building
does come about and I'm sure it will and we hope it will because I think we will be good
neighbors is that we can use it as a shelter building for future disasters because in this
part of the County there is a need for a good sheltering building. Thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox - Having heard, what feedback would each of us like to provide that
we haven't already given?
Board Member Conneman - It seems to me that the neighbors are willing to meet and
so is Ernie. They ought to meet and talk about the issues that we have raised tonight
and the issue that everyone has raised tonight.
Board Member Mitrano Those are always the happiest moments as we look on to
developments in the community.
Board Member Conneman I mean if you can agree on something or at least think how
you could mitigate some of the issues it would be helpful.
Board Member Mitrano — I would add to that that after listening to commentary and
thoughts that I am now less concerned about the encroachment on the conservation
59
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
area than I was before the session, which isn't to say that I have no concerns about
them now, but it seems doable in a way that was more of a question. before the
discussion. But, I sure am hearing that you may want to give serious consideration to
that alternate access, notwithstanding what I know would be probably a double costs for
that aspect of your plan.
Board Member Talty I would like to concur with Tracy with. regards to the conservation
questions. This member, I still have reservations with regards to entering from Penny
Lane. I would also like to see alternative planning with regards to entering and existing
from 79.
Mr. Jones — I just should probably mention that section 270 -22f lists the specific issues
that need to be addressed in a conservation district regarding views. I would advise
that the board address those issues during the planning process and the approval
process.
Ms. Ritter — One thing also that I think Kevin can probably talk to, an issue that I. brought
up in this memo regarding requirement and conservation zone density requirement
versus medium density residential and Kevin sort of has some preliminary thoughts on
them.
Mr. Jones — My opinion and in discussions with David Dubow, it was brought up to us
today, but you have to meet the requirements of the conservation district for the
variance. I think that has been acknowledged. That is our opinion and that of course
that means that what this board says won't be the final say, which the applicant should
be aware of.
Board Member Mitrano — Kevin, when you say views, you mean what it looks like
looking upon it by other people, not the views that they would have from their proposed
site, correct?
Mr. Jones — 270 -22 says additional requirements and restrictions for the conservation
district. If you read through it you will see a number of things that the board should
address, but in section f it seems to have the most items. Mr. Jones read the
requirements and considerations.
Ms. Ritter — I just might quickly draw your attention to the County's. comment that they
submitted and one of the comments there was painting the buildings with earth tones
similar to other developments in the area along the gorge to limit impacts of the view
from the natural area below.
Board Member Mitrano - That is very helpful to us and I imagine it is very helpful to the
applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox — Comments that I have. Based on what I've heard, I feel
comfortable that you representing the Quakers have done a reasonable job sighting this
.l
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
and have worked diligently to find the best site, which mitigates the many factors that
are involved here. That I'm comfortable with and I think that is consistent with what I
have heard over here. I am not convinced that the access is the best access other than
it costs less and that is not sufficient enough. So we seem to be coming to consensus
about the location of the site even though it is mostly in the conservation zone, there
seems to be some reasonable good reasons for doing that. It pushes it away from the
other residents. That access is still the issue. Slaterville Road is a state highway. Its
purpose is to carry the traffic. 1 think if you are going to come back and try to get this
board to approve access off of Penny Lane, I think you are going to have to give us a
little bit more.. you are going to have to spend money, which is drawings and engineers
or whatever to try to show us that either it is unsafe to go over Slaterville Road because
of the grade or it is just totally impracticable or something like that. Clearly, that would
be the preferred access to the site off of Slaterville Road. I lived on a road that had a
9% grade and 9 -10% grade is not wonderful in terms of an intersection with a road and
even there the speed limit was 40 going down to 30. For me if you. are going to want to
have access from Penny Lane you have to show that is the way to go.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have essentially said already what I had to say. I just want
to emphasize that I don't agree with Fred and others that the siting in the conservation
zone is the best way of siting the building and the parking lot, but I've said that already.
I would like to see a little more effort put into trying to put the building and the parking lot
at the proper distance from the setback area. I am also concerned about the traffic and
sympathize with the comments that were made that would not be good for children to
have to run across the driveway of this property, but its also not good for the children
who live on Penny. Lane to have to deal with extra traffic. So I feel some more thought
has to be put into locating those things better.
Chairperson Wilcox — Got enough feedback?
Mr. Bayles — I think so. I think this is very good for us. Very informative and our next
step will be to decide what route we take and will probably involve going to the Zoning
Board before we come back to you.
Chairperson Wilcox — You would under most circumstances ... I can't think of a
circumstance where you wouldn't come here first.
Ms. Ritter — I think they would have to come for preliminary.
Chairperson Wilcox — You would come here first. We would-be the lead agency for
environmental review: Under most circumstances if there is the
Board you would appear here to get the preliminary approval,
preliminary approval, and one of the conditions for final would
from the Zoning Board if that is the route you choose to go.
Mr. Bayles — That is the opposite of the way the City handles this,
need to go to Zoning
assuming you get the
be getting a variance
61
1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, April 19, 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, April 19, 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 Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition and renovations at the
Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce located at 904 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18 -2 =10,
Planned Development Zone No. 5. The proposal includes a two - story;. + /- 2,000 square foot addition on the north
side of the existing building for new bathrooms, .office space, storage, and meeting space. The proposal also
includes a request to amend the Special.Land Use District No. 5 to increase the number of persons employed in the
building at any one time from 10 to 20, which requires a recommendation by the Planning Board to the Town
Board. Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce, Owner; Jean McPheeters, President, Agent.
7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed construction of a pavilion at the
Coddington Road Community Center located at 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3,
Low Density Residential Zone. The proposed pavilion (approximately 24' x 50') will be located to the west of the
ball field and will be used for. summer camp programs. Coddington Road Community Center, Inc.
Owner /Applicant; Anne Morrissette, Director, Agent,
7:30 P.M: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed +/ -1,479 square foot, three level
addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.2,
Planned Development Zone No. 1.. The proposal involves construction of an addition on the south side of the
existing Inn between the Inn building and the tower suite building, including a storage room on the ground floor
level ( +/- 384 sq. ft.), a cafe, lounge and bar on the first floor ( +/- 800 sq. r ft.), and a hallway connection to the tower
room on the second floor ( +/- 295 sq. ft.). Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant.
7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Rice Hall Parking
Lot located on Tower Road east of Rice Hall, Town of Ithaca Tax. Parcel No. 67 -1 -13.2, Low Density Residential
Zone. The proposal involves paving the existing gravel parking lot for approximately 92 spaces along with adding
new lighting, landscaping, and stormwater facilities. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent.
7:50 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Friedman Wrestling
Facility Parking Lot located off Campus Road to the north of the wrestling facility, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
67 -1 -13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves a new paved lot for approximately 37 parking
spaces with new lighting, landscaping, walkways, and stormwater facilities. A small portion of the project is
located within the City of Ithaca. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Lauren Gilbert, Agent.
8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Large Animal
Research Teaching Unit (LARTU) Parking. Lot located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project involves paving the existing gravel parking
lot for approximately 140 spaces along with adding new lighting, landscaping, and stormwater facilities. Cornell
University, Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear.all persons in support of such matters. or objections thereto. Persons may
appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with
assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of
the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, April 11, 2005
Publish: Wednesday, April 13, 2005
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2005
APPROVED
Ms. Ritter — I would just say that you could go before the Zoning Board for like a sketch
plan, similar to what you have done here just to get their feedback. It doesn't happen
real often, but I guess upon occasion it is possible to do that.
Mr. Bayles — Well, I'll clarify some of these things. I think there is still a question about
the 10% in the conservation district.
Chairperson Wilcox — We all set?
Mr. Bayles — Thank you very much.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 9:55 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Smith gave the board a preview of what was on the May 3, 2005 agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
On motion by Board Member Mitrano the meeting was adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
TVV a
Carrie Coates itmore
Deputy Town Clerk
62
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, Apri1 19, 2005
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce Addition, 904 E. Shore Dr.
7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed addition and renovations at the Tompkins County Chamber of Commerce located
at 904 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 18 -2 -10, Planned Development
Zone No. 5. The proposal includes a two -story, +/- 2,000 square foot addition on the north
side of the existing building for new bathrooms, office. space, storage, and meeting space.
The proposal also includes a request to amend the Special Land Use District No. 5 to
increase the number of persons employed in the building at any one time from 10 to 20,
which requires a recommendation by the Planning Board to the Town Board. Tompkins
County Chamber of Commerce, Owner; Jean McPheeters, President, Agent.
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Coddington Road Community Center Pavilion, 920 Coddington Road.
7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed construction of a pavilion at the Coddington Road Community Center located at
920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3, Low Density Residential
Zone. The proposed pavilion (approximately 24' x 50') will be located to the west of the.
ball field and will be used for summer camp programs. Coddington Road Community
Center, Inc. Owner /Applicant; Anne Morrissette, Director, Agent,
7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: La Tourelle Country Inn Tower Connection, 1150 Danby Road.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed +/ -1,479 square foot, three level addition to the La Tourelle Country Inn located at
1150 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 14.2, Planned Development Zone No.
1. The proposal involves construction of an addition on the south side of the existing Inn
between the Inn building and the tower suite building, including a storage room on the
ground floor level ( +/- 384 sq. ft.), a cafe, lounge and bar on the first floor ( +/- 800 sq. ft:),
and a hallway connection to the tower room on the second floor ( +/- 295 sq. ft.). Walter J.
Wiggins, Owner /Applicant,
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Rice Hall Parking Lot, Tower Road.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed Cornell University Rice Hall Parking Lot located on Tower Road east of Rice Hall,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 67 -1 -13.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal
involves paving the existing gravel parking lot for approximately 92 spaces along with
adding new lighting, landscaping, and stormwater facilities. Cornell University,
Owner /Applicant; Laurene Gilbert, Agent.
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: April 19, 2005
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFI
CIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
-, n
C cv,v e.. - . Sty z �rr� t a, i�srn�ry + L ( �
joor� , ` � �t-ck , 'LtiwcA u co.;<,vN 14-11 11-6 IBC
//C) ?
A/ ,n/,�
1/0 pi�-at�,y Z. ,ve
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 Tuesda ,April 19, 2005 commencing
at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board - 215 North Tio a Street.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication:
April 11, 2005
April 13, 2005
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
.COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 13th day of April 2005.
Lt: ua4
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New. York
No, 01 CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 06