HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-09-20FILE
DATE c s- Zwa
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, September 20,
2005, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board
Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board
Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town;
Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning;
Michael Smith, Environmental Planner; Nicole Tedesco, Planner.
EXCUSED
Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Christine Balestra, Planner.
OTHERS
Travis Cleveland, 723 Hudson St; Dennis Mietz, Rochester; Stephen Cummins, 1408
Trumansburg Rd; Herman Sieverding, Integrated Acquisition Development; David
Herrick, TG Miller; Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design; Tim and Tom Colbert, Integrated
Acquisition Development; Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Rd; Steve Buyers, 1328 Slaterville
Rd; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf; Louise & George Vignaux, 1470
Trumansburg Rd; John Bosak, 1448 Trumansburg Rd; David Dunbar, 1457
Trumansburg Rd.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepts for the
record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings
in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 12, 2005 and September 14, 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 September 14, 2005.
Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m., and asks if any
members of the public wished to speak. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson
Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m.
SEAR DETERMINATION
Cleveland 3 -Lot Subdivision, 1032.5 Danby Road
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Cleveland, you are here this evening. Welcome back. If you
would, just pull the microphone up a little bit closer to you. Name and address and why
don't you just give us a couple of minutes on what's difference with regard to what we
are seeing today versus what we saw last time.
Travis Cleveland, 723 Hudson Street
My name is Travis Cleveland and I live at 723 Hudson Street. What is different about
the property now is the third parcel, it is a two parcel subdivision and in order to allow
me for a future development we decided we would come back and we would lay it out
so that I would be able to use it in the future instead of limiting myself to the two lots.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you comfortable with this one versus what we saw last time?
Mr. Cleveland — Yes. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - So now its clear why I think we were questioning last time in
possibly preventing yourself and take better utilization of the property that you have.
Okay. We went through the SEQR review last time with regard to the.,,-there is a
drainage course that goes across the property.
Mr. Cleveland — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — You are aware of that. So we have discussed that. Any other
environmental review issues? Would someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Talty moves the motion and Board Member Conneman seconds the
motion. With no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote on the motion.
Motion passes unanimously.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -088: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval, Cleveland 3 -Lot Subdivision, 1032.5 Danby Road, Tax Parcel 39 -1 =9
MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Conneman.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is the consideration of preliminary and final subdivision approval for
the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 394-9, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves
subdividing the +/- 2.6 -acre parcel into three parcels: one parcel of +A 0.92 in
the northeast portion, on which currently exists a residence, one parcel of +A
0.56 in the southern portion, and one parcel of +/- 1.11 acres in the western
portion of the lot. Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Owners /Applicants, and
2
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on September 20, 2005 has reviewed and
accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and a Part U. prepared by Town Planning Staff, a plat entitled, "Proposed 3-
Lot Subdivision of Tax Parcel 39- 61 -09, " prepared by R. James Stockwin, dated
September 6, 2005, and other application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental
Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither
a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be
required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, .Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3-
lot subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1-
9, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 2.6-
acre parcel into three parcels: one parcel of +/- 0.92 in the northeast portion
containing an existing residence, one parcel of +/- 0.56 in the southern portion,
and one parcel of +/- 1.11 acres in the western portion of the lot. Travis & Kathy
Cleveland, Owners /Applicants. This proposal was postponed from the August 2,
2005 meeting as a proposal for a 24ot subdivision.
Chairperson Wilcox reads the public hearing notice and opens the public hearing at
7:10 p.m.
Attorney Barney — What arrangements are made for the driveway?
La
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry. Can you say that again?
Attorney Barney — If I am reading this, you each have 15 feet. There are going to be
two driveways coming out from Lot 2 and Lot 3.
Chairperson Wilcox — It would appear that Lot 1 has the frontage. Lot 2 has a 15 -foot
driveway and Lot 3 actually has two driveways if you will, an existing one.
Mr. Cleveland — It could be a shared driveway, maybe.
Attorney Barney — So Lot 2 would be the only one using the driveway to get out the
long...
Mr. Cleveland — Well, Lot 3 could also.
Attorney Barney — Is your contemplation to have any kind of mutual lot or driveway
agreement between the two lot owners?
Mr. Cleveland — Not legally. It is going to be my fathers. It is just going to mainly be...I
was just going to create a turn around there.
Attorney Barney — Your father is going to have Lot 2?
Mr. Cleveland — My father is going to have Lot 2, yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set, John?
Attorney Barney — Yup.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Very good. You are all set, right, Nicole?
Ms. Tedesco — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to take a seat and we will give the public a chance to
speak?
Mr. Cleveland — Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no
persons interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:12
p.m. and brings the matter back to the board.
Board Member Thayer moves the resolution, and Chairperson Wilcox seconds the
motion.
rd
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — I just want to check one thing here. Pardon me just for a second.
There we go. I'm all set.
Attorney Barney — The foundation that kind
Lot 2, what is going to happen with that?
of lops across the lot line between Lot 1 and
Mr. Cleveland — That's just a little ... there was an old garage there that we tore down
and that will be removed.
Attorney Barney — For title purposes, you have an encroachment by having it shown on
a map like this, which would render the title to Lot 2 a little bit suspect.
Mr. Cleveland — I'm sorry. Can you say that again?
Attorney Barney — Well, when you take a survey like this to a buyer or a bank, they are
going to see the foundation that really belongs to Lot 1 as being encroaching onto the
2.3 feet of Lot 2. So normally people like to see that removed so it's entirely on one lot
or the other.
Mr. Cleveland — It is going to be removed before any title.
Attorney Barney — It might not be a bad idea just to have a condition that before the
transfer of Lot 2 that the foundation be reduced in size so that it is entirely on Lot 1 or
removed in its entirely.
Ms. Tedesco — It is basically just a concrete slab. There is not even any remaining...
Mr. Cleveland — There is nothing there.
Ms. Tedesco — Its not like it was an actual building foundation.
Mr. Cleveland — It is like a 12 by 12 half -broke slab. I could take the two feet off it right
now and drag it and flip it over and it would be off the property line.
Attorney Barney — If you can, why don't you do it?
Mr. Cleveland — Okay.
Attorney Barney — The reason, Nicole, it creates a...
Ms. Tedesco — It should be fairly easy to remove.
Attorney Barney Even if it is just shoved over two feet to get it entirely... because the
other thing is it does impinge on where there would be a driveway of some sort or could
be, but that again is the access for Lot 2.
5
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Cleveland — The driveway would run right there with the two 15 foot sections.
Attorney Barney —
and it weren't your
could presumably
foundation project,
in and out.
Right. That's what I am saying,
father. Suppose your father sold
get in and out would be over
> 2.3 feet so you are now down to
Mr. Cleveland — The foundation will be removed.
but if Lot 2 were separately owned
it to someone else, the only way he
this 15 foot strip into which this
12 feet and change to get vehicles
Chairperson Wilcox - So you are proposing that we add a condition that says what
essentially?
Mr. Cleveland — If you want, I mean it could be two 15 foot driveways there and...
Attorney Barney — That is not the issue so much as Lot 2's legal access. The legal
access is only over the 15 feet of frontage that it has on NYS Route 96 B. So it's on the
lower of those two 15 foot strips. Am I not making myself clear? It happens quite
frequently.
Mr. Cleveland — It will be removed so it won't be an issue.
Attorney Barney — So there would not be a problem putting in the resolution just a
condition that that foundation be moved or removed so that it is no longer on Lot 21
Chairperson Wilcox — Is that fine? Its fine with me. Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote on the motion. The motion passes unanimously.
1032.5
Tax
�;
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the consideration of preliminary and final subdivision approval for
the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca
Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -9, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves
subdividing the +/- 2.6 -acre parcel into three parcels: one parcel of +/- 0.92 in
the northeast portion, on which currently exists a residence, one parcel of +A
0.56 in the southern portion, and one parcel . of +A 1.11 acres in the western
portion of the lot. Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Owners /Applicants, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead
Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on
September 20, 2005, reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
on
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town
Planning staff, and made a negative determination of environmental significance, and
3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing on September 20, 2005 has reviewed
and accepted as adequate a plat entitled, "Proposed 3 -Lot Subdivision of Tax
Parcel 39- 01 -09," prepared by R. James Stockwin, dated September 6, 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 Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary
and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials
presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the
purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town
Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision
Approval for the proposed 34ot subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -9, as shown on the plat entitled, "Proposed 3 -Lot
Subdivision of Tax Parcel 39- 01 -09," prepared by R. James Stockwin, dated
September 6, 2005, subject to the following conditions:
a. Acquisition of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals
prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, and
b. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an
original or mylar copy of the plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing
with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of
filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and
C. Submission of a storm water control plan
Engineer before issuance of any building pern
d. The foundation at the northeast corner of Lot
entirely on Lot 1 or be removed so that
encroaches on Lot 2, prior to the issuance
structures on Lot 2.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
for approval by the Town
lit, and
1 be moved southerly to be
in any event it no longer
of any building permits for
7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
SEQR DETERMINATION
HSBC Bank Site Improvements, 302 Pine Tree Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
Dennis Mietz, Rochester.
Good evening. My name is Dennis Mietz. I live at 65 Popper Way up in the big city of
Rochester NY. We are the project managers for HSBC throughout this part of the state
and handle most of their renovation projects. I'd ask just before I went through my
discussion here with you... Mike Smith is passing around. We had one last little thought
about the windows and we are passing around one other version that I would like to
discuss with you this evening. It is a slight modification from what we submitted, which
we think might work out a little bit better.
So let me tell you a little about the project. The bank has been there for quite a
number of years. It is an older building and what is going on throughout the State is
they've done a new marketing program and have a new interior sort of floor plan and
color plate that they are installing throughout the State. When we looked at this building
there were two things that we thought were problems that we wanted to try to correct.
One of them was the fact that it has two entrances, which the security folks from HSBC
have had problems with for a long time. It is not good in a bank scenario to have more
than one active entrance and we have a side second egress on the building as well. So
the decision was made early on to come up with a little better, interior floor plan that we
should get rid of the entrance on the north side. Once that decision got made, we
thought it would be wise to try to orient a little bit more of the parking towards the front
of the building where the main entrance in that will be and we carved out, as you see on
the plan, by just changing the islands around a little bit two more parking spaces that
are closer to that front door.
There is some concrete work that is going on along there to take care of some
broken sidewalks and fix up some of those sorts of things on the exterior. The other big
piece is the windows. The building has these very narrow line windows as sort of a
dated sort of style and what we looked at was trying to, of course, in -fill where the doors
were on the north side and then also try to open up a couple of other spots to get more
natural light into the building and if you have been in there the ceiling is extremely low
and it doesn't have a lot of natural light so we thought that this would really be an
improvement to try to open it up and make it look a little more retail. Once we looked at
it a little bit more than that we came up with this drawing that we are passing around this
evening, which basically opens up the glass a little bit more. It's a more full width retail
panes and then leaving some of the narrow line also. And we thought that this would go
a little bit farther as it relates to getting some more natural light into the building and
opening it up. The exterior aggregate material is not particularly attractive and we are
obviously trying what we can to minimize the affect of it. So by bringing those windows
out I think it is going to take a little bit away from that exterior part of the building.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
So this is our proposal. Again it does support an interior renovation that will be
starting hopefully in the next month or so that will completely redo the inside, ceiling,
lighting, flooring and make this a little more positive. Two more important points as well,
there is nothing changing with the traffic flow, nothing with the ATM, nothing with
signage, nothing with exterior lighting, no other modifications to the exterior of the
building or plan at this time. As you all are, I'm sure aware, the property next to us
is ... there is a proposal out there to redevelop that parcel and we are kind of waiting to
see how all of that comes together because there are some issues related to access
and drainage and some other things that the bank is interested in how all of that is
coming out and there are some discussions with Ellicott Development about that
proposal. So we wanted to try to be able to move forward and that is why'we didn't do a
lot of work on that north side of the building until we see really what is going to happen
with this other proposal.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you having discussions with Ellicott about their ... they are
working with your or...?
Mr. Mietz — Yes. We have had some discussions with them and this parcel is... HSBC
does not own it. They ground lease it from Yunis Realty in Elmira and Mary Jo and the
whole group of us have had a number of discussions with Ellicott related to that
proposal. I realize that is not part and parcel of this evening's discussion, but there are
some issues related to access and drainage and things that we are concerned about as
to how that comes together.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any potential environmental impacts resulting
from the proposal?
Mr. Mietz — No. I'm not.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before you go, we should point out that we all received sheet
A200 revised 9/19/05. Its what you are as a replacement for A200 dated 8/15/05.
Mr. Mietz — That would be correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — And it essentially takes smaller panes of windows and replaces
them with one or two much larger panes of windows. That is the only difference that I
see.
Mr. Mietz — Yes. The locations where the windows are have not been changed. No
additional locations have been added.
Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, you had a question?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. You mentioned that the discussions of what happens
on this parcel is. maybe not connected to what happens on the rest of the parcel where
there is a Rite Aid proposed, but I think that they are actually connected. I think that we
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
need to talk about some of the issues that you see as problems because I think that we
may see them as problems, too, and I think that the planning of what is going to happen
on these two parcels should probably be coordinated in some way.
You also said that there would be no changes on the outside and the second
thing you mentioned I didn't hear what you said.
Mr. Mietz — Oh, I'm sorry. No changes to the exterior signage, traffic flow, lighting, there
is nothing be added or changed.
Board Member Hoffmann — It looks to me like there is going to be a change in lighting
because there is actually a light post in the piece of the sidewalk plantings that you are
proposing to remove on the north side to add a parking space. There is a light post
there with a circular globe light on top and three little plants below it. Its not indicated on
this plan.
Mr. Mietz — It should not be removed. If it does, and I apologize I don't have the full set
of drawings with me, but that light post should not go away. And if it impedes into this
parking then we are going to have to move that post over into the median because we
would not...
Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. It will. You are not going to be able to put a parking
space there as long as that light post is there.
Mr. Mietz — It is probably being slid over and again I apologize. I don't have a full set of
drawings, but again it would not be eliminated.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. It should have been indicated on this drawing and I
think that we need to indicate somewhere in the text that there is a light post there.
Mr. Mietz — And it would be retained; it will be relocated.
Board Member Hoffmann — You also.,.1 don't know, did you mention the plantings on
the outside?
Mr. Mietz — We are going to add per the plan here some junipers in those two islands.
Board Member Hoffmann — And could you describe what those two kinds of junipers
look like? Are they low and flat or are they tall and column like?
Mr. Mietz — They are low. They don't get too awful tall. No.
Board Member Hoffmann — And what about the other existing plants that are there
now? What will happen to them?
10
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Mietz What we would like to do is reutilize them along the corners. There is a
couple of the smaller plantings that we feel we can transplant and add. So again these
were going to be so that we could get the things uniform on both sides and then we
would like to try to add some of those existing plantings and wrap them up going
towards the building.
Board Member Hoffmann — You know, what you are saying doesn't really explain it very
well to me. The elevation drawings that you gave us, including the one you gave us
tonight, have a lot of plants shown on them and its not clear if these are the existing
plants or plants that are going to be replacing the existing ones or what. Could you
explain that?
Mr. Mietz — Sure. Most of the ones on the north side are existing plantings and again,
the architect's intention was to try to salvage any material that we could and kind of
place it on the site in any other place that we could place it. Most of the stuff on the
north side to the best of my recollection is existing.
Board Member Hoffmann — But my point is, is it going to stay?
Mr. Mietz — Yes. It is going to stay. I'm sorry I didn't understand the question. We will
not remove anything from the north side.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. What about from the west side?
Mr. Mietz — No. There is nothing happening on the west side whatsoever.
Board Member Hoffmann — And what about on the east side?
Mr. Mietz — Everything would be retained except for the addition of those junipers, but
everything along the elevation on the east side would be retained because we are not
doing anything right at that entrance area and the rest of those plantings would be
retained.
Board Member Hoffmann — Because on C100, the only plants you are indicating are
those 12 junipers.
Mr. Mietz — As new plantings, right.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but it doesn't say that.
Mr. Mietz — Okay. I apologize for the confusion, but again there is nothing being taken
out of either of those elevations and those 12 are being added.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So I think we need to add to the resolution that
the... basically what he said that the existing plantings are going to be staying and the
11
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
plants that are indicated on C100 are plants that are going to be added. You are going
to be removing some plants. There are some plants there.
Mr. Mietz - I have no problem in the resolution saying they will be retained on the site.
No problem with that whatsoever.
Board Member Hoffmann.- Well, no. I'm not talking about...I thought you said they
would stay where they are.
Mr. Mietz - Well, other than ... there is a couple right where that parking space is, so we
will need to relocate a couple of those, but any of the ones along both elevations, in
other words, between the sidewalks and the building on either the north or east
elevation would be retained.
Board Member Hoffmann - And they'll be protected during the construction?
Mr. Mietz -Yes,
Board Member Hoffmann - And if they are damaged or they are killed during the
construction you will replace them with similar plants? a
.
Mr. Mietz - That will be fine. I do not think that there is anything along those areas that
would disturb anything. We are only cutting in the windows and there is no excavation
going on in that area.
Board Member Hoffmann - And there are three small trees, I don't know what they are,
along Pine Tree Road and they are not indicated on these drawings either, but I assume
they are staying too.
Mr. Mietz - Yes, they are and those will not be affected at all.
Board Member Hoffmann - And there is a crabapple tree on the right just as you pull up
into the drive through area and it wasn't clear if that crabapple tree is on the property
that you are leasing or if its on the property to the south of you and I think Ms. Tedesco
was going to go up and look at that today. Did you find out anything?
Ms. Tedesco - It is on the property directly to the south.
Mr. Mietz - That's what I thought, too.
Ms. Tedesco - And he goes almost all the way out to where I understood the property
line to be.
Mr. Mietz - Right. I believe it is not on our property.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay.
12
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Mietz — But again, nothing would occur at that location at any event.
Board Member Hoffmann — So just to be clear about it, you are only removing plants
where you are removing the planting areas for the two additional parking spaces.
Mr. Mietz — That would be correct.
Board Member Hoffmann — Otherwise all the existing plantings are going to stay in
place.
Mr. Mietz —Yes, ma'am. That would be correct.
Board Member Hoffmann — Plus you are adding additional plantings. Thank you.
Mr. Mietz — Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else?
Board Member Thayer — No.
Board Member Talty — I just have a quick question and this is not towards you, but this
is a generalized question. These little islands, is that like just the way it is nowadays
with architectural drawings? It seems like a real hindrance to snowplowing.
Mr. Mietz — They are, but what ends up happening is when you have that is a little bit
tight like this it protects those turns from the cars that are parked in there. If you try to
eliminate those islands, then when cars are backing up and pulling out of those two
contiguous spots, we seem to find problems with traffic. But by having those islands,
they create a little bit of governance. They do create what you suggest. It is much
easier when you have a free open parking lot for snow removal, etc., but they do protect
those corners and turns and I think that is really more the important reason why they are
there.
Board Member Talty — Thank you.
Mr. Mietz — You are welcome.
Chairperson Wilcox — I would offer a change to the short environmental assessment
form under number 10, present land use in the vicinity of the proposed project. I would
request that residential be checked as there is a house in the vicinity. It is.actually next -
door. Any other discussion with regard to environmental review?
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, might as well deal with it now. The cover sheet that
we got together with C100 and A200 is so unclear that its impossible to read the letters
13
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
and read the plan, but I was able to see with the help of Ms. Tedesco, I was able to find
out that this is an original site plan, apparently.
Ms. Tedesco — It is an earlier site plan. I believe it is from 1992, . although again, I also
had a difficult time reading it. Does that sound right?
Mr. Mietz — That sounds right, but we had a difficult time, too, extrapolating this
information, but nothing other than the addition of the ATM in that lane that I saw on
here was really substantially different.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but there are some small differences that I am able to
see even on this fuzzy plan and that is for instance the plantings along what is called
Judd Falls Road here, which is now Pine Tree Road, is different on this plan than what
they are in reality. So I want to be sure that we don't include this plan in the approval as
other materials presented and approved because we can't really, I can't deal with this
anyway. I can't read it.
Chairperson Wilcox _ I believe that the resolutions as proposed reference materials
dated August 15, 2005.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but as usual it always says, "and other application
materials" and I would like to make sure that we exclude this so that nothing happens
that we don't want to see happen.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have to change that anyways. Every place where it says
materials dated August 15, 2005 we are going to have to change including one drawing
A200 revised September 19, 2005.
Ms. Tedesco - Maybe I could propose a change for where that would occur. It could
read, "accepting as adequate plans entitled HSBC East Hill Branch Site Plan dated
August 15, 2005 and HSBC East Hill Branch Elevation dated September 19, 2005 ".
That references the two plants specifically without mentioning the original site plan,
which I included for information. .
Chairperson Wilcox — And I appreciate you putting it in. Thank you.
Attorney Barney — I think it is actually 1972. The old plans for the East Hill Plaza are
about this quality as well, so I think its 1972.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to the environmental review?
Board Member, Hoffmann — And so we don't need to cross out other application
materials?
Ms. Tedesco — I think it would be important to keep it in because the photographs that
were in...
14
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — Because we have the photographs, yes.
Ms. Tedesco — The photographs are matched up with the elevations.
Attorney Barney — This is probably the site plan that is being modified in a way.
Board Member Hoffmann — But we haven't gotten... well...
Attorney Barney — I mean you are modifying...
Board Member Hoffmann — I guess it has a little bit then.
Attorney Barney - ... it is being modified to C100, but this was...
Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to be sure that we are not approving something
that didn't happen or doesn't exist.
Attorney Barney — I can't tell you whether this plan was ever followed or not.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, in one respect I can see that it wasn't followed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion with regard to the environmental review?
Okay. So Nicole has proposed the language that would be substituted in the SEQR
resolution as drafted for Whereas clause number 3. Then by extension should we get
to it, it would also be included in the two places in the actual site plan modification
resolution as drafted. Would someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Howe moves the motion and Board Member Thayer seconds the
motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 =090: SEQR, Site Plan Modification, HSBC Bank — East
Hill, Site Improvements, 302 Pine Tree Rd., Tax Parcel No. 62.44.1
MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Thayer,
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Site Plan Modifications for the HSBC Bank located
at 302 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.4-2.1, Community
Commercial Zone. The proposal involves adding two parking spaces, new
landscaping, and changing the building fagade by eliminating the north entrance
and adding additional windows on the north and east sides of the building. Yunis
Realty, Owner; The Property Advisory, LLC, Agent, and
15
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on September 20, 2005, has 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, plans entitled "HSBC —
East Hill Branch, Site Plan," dated August 15, 2005, by Martin H. Rose,
Registered Architect (NSE No. 010323), and Elevation dated September 20,
2005, 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, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consideration of Site Plan Modifications at the HSBC Bank located at 302 Pine
Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 624-2.1, Community Commercial Zone.
The proposal involves adding two parking spaces, new landscaping, and
changing the building fagade by eliminating the north entrance and adding
additional windows on the north and east sides of the building. Yunis Realty,
Owners The Property Advisory, LLC, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:37 p.m. and reads the public hearing
notice.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions of the applicant at this time? There being none, sir,
you may have a seat.
16
f'�
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one
interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Discussion?
Board Member Conneman — The only concern that I would have, Fred, is to be sure that
they are talking to Rite Aid.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think Rite Aid needs to talk to the bank.
Board Member Conneman — I assume both ways, but there should be .a conversation.
Chairperson Wilcox — Actually, I was
it is in both party's interest as well
assume that they are negotiations,
mean, its possible that if the various
that is safe for everybody involvec
proposal for sure.
pleased to hear that they are
as the Town's interest that
that they continue because
landowners don't come up
I, then that could certainly
talking and obviously
those negotiations,
it is entirely likely, I
vith a circulation plan
impact the Rite Aid
Board Member Hoffmann — I actually wanted to ask you what some of your concerns
were.
Mr. Mietz — I think that the bank's interest is really to create a proper traffic flow through
that area. Again, the new Rite Aid use is a completely different scenario than what
exists there today and the traffic volume and flow would be different so I think the bank's
position at this point is not to try to sever off that entrance. from the Rite Aid proposal so
that those lots could be used.
Board Member Hoffmann — Which entrance are you talking about?
Mr. Mietz — The one closest to the bank on Pine Tree Road because there had been
some discussion about whether that because it actually is on the Yunis property so
there really has to be some cross easement work done and that is what is going on right
now. Then it comes down to issues of maintenance and all kinds of stuff like that, but I
think it is in everybody's best interest that that is retained versus seeing it severed off.
Board Member Hoffmann — What about. the other entrance on Mitchell Street? The one
that is closest to the bank, not the one that is further west. I would assume that bank
patrons who come for the drive though would come in there from Mitchell Street.
Mr. Mietz — Yes. They do.
Board Member Hoffmann — Is that a problem if Rite Aid uses that, too?
Mr. Mietz — We don't believe so as long as the lanes are maintained properly there.
Again, there is some...I don't have enough statistics to tell you honestly what the
17
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
difference in traffic coming in that entrance and coming around the building are to be
quite frank with you, but again to take that access away or having it shared I don't
believe is going to be a problem. I think the...
Mr. Kanter — I was just going to ask about the walkway. Did you see the most recent
plan that Rite Aid is proposing a walkway to extend along Mitchell Street and then cut
up through the bank property up to Pine Tree Road?
Mr. Mietz —Yes,
Mr. Kanter - Do you see a conceptual problem with that assuming access easements
and agreements can be worked out?
Mr. Mietz — It seems to make good logical sense.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you speaking for the bank?
Mr. Mietz — You know, I really can't from the perspective of saying other than we have
been look at all this stuff and we work with them on all of these projects, but again what
I think it is really going to come down to as it does in all of theses things, its really a real
estate transaction between Ellicott and Yunis related to these easements and tradeoffs
as it relates to these improvements.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. I appreciate your willing to respond to the question.
Board Member Hoffmann I have one more question, actually. It has to do with signs
because you seem to have ... the bank seems to have temporary signs up, not just a
sign that gives the bank name, but then there are these banners on both the north side
and the east side of the building. How long are those up?
Mr. Mietz - Those ... what the
30 days campaigns on very
banners up. This is kind of a
do this, but my understanding
how long will they be up.and i
They do change them.
marketing department of the bank does is they run these
specific things that they are doing and they put these
phenomenon throughout the state that they are trying to
because this question has come up in numerous places,
ny understanding is 30 days for these very specific ones.
Chairperson Wilcox — They take them down and then put another one up.
Mr. Mietz — Those materials are really not forever materials. They are not particularly
attractive over long periods of time and they are supposed to be impact. In other words
that they are supporting a media campaign and a mail campaign saying that they have
this promotion and then remove it when the promotion is over.
Board Member Hoffmann — I missed how many days you said.
im
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Mietz - 30 days is what I have been told.
Board Member Hoffmann — And how long of a break is there before there is another
sign put up?
Mr. Mietz - It really kind of depends on the marketing program and I'm really not
conversant enough to be able to honestly tell you. There could be a time where there is
none for 2 months; I mean it seems to vary on how they run these promotions.
Board Member Hoffmann — What do our laws say about that kind of temporary sign?
Attorney Barney — I think that they are probably permitted provided that they don't
exceed the maximum sign area that is permitted.
Board Member Hoffmann — The signs that I have seen are usually the same size as the
bank name sign, but because there is one on the east side near corner and one on the
north side near the same corner and then there is the bank name sign, it looks like a
great big sign.
Attorney Barney — The size of the signs for, I think, the purposes of our ordinance and
without telling me what the dimension are, I can't really even answer as to whether they
are vacant or not. It's really a dimensional thing. The square footage, the maximum
square footage is tied to the sign itself.
Board Member Talty — John, isn't it also permanency versus temporary? I think that
there is something in there because I don't know about the square footage, but that is
the differential between permanent and temporary. To answer your question, I think
that it is 30 days and they can take it down and put a new one up the next day as long
as it is a different one, but I don't know about the ordinance on square footage.
Mr. Kanter - ...that maybe in residential districts.
Attorney Barney — Well, you can put up a political poster, non - for - profit promotional,
private sales or similar signs not exceeding 6 square feet in size. In business and
industrial zones, such signs maybe up to 24 square feet in size as a temporary sign. So
don't know ... (not audible) ... this is a business zone.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is this a pass along to Andy?
Attorney Barney — Yeah, probably.
Chairperson Wilcox — At this point, we don't know the exact dimensions of those
temporary signs either. We could guess at them, but I would rather not.. Jon, could we
ask you to just provide a picture to Andy Frost if you would?
Mr. Kanter — Sure. I have one.
19
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — And we'll see what the zoning department says.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — I need a motion.
Board Member Howe moves the motion and Board Member Talty seconds the motion.
Chairperson Wilcox — John, you are still looking at the sign ordinance. Could I get you
back to changes to the resolution as drafted?
Attorney Barney — Yup. I think maybe Nicole's change with the reference in the
Whereas... and then I'm not quite sure I have exactly what Eva had in mind with respect
to the plantings. Number one, the plantings that are shown on the plan need to be
installed. That is what you are approving so I don't think you need to say anything more
than that.
Board Member Hoffmann — Except my problem with this is it isn't clear whether it is the
existing plants or whether these are new plants. It doesn't give the name of. the
plantings and there is nothing in the text that we got from them that says anything about
the plantings.
Mr. Smith — There is a planting schedule that labels all of those plants.
Board Member Hoffmann — That is only for the junipers, the two kinds of junipers on this
plan.
Mr. Smith — Right. The ones being put in.
Board Member Hoffmann — But it doesn't say anything about these plants whether they
are the existing or...
Attorney Barney — Is it fair to say that these plants on these elevations are currently
existing plants? I think probably what I had was substantially all of the existing plants
except for those removed to create a new entrance will remain ... with 12 junipers shown
on the site plan C100 to be added.
Board Member Hoffmann — No. It's not a new entrance. There is an entrance there.
They are closing another entrance, but except for the ones where they are creating two
new parking spaces.
Attorney Barney — The other was that the existing light pole and
either in its present location or relocated to a location where
equivalent amount of light and is substantially in the same location.
light to be retained
it still provides the
20
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Mietz — That would be fine also. I believe that is correct. It does not depict that on
the site plan, so that is absolutely fine.
Chairperson Wilcox — Rod and Kevin, you all set?
Board Member Howe — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other discussion? Any other changes?
RE
NO.
1: Si
Pine Tree Rd., Tax Parcel No. 62.-
HSBC Bank —
MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Talty.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Site Plan Modification for the HSBC Bank located
at 302 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.-1 -2.1, Community
Commercial Zone. The proposal involves adding two parking spaces, new
landscaping, and changing the building fagade by eliminating the north entrance
and adding additional windows on the north and east sides of the building. Yunis
Realty, Owner; The Property Advisory, LLC, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the
lead agency in environmental review
September 20, 2005, made a ns
significance, after having reviewed
Environmental Assessment Form Part
prepared by Town Planning staff, and
Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
with respect to Site Plan Approval, has,
igative determination of environmental
and accepted as adequate a Short
f, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 20, 2005, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate plans entitled "HSBC — East Hill Branch,
Site Plan," dated August 15, 2005, by Martin H. Rose, Registered Architect (NSE
No. 010323), and Elevation dated September 20, 2005 and other application
materials;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Site Plan Modifications, 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 modifications for the HSBC Bank located at 302
21
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62.41 2. 1, as shown on the plans
entitled "HSBC — East Hill Branch, Site Plan," dated August 15, 2005, by Martin
H. Rose, Registered Architect (NSE No. 010323), and Elevation dated
September 20, 2005, subject to the following condition:
a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper,
signed and sealed by the registered architect who prepared the site plan
materials and two paper copies of the final site plan drawings, to be
retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit,
and
b, substantially all of the existing plants except for those removed to create
two new parking spaces, will remain after completion of the modification
with the 12 juniper shown on the site plan C100 and the plantings on A100
be added, and
C, the existing light pole and light be retained either in the present location or
relocated to a location where it still provides the equivalent amount of
lighting in substantially the same location.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
SEAR DETERMINATION
Indian Creek Farm Porch Addition, 1408 Trumansburg Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Stephen Cummins, 1408 Trumansburg Road
First off, thanks to Susan for getting me on in such short notice. I appreciate it.
Basically what we are doing is I won an Ag Tourism grant almost a year ago now and it
is for the purpose of putting up a front porch onto the existing barn. It is a fruit and
vegetable stand. It would go the full length of the barn, which is 100 foot long. The
porch would be 13 feet and its basically replacing what used to be a greenhouse that
was attached to the front porch or to the barn. The greenhouse we took apart a couple
of years ago and reassembled to the north of the barn and with the idea that at some
point some day when the money came around we would put up a front porch. Now the
money is here, so we decided to do it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to environmental impacts or potential
environmental impacts?
22
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Thayer — Nope. I'll move the SEQR.
Motion made by Board Member Thayer and seconded by Board Member Conneman.
With no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox calls for a vote on the motion.
RES
NO.
Parcel No. 24 -1 -25.21
Farm P
N
Plan
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Conneman.
WHEREAS.
Ti
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed front porch at the Indian Creek Farm located at
1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 244- 25.21, Agricultural
Zone. The proposal involves adding a 1, 500 +A square foot open -air porch to the
east side of the existing barn for vegetable and fruit display. Stephen Cummins,
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 Special Permit, and
3. The Planning Board, on September 20, 2005, has 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, plans entitled "Indian
Creek Farm Porch Addition Site Plan," including Sheets 1, 2, and 3 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 and
Special Permit;
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.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
23
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval
and Special Permit for the proposed front porch at the Indian Creek Farm located
at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 25.21, Agricultural
Zone. The proposal involves adding a +/= 1,500 square foot open air porch to the
east side of the existing barn for vegetable and fruit display. Stephen Cummins,
Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. and reads the public hearing
notice.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to site plan?
Board Member Hoffmann — I agree that it is rather sketchy, but I also agree that one can
tell enough from it.
Board Member Howe — It looks like a nice addition.
Chairperson Wilcox — Will you be producing any more detailed drawings for bidding or
actual construction work?
Mr. Cummins - Yes. Architectural plans will be done hopefully tomorrow..
Chairperson Wilcox — Would it be reasonable to ask that we get a copy of those final
plans?
Ms. Ritter — The building department will get one.
Chairperson Wilcox — They will get one automatically as part of the building permit?
Okay. So we don't need to make that a condition of the resolution here?
Ms. Ritter — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Any other questions?
Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one
interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:55 p.m.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have one question. I know that in the past there have
been some problems with your neighbor to the south because they have a driveway that
comes over very close to your stand.
24
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Cummins — They used to, but they have since made a new driveway.
Board Member Hoffmann — I know that they have two driveways, but I didn't realize that
this one is not used anymore. Are you saying that the one that goes very close to your
stand is not, used anymore by them?
Mr. Cummins — Correct.
Board Member Hoffmann — It goes up to their barn, I believe.
Mr. Cummins — That's true.
Board Member Hoffmann — Anyway, have you talked to them about the proposed
changes?
Mr. Cummins — Have I talked to them? No.
Mr. Kanter — They would have been notified of this hearing.
Chairperson Wilcox'— As an adjacent property owner.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay.
Board Member Talty moves the motion and Chairperson Wilcox seconds the motion.
Chairperson Wilcox — Has everybody noted in the resolution as drafted the special
permit portion, which we don't deal with very often? Just wanted to make sure that
everybody has read that and is in an agreement with that.
W
T
NO.
Porch
1408
Site Plan A
MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox.
WHEREAS:
T
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed front porch at the Indian Creek Farm located at
1408 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 244- 25.21; Agricultural
Zone. The proposal involves adding a 1, 500 + /- square foot open -air porch to the
east side of the existing barn for vegetable and fruit display. Stephen Cummins,
Owner /Applicant, and
25
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
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 and
Special Permit has, on September 20, 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 September. 20, 2005, has
reviewed and accepted plans entitled "Indian Creek Farm . Porch Addition Site
Plan, "including Sheets 1, 2, and 3 and other application materials, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such
waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
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 addition of a 1, 500 + 1- square foot porch on the east side of
the Indian Creek Farm bam located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, as shown on
the submitted plans entitled "Indian Creek Farm Porch Addition Site Plan."
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the project,
determining that:
a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in
harmony with the general purpose of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code and
the specific purposes, are being promoted, and
b, the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, and such use
will fill a neighborhood or community need, and
C. the proposed use and the location and design of proposed structures are
consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, and
d, the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or
neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring
property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, and
e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations,
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER'20, 2005
APPROVED
illumination, or other public nuisance, than the operation of any permitted
use in the zone in which the use is located, and
f. community infrastructure and services are of adequate capacity to
accommodate the proposed use, and
g. the proposed use, facility design, and site layout comply with all of the
provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and to the extent
considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations of the Town, and
with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and
h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses is safely
designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency
vehicles, and
In the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole is
not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community,
and
j. the lot area and access are sufficient for the proposed use, and
k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with
good engineering practices, and existing drainageways are not altered in a
manner that adversely affects other properties, and
I. to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the
proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site
plan review set forth in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
SEQR DETERMINATION:
Candlewyck Park Apartments Fitness Center, 1141 Trumansburg Road
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:57 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Herman, before you start, let me just for the record state that
both live and work in buildings owned by Integrated Acquisition and Development.
Herman Sieverding, Integrated Acquisition Development
27
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
PB RESOLUTION NO 2005 =094• SEQR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval,
Candlewyck Apartments Fitness Center, 1141 Trumansbur4 Road, Tax Parcel No.
26 -4-33
MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Thayer.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed fitness center at the Candlewyck Park Apartments located at 1141
Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 264-33, Multiple Residence
Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing swimming pool and pool
house to construct a +/- 850 square foot fitness center on the site for Candlewyck
residents. Triquad c% Integrated Acquisition & Development, Owner /Applicant,
and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting
as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on September 20, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form. Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and Part l/ prepared by Town Planning staff, a Project Narrative
(August 24, 2005), a set of drawings showing the layout and details. of the
proposed fitness center, 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.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 8:02 p.m.
W
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
fitness center at the Candlewyck Park Apartments located at 1141 Trumansburg
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26 -4 -33, Multiple Residence Zone. The
proposal involves demolishing the existing swimming pool and pool house to
construct a +/- 850 square foot fitness center on the site for Candlewyck
residents. Triquad 'c /o Integrated Acquisition & Development, Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:02 p.m. and reads the public hearing
notice.
Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one
interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:02 p.m, and
brings the matter back to the board.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, it looks like an improvement to me.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions? Anything from staff over here?
Mr. Kanter — We just have that one revision on the plan labeled layout option one,
needing an accurate scale.
Board Member Conneman moves the motion and Chairperson Wilcox seconds the
motion.
w�
)N ' NO. 2
1 Final
Candlewvck Apartments Fitness Center, 1141 Trumansburg Road, Tax Parcel No.
26 -4 -33
MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox.
WHEREAS.
This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed fitness center at the Candlewyck Park Apartments located at 1141
Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 264-33, Multiple Residence
Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing swimming pool and pool
house to construct a +/- 850 square foot fitness center on the site for Candlewyck
residents. Triquad c% Integrated Acquisition & Development, 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
September 20, 2005, made a negative determination of environmental
significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
30
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
I think the package that I prepared for the Planning Board explains pretty well what we
would like to do here, which is to take Candlewyck Apartments, which is a 77 -unit
property on Trumansburg Road near Bundy Road and take an existing pool and
cabana, which has been a high maintenance and very seasonal use, obviously,
residential amenity and replace it with a fitness center. It can be used year round and is
much more usable to our residents. It is actually part of a program that we are
instituting in several of our properties. We built one not too long in Rochester. We have
one under construction now at Northwood Apartments in the Village of Lansing. So we
think that this will prove to be a very attractive amenity for our residents.
The site plan that is in your packet, we worked with David Herrick at TG Miller.
The fitness center itself will be sited over where the pool is. The pool and all the
concrete will be demolished, as would the cabana and the pool house. All the utilities
necessary to support the pool are there so it is already a developed site. Access, I think
for this facility is very easy. We have a network of sidewalks that connect where all
these apartments are located. So a resident could easily walk to this facility. The
architectural style is a one -story building with two intersecting gable roofs. I think in the
narrative we had sort of described that there were two different options that we were
considering for the exterior of the building. I think we finally settled on what we are
doing. This is a blowup of the elevation and it's a combination of vertical and horizontal
siding separated by... (not audible)...
Chairperson, Wilcox — Environmental impacts, sir?
Mr. Sieverding — I don't think there are any.
Chairperson .Wilcox — Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Sieverding — Stormwater, obviously, would be a main concern but I think that a fact
of the matter is with all the concrete sort of hard impervious surface that we are taking
away, we are only replacing it with a relatively small footprint. The building is only 850
square feet. So all that concrete area will be replaced by lawn. I think you have a
landscaping "plan showing how we are proposing to landscape the site with several
trees and planting beds blanketing the main entry into the building.
Board Member Thayer — It really is not visible from the road, is it?
Mr. Sieverding — It isn't. It's really nicely sort of tucked in between 4 of the apartment
buildings there.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to environmental review?
Board Member Thayer — None.
Board Member Howe moves the resolution and Board Member Thayer seconds the
motion.
Environmental Assessment Form Part 1,
prepared by Town Planning staff, and
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11
3, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on September 20, 2005, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate, a Project Narrative (August 24, 2005), a set
of drawings showing the layout and details of the proposed fitness center,
including Survey Maps, labeled as "Candlewyck Park Apartments Site Plan" and
"Proposed Fitness Center Location Plan"; (date stamped August 25, 2005),
Drawings L1 "Layout Option 1" (5110105), C1 "Site Layout and Utility Plan"
(6124105), and C2 "Details" (6124105), all prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C., A 1 "Floor
Plan" (318105) and A2 "Exterior Elevations" for the New Fitness Center at
Candlewyck Apartments, both prepared by Architectura, P.C., Architects, and
Plant Plan (6120105) prepared by Cayuga Landscape Co., Inc., 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
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval for the proposed fitness center at the Candlewyck Park
Apartments located at 1141. Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
26 -4 -33, Multiple Residence Zone, as shown on the set of drawings showing the
layout and details of the proposed fitness center, including Survey Maps, labeled
as "Candlewyck Park Apartments Site Plan" and "Proposed Fitness Center
Location Plan'; (date stamped August 25, 2005), Drawings L 1 "Layout Option 1 "
(5110105), C1 "Site Layout and Utility Plan" (6124105), and C2 "Details" (6124105),
all prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., Al "Floor Plan" (318105) and A2 "Exterior
Elevations" for the New Fitness Center at Candlewyck Apartments, both
prepared by Architectura, P.C., Architects, and Plant Plan (6120105) prepared by
Cayuga Landscape Co., Inc., and other application materials, subject to the
following conditions, prior to issuance of any building permit:
a. Revision of the Site Plan labeled as "Layout Option I" to include an
accurate map scale, and
b. Submission of one original set of the final site plan drawings, revised as
indicated in condition "a" above, 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.
31
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The vote on the motion was carried unanimously.
SKETCH PLAN
Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed Pine .Tree Road Office
Building project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes
demolishing several existing barns and related abandoned buildings and
constructing a new three story, +/= 60,000 square foot office building for Cornell
University. The project will also include new lighting, landscaping, walkways,
stormwater facilities and approximately 240 parking spaces. Cornell University,
Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, this is not a public hearing.. Nonetheless,
this board has generally made it a policy to get input from residents as soon as we can
in the process, therefore, assuming that we don't run real long, we do adjourn at 10 and
we have one more significant item after this, we will give the public a chance to speak.
Having said that, the floor is yours, sir.
Mr. Sieverding — David Herrick, from TG Miller will later on in the presentation talk about
the site plan and site layout, parking and stormwater management. Vince Nicotra,
partner in QPK Design, will talk about building configuration, landscape plan and
building elevations. Then Tim and Tom Colbert, partners in Integrated, to help me
answer questions.
I think you all have copies of sort of the sketch plan narrative that we put together
so we are not really going to start going through that in detail, just to give you an
overview and mostly give David and Vince and opportunity to talk a little bit more about
the plans. After, I would like to talk a little bit about the environmental review at least
some of the key issues that we think need to be addressed in the long environmental
assessment form and then talk a little bit about the project schedule on top of that.
The proposed site for this project, which is a 60,000 square foot office building.
This is a slightly different aerial photograph than what you have in the package, but
think it sort of sets the .... for the site. So the address of the project site is 391 Pine Tree
Road. On the front of the site is the ... the specific area in question is approximately an
8.5 acre piece of property starting right behind the seismic building. It would
encompass all of the existing barns and out buildings that are left over from the GENEX
Corporation, coming back almost along with a portion of East Hill Plaza where Cornell
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
maintains offices. Surrounding property uses, to the west on the opposite side of Pine
Tree Road is a cemetery and further down the road is the Courtside Fitness Center and
Ides buildings. To the south is East Hill Plaza, although in between is Olivia's. To the
north, is a 100 -foot wide NYSEG easement for... (not audible)...
.. The building is, as we mentioned, a 60,000 square foot building, three stories.
The parking proposed is approximately 240 spaces. David will talk more about the
layout of those parking spaces. The proposed used is general office space for various
non - academic administrative functions of the university. The design intent of this
building is to develop flexible, adaptable space for different size office units that will
accommodate different office demand as it evolves at the university over time.
The relationship between IAD and Cornell is probably one that you have been
thinking about. We have contracted by the university to develop this building. I think
the university's decision to do that is largely in part because it is an off - campus location.
I think that they have decided to use the services of the private sector to develop office
space in that off - campus site. Integrated has had previous history of developing space
off campus for Cornell. Most notably, the development office in the Cornell Business
and Technology Park and Cornell does occupy space elsewhere in the area, in addition
to the Cornell Business and Technology Park, as we mentioned earlier they do occupy
a substantial portion of East Hill Plaza, which is also used for various administrative
office functions.
As I mentioned, it is a contractual relationship between Integrated and Cornell
where IAD will develop the building that when completed will be owned and operated by
the university. In terms of this particular location, I think first and foremost proximity to
East Hill Plaza where Cornell already maintains a pretty substantial office presence. I
think when we talk about the site plan and the building layout, part of the reason the
building is where it is, is to sort of facilitate travel, communication between the two
entities. The building is also is located here, I think, is also in part because it is
convenient to services that the occupants of this building would need that would be
available at East Hill Plaza and depending on what Ellicott Development does in the
future, additional support services there.
Finally, it is an opportunity to improve a vacant, abandoned site. The site has
been sitting like this for quite a long time. It is an opportunity to clean it up in terms of
demolishing all of those buildings that are there and replacing with, I think, a well -
designed, well thought out site plan and building. So I think to explain a little bit more
fully that site layout and drainage and lighting, I will have David come up and walk us
through the site plan.
David Herrick, TG Miller
Mr. Sieverding has already described an expected relationship between the presence in
the East Hill Plaza and the proposed building and that is why you see it set back from
the road as it is. The demolition of the existing facilities are actually captured by
another 3 acres... (not audible) ... property. So you have about a 2.9 acres or 3 acre
33
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
existing disturbance that will be all ... (not audible)... and revegetated. Then the
proposed building and parking actually is about 3 acres. So in terms of impervious
disturbance, we have about a net relationship. There is an expectation that the project
will utilize the existing access drive off of Pine Tree Road. We propose to improve that
road section between the property lines.
Some other improvements at GENEX will include removing the southerly access
that is there now right adjacent to the intersection with Olivia's and East Hill Car Wash,
we will be removing that and setting a more formal intersection opposite of Olivia's with
the backside of the GENEX building Where they do have less formal use is really not
something ... (not audible) ... so this will be providing more access.
The stormwater management plan is simple. We are going to as best we can
utilize sheet drainage off the parking lot to the west and also to the north will be
provided some vegetative swales to capture that sheet runoff right to ... to take it to a
pond...it is already a significantly hollowed out area ... that may or may not have the
permanent water presents. It is a relatively small drainage area, but it would be similar
to what we have recently constructed at Overlook at West Hill. So all of the site
disturbance will be managed in accordance with the stormwater pollution prevention
plan and we will have permanent practices for water quality and water quantity.
Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask you, what is the difference between a pocket
pond and other retention ponds?
Mr. Herrick — Pocket pond is one of several practices that the state has in their inventory
of approved treatment system. A pocket pond is small. It has a relatively small
drainage area that feeds a traditional wet pond, which handles a much larger, 25 or
greater acre watershed. So the pocket pond realizes more fluctuation in the water
elevation because you generally have a small watershed feeding it.
Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you
Mr. Herrick — With respect to the parking, we are showing 240 increased spaces in this
plan and these are all traditional spaces in accordance with the Town's requirements.
Site lighting. We expect to provide street lighting along the access drive. Those will be
25 -foot tall single fixtures, insulation. Also in the parking lot we will be looking at a
similar 25 -foot pole with the shoebox or cutoff laminar style, which you see in the other
projects. Adjacent to the... pedestrian ways, we have a smaller combination of...lights
for small... poles.
Chairperson Wilcox — David, did I read that some of the light poles were 25 feet and
some were 15 feet?
Mr. Herrick — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Which are you proposing to be 25 and which would be 15?
34
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Herrick — The 25s are those that will be in the parking area and I believe that,.. I'm
sorry the access will have 25 -foot poles. Within the parking area, there are the 15 -foot
poles. Then there are... (not audible) ... which is adjacent to the entrances both front and
back. We are expecting to bring in a new sanitary line in from Pine Tree Road back to
the building. We are proposing... (not audible) ... clearly there will be a need for fire
suppression in the building because of the size of the facility to handle the needs of
any... (not audible)...
Board Member Hoffmann — Can I go back to the lights? You mentioned that the 25 -foot
height is the same as the height in the existing East Hill Plaza in the parking area.
Mr. Herrick — Well, I was saying that the fixture style, the cut -off, square shoebox style is
going to be consistent with what you have seen in the rest of the plaza. The heights will
vary because there are some taller poles within the plaza itself, The Burger King site,
the Trust Company site, CFCU, some of those have those traditional cutoff fixtures.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right. I was just trying to get a comparison of the heights,
but you don't have those figures.
Mr. Herrick — I don't. I could guess at what I thought it was in the plaza, but I won't
can find out for you.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think Herman has already made the note.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. That would be nice to know because it helps us
visualize how it will look.
Mr. Herrick — I think those are the basics of the site plan and...
Mr. Sieverding — I would just add a little word about the parking. I think in the narrative
we explained how we arrived at 240 spaces and that is the LDR zone, which allows
educational uses, refers you to the parking section of the Zoning Ordinance where you
can find how many spaces you need to provide. So what we proposed is that we use
the Town's Zoning Ordinance parking requirements for office spaces, which is 1 space
per 200 square feet. We also can take advantage of the 20% reduction that the Zoning
Ordinance allows the Planning Board to grant provided, of course, we show land ... area
where we will have the spaces that we are not building. So with 60,000 square feet it
gives us 300 with the law requirement, with the 20% reduction it gives us 240 give or
take what we are proposing to build.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think that this board will have a problem with limiting the
parking to 240.
Mr. Sieverding — Okay.
99
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox — As it reduces the amount of impervious surface, but as you saw, it
would be important to show on the plan where those additional 60 spaces could be
placed if necessary in the future. -David, I don't know whether it was you or Herman or
someone else who mentioned... talked . about the sidewalk that is being proposed as
well. I think that is an amenity that needs to be mentioned as well.
Mr. Herrick — From the main entrance all the way out to the access drive and continuing
along the access drive to Pine Tree Road will be a combination of concrete and asphalt
concrete sidewalks... (not audible)... and adjacent to the curb we will have some vertical
issues. There is some hillside here, if you will, that will be going up the proposed
curbside adjacent to ... once we get passed that limitation we will be grading curb.. tree
lawn area. Once we get to Pine Tree Road, we will be ... (not audible)...
Mr. Sieverding — There is, I think an additional important site amenity that kind of relates
to the sidewalk layout and that is that Tom Colbert and I met with TCAT last week about
bus service to the site. I think that there are about 4 or 5 different bus routes that
service the site. They decided that they really can't bring a bus into the site, so they
have asked us to work on locating a bus shelter as the intersection of those two
sidewalks. I think that at some point in time we would have to talk about maybe getting
the County involved in some sort of articulated... crosswalk for the pedestrians crossing
Pine Tree from the opposite side. So our next generation site plan will locate that bus
shelter.
Mr. Herrick — There is already an existing walk also ... (not audible)...
Board Member Hoffmann — How about a continuation of some sort of walkway, not
necessary sidewalk, but a trail over to Cascadilla Creek and to continue onto campus?
To connect up to the Cascadilla trail first of all, and from there to campus. Have you
thought about that?
Mr. Sieverding — I think that the sidewalk, Eva that is being proposed along the site
driveway hooks up to a sidewalk that has already been built on the north side of
Maple ... (not audible)...
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but that is a little out of the way. Have you thought
about some more direct way of getting to campus for people who might need to get to
campus who work in these Cornell offices unless they take a bus?
Mr. Kanter — Well, there is a related discussion that the Transportation Committee has
had over the years, which is.a walkway extending from the end of Summerhill Drive
across where the waterline goes and then back to Cascadilla creek. Which I believe is
probably right on the edge of this parcel. It's either on the edge of this parcel or on the
very next parcel that Cornell owns. Anyway, that is kind of a joint Cornell Town project
that we have talked with Cornell about, but really hasn't gone anywhere definitely at this
point.
36
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
.Board Member Hoffmann — It is something to keep in mind.
Chairperson Wilcox That would provide access to...I assume that north is up. That
would provide convenient access to that part of the campus. If you are going towards
the Arts Quad and Engineering Quad, then crossing over to Maple Avenue and going
down Maple Avenue is probably your best way to get to that part of campus, the more
central part.
Mr. Sieverding — There is also a creek you would have to cross, so you would have to
build a bridge.
Board Member Hoffmann — That has been discussed, too.
Mr. He — Any other questions on site plan issues that I can address?
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sure we will have more later. Thank you, David.
Chairperson Wilcox - Welcome back.
Mr. Nicotra - Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Name and address please.
Mr. Nicotra - Can you hear me?
Chairperson Wilcox - We can hear you
you
The question is can everyone behind you hear
Vincent Nicotra, QPK designs, Syracuse NY, 450 South Salinas Street
My name is Vincent Nicotra, I'm with QPK designs, Syracuse NY, 450 South Salinas
Street. What I'd like to do tonight is walk you through the landscaping concept and then
we'll look at the building design. As David mentioned, the access drive is going to be
developed for access to the building, and what we are proposing to do is to consolidate
that entrance curb, we're going to eliminate the south curb cut that exists there now and
the access drive is then going to be enhanced with the trees that you see on both sides,
and that's to create an identifiable entrance, because right now if you're out there, you
don't really get any sense of that drive being well identified, and this is a place to go. So
we think that's important in terms of a landscaping plan, to try to create that identity.
We also want to create a definite point of arrival, because it is a fairly long drive,
because what we are proposing is that there is a looped drive here and that's so that
you can get smooth access with vehicles that terminate at this access road, so you
could come in and swing around the circular drive and go back out again. And so you
know that you've arrived, we have enhanced this rather large island with a water feature
and we're proposing rocks in a pond. This is not part of the stormwater management
system, but it is a feature for aesthetic purposes and to enhance the experience of
37
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
arriving to the new building. And again, this would have running water to facilitate ... so
it doesn't stagnate basically.
From there, we're proposing a paved plaza with parking spaces here for visitor, and
then again to enhance the experience coming into the building, we're proposing planting
with flowering plants here and then flowering trees that you can see through, because
the view up to the North is actually rather nice. So as you come in and you can look off
to the right towards this landscaped area and look out towards the North.
The concept for the parking area is actually pretty straightforward. We plan to screen
and green. That's the terms that we're using, we have proposed here on the South
Side some bermed areas where the site naturally comes up grade wise and proposing
some evergreen trees, something that's more of a visual screening, and that will help
screen the parking lot and also the views towards the development across the street.
And then as you look at the parking lot, you can see that there's a landscaping strip all
the way around it. On the west side, we propose again a row of trees to help screen the
parking lot from any views from the west, and then the trees here in the island will also
provide shade and enhance the look of the parking lot. That, I think, is a nice feature.
And as you come around through these roads, we've set up [inaudible] so that you can
drive through and [inaudible] and look at treed landscaped areas. So the parking lot
itself will have some visual relief due to the plantings.
There are a few, there is one piece of mechanical equipment that is located here, which
is a cooling tower and then a dumpster that is here. And what we are proposing is
David is, the natural topography of the site will be graded in that direction, so as the site
drops, those two elements of servants will be at a lower- elevation, and then we will
provide additional plantings to help screen those elements as well. One of the sort of
important features that I think exists on the site, is you've mentioned the Cascadilla trail,
the area to the North is a fairly natural area, so the darker green here represents what
we would call manicured lawn, and then this lighter green is really a transitions zone
between manicured lawn and what we consider to be areas that will get intermittent
maintenance, you know, it might get mowed once or twice a year, so that it.will provide
a transition between the manicured lawn and this fairly natural area that exists around
the site. I think that's a fair description of what we're proposing. Questions?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, I like the fact that you have so many trees, not only
around the new parking lot and the building and so on, but also in the parking lot, but
I'm missing a little bit plantings on the North side of the parking lot for people who would
see the site from Judd Falls Road, as they go South. From Pine Tree Road, I'm sorry,
from Pine Tree Road, as they go south. And from the natural area along Cascadilla
creek. I don't know how well you can see through there in all seasons, but.perhaps in
the winter when the leaves are off it is possible to see out there. I just can't remember,
and I haven't been there for a while.
Mr. Nicotra - Because the site slopes up from that direction, it's going to be difficult to
screen with trees and have any real impact on screening that parking lot in any big way
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
from the intersection that you're talking about, in this direction, I don't believe the.views
will be that significant to the parking lot.
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, Pine Tree Road comes around in a rather big curve
there and for a stretch of it, and actually from Maple Avenue too, I can see in on the
fields there between Cascadilla creek and this site.
Mr. Nicotra = In this direction?
Board Member Hoffmann - Mmm hmm. And so I am not sure how much one could see,
but I would like you to look into that so that if there is a possibility of screening things
from that side too a little bit, and make this look more like a natural area from the other
side, that would be an advantage, it seems to me. Otherwise, I really like the way you
have tried to put a lot of greenery in there.
Mr. Herrick - OK, David Herrick, if I could just help...
Chairperson Wilcox - Could you grab a microphone David and just turn it on, just make
sure it's on. Thank you.
Mr. Herrick' - I drive by the site probably two or three times a day living in the
neighborhood. And what I've used as a reference is if you look on sheet, either C101 or
C102, you'll find.... ,
Board Member Hoffmann - Let me get to that. C102, OK.
Mr. Herrick - Just one of the proposed buildings is an outline is a dash. It's a long green
building that has, well it's not a green building, it has. a green roof and it's got that
[inaudible] relief to it, and it's just north of the proposed building. And if you drive up
Pine Tree Road and around that bend, you can just barely catch the [inaudible] of that
existing building, and the proposed parking lot grade will be at the ground level, which is
that building, so while you can see the roof from Pine Tree of that existing building,
parking will be even lower than that.
Board Member Hoffmann - OK. What about from the Cascadilla creek trail area?
Mr. Herrick - That, I do not frequent that on a daily basis.
Board Member Hoffmann - OK.
Mr. Nicotra - Any other questions related to landscaping?
Board Member Hoffmann - I have a question about grading, because you've mentioned
that, and I've seen it too, when I went in there and looked, that there is a bit of a rise
right where you are proposing to put the building, and you say that there is going to be
some grading, but that the slope will be pretty much maintained the way it is right now.
M'7
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Nicotra - Well, I would let, I guess I would defer that question to David.
Board Member Hoffmann - OK.
Mr. Herrick - Would you like me to pull the plan out to address that for you?
Board Member Hoffmann - mmm hmmm.
Mr. Herrick - The building will sit at an elevation that is consistent with the existing
contours and you are correct that there is quite a rise there, and that is why as I was
explaining earlier, we have this sidewalk against the curb because of that berm that
already exists. We're actually going to take advantage of that feature in parking on the
back side will be lower so that we will inherit a berm, if you will, that is already existing.
So that feature we'll see as a result of the out of grade parking lot. And the building is at
an elevation that is within a foot or two of the existing grade at that point.
Board Member Hoffmann - But how are you grading the parking lot area with respect to
how the house is sitting? I mean, you are trying to make the parking lot fairly level,
would suppose.
Mr. Herrick - Well, we are going to have the parking lot sloped generally in a northwest
direction so it will be pitching to the West, and for the few spaces that we have at the
North end of it; we are pitching that to the North. And it's about a 2% slope
approximately across the parking lot. So that we don't end up with the situation where
we have to import a large amount of fill around the brick roof. So we're not necessarily
having quote level parking field when we're done. So it does drop in the North and
West direction.
Board Member Hoffmann - mmm hmmm. Have you considered lowering the site where
the building is proposed to be, in order not to make it look higher than it's going to look
anyway?
Mr. Herrick - At this point, no, but I think the other thing to keep in mind is the distance
from Pine Tree to the building, you have 600 feet.
Board Member Hoffmann - Right, but Pine Tree Road goes quite a bit South from there,
and I come out from Snyder Hill Road everyday onto Pine Tree Road and drive north,
and I have measured out where I would see the building with respect to the East Hill
Plaza building, and I'm guessing that it's going to stick up quite a bit in an area... I had
hoped it was going to stick up so it would be in front of the veterinary school building,
which is a rather massive presence there, but it's actually going to be to the East of that,
and in front of some rather nice trees, and so I don't know how high it is going to be as
compared to the Vet school. I suspect it may look somewhat lower, but maybe not that
much lower if it's sitting up on this little rise.
.e
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Herrick - Well, we can provide you with the relationships between the buildings.
Board Member Hoffmann - Anyway, I would like to see drawings that show that
Chairperson Wilcox - One of the things that I was going to ask when you come back is
the height of some of the buildings in the neighborhood so we have something. to
compare it against.
Mr. Herrick - When we talk about the environmental review of it, we had proposed
dealing with the visual impacts. So we can ... those things out before we get...
Board Member Hoffmann - And not only from the North and the West, but from the
South, because a lot of people live to the South and drive from the South to the North
and would see this. And I have some more comments about including for the traffic
study into sections to the South too, but we'll get to that.
Chairperson Wilcox - So, Vince do you want to continue, can we move onto building
elevations?
Vincent Nicotra
What you are looking at is the West and East elevations of the building and then the
shorter elevation is either the North or the South, they're very similar, in fact on the ends
they are exactly the same. So, let me start by just talking about why the building is
shaped the way it is. It has a moderate width of about 93 feet and it is rectangular in
shape, and that was so that we could facilitate a lot of natural light coming into the
occupants that are in the building so there is not a lot of massive depth to the building.
AT 93 feet you are still going to be able to bring light fairly deep into the center of the
building, especially with open office areas and the way we intend to design the structure
internally, but also being able to have natural light in also facilitates the people in the
building to be able to see out. So that generated really the shape of the building in
terms of why it looks the way it does in its rectangular form.
Vertically, what we did is we divided the building into three parts: it has a base, a body
or a center section, and then a cornice or a cap. And the base is made up of a masonry
material, a concrete masonry block, a decorative face block. The center section is
brick, primarily is the predominant material. And then in the intermediate areas there is
synthetic stucco, EIFS, as it is referred to in your schematic submission. The other
areas are curt wall glass and there are really two sizes of opening in the body section:
the large curt wall section on the right and then on the other side there's ribbon windows
top and bottom, and that is just to break the mass of the building down and to give it
some visual interest. The cornice section is the top is designed so that it has a
homogeneous look to it. The intent here is that this metal of the column covers, the
fascia, the cornice, and the windows to a certain extent all look as one piece to create
this. cornice hat as you would call it, and that is to help the mass of the building look
more like a two story building. Which has a lighter top cornice piece, so that this reads
41
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
as a solid mass, and this reads as a light piece. And we recognize that we are going to
_need a zoning variance, the height of the building from the slab to the roof is proposed
at about 46 feet 8 inches, and we believe that the design helps to mitigate that height,
and the heights there are so that we can create an environment interior for open office
areas which will facilitate both 9 foot 6 ceiling heights and 11 foot ceiling heights inside
the building and still allow for mechanical space.
The main entrance of the facility, which is here in the center, has a canopy section,
which spans from the brick to the brick here and you can see on the sides there is one
on the front and one on the back, and that's because we wanted it to balance both sides
of the building so that if you're a visitor you still have a very nice looking entrance. If
you work in the building every day, you have a similar experience. The only difference
being that between the two that you don't see the other side. It will be similar to this, but
the corner will be of less width. Otherwise the buildings are, the building is fairly
symmetrical front and back, the other elevation will have just some minor openings for a
staircase and the canopy. Other than that, the building is fairly uniform otherwise.
Board Member Conneman - I gather it's not going to be a green building. Cornell talks
about this.
Mr. Nicotra - If you mean, if you mean LEED certified, no, there's not an incentive. But
think some of the principles in terms of trying to bring light and views that you see in
LEED design are part of what the concept that is driving the interior and exterior space
development.
Board Member Conneman - I'm somewhat concerned about the height, which I guess
we will go over at some .point. When you come back, I hope that you will bring a sample
of the materials that you talked about.
Mr. Nicotra - Yes we will.
Board Member Conneman - Because it makes a lot of difference, I think to this board to
actually see what you're going to put up there instead of saying well, it's going to be
gray.
Mr. Nicotra - We've been before you before I think, and we'll have a full samples board
you can address your questions and issues you might have.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think I now understand something that puzzled me in the
text, because you are saying that the top floor would be light as compared to the
bottom. And I thought you meant light as compared with dark, but you mean light as
compared with heavy.
Mr. Nicotra - Yes.
Mr. Herrick - In terms of how it's used, it's all glass as opposed to the masonry.
42
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Hoffmann - Because the top is rather dark as opposed to the bottom. I
like the design, I think it's a good design, and I like the ideas behind it. But, I'm with you
George; I sort of would like to have certain things that are in green buildings. Will the
windows open in this one?
Mr. Nicotra - No, they will not
Board Member Hoffmann - hmmm. That's too bad, for the people who are going to
work there too.
Board Member Conneman - You know, the Ithaca College has proposed a green
building.
Mr. Nicotra - Yes, they have.
Board Member Conneman - I have another question. In several places you talk about
what you call educational use. What is the educational use of this building?
Mr. Nicotra - Educational as it relates to Cornell as an educational institution, it's their
administrative people. There's not classrooms...
Board Member Conneman - It's not for students or any academic things.
Mr. Herrick - No, no, this is purely administrative, sort of academic support functions.
Board Member Conneman - OK, does that mean you are going to move people out of
East Hill Plaza, or this is in addition to that?
Mr. Herrick - This is in addition to that.
Board Member Conneman - This is in addition to what you built downtown?
Mr. Herrick - Correct.
Board Member Conneman - OK.
Chairperson Wilcox - Go ahead.
Board Member Conneman - Seems like a lot of administration, that's all I was going to
say.
Chairperson Wilcox -, Is that rhetorical?
Board Member Conneman - That was rhetorical because I believe in academics and
students rather than administration.
FAN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - I think you can answer this, if not your partners behind you can.
On Brown Road is an empty building right now, 55, 57, whatever it is. Which I believe is
owned by Cornell University. It was emptied out when those employees went down
town. That's Cornell University owned building at this point, built by, I believe, built by
IAD. If Cornell has 36,000 square feet sitting there empty, why do they want to build
60,000 square feet on Pine Tree Road?
Mr. Nicotra - I think, and Tim and Tom jump in, but I think part of the thinking there is
that it involves our incubator space for other businesses that have decided to locate in a
business park. There are a lot of high tech research and development companies that
have decided to locate in a business park. This particular use is not that. I think it
makes that building available to break it down smaller sub -units for small start-up
companies to find space in a business environment. I think that's the intent.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions, Kevin?
Board Member Talty - Questions about demolition. In grading, do you plan to bring any
fill onto site or pull any fill off the site?
Chairperson Wilcox - If you'd hand Derrick the....
Mr. Herrick - David Herrick. I think to the extent that the grading would allow areas that
would utilize crushed fill from the demolition, we would like to consider that. Obviously
there are certain mechanical systems and metals and things, actually it could be
contractor's option to recycle them, so there is an opportunity for those concrete and
asphalt paddock areas to be pulverized and then used as general fill in some of the
lower areas with the parking lot...
Board Member Talty - OK, if that could be outlined the next time you come back, that
would be great, because there is quite a bit of excavation and demolition going on, it
seems, in the general vicinity and we're asking the same of other parties, as I would be
asking of you.
Mr. Herrick - Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox - While Herman is making notes, both the Town Engineering
department and, presumably independently, the County Planning Department have
commented on the possible extension of the entranceway to connect to the rear of the
hotel property. Herman, did you see those comments. The potential for not necessarily
a surfaced road, but some sort of access way that would allow emergency access
behind the hotel.
Mr. Nicotra - Dan had mentioned that at a briefing, and Ed Marx, county Planning
Commissioner had also suggested that. And there is, right now it is possible for
Emergency vehicles to circulate between the East end of the East Hill plaza and the
.i
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
western end of the hotel, circulate back into this parking lot and then connect with the
new driveway that will be built in. I think that provides the ... [inaudible].
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm not so sure whether, my concern is not necessarily circulation
but emergency access. I'm not sure whether we want to open up the hotel to have
access to that driveway...
Mr. Nicotra - We're talking Emergency access, not with general circulation.
Chairperson Wilcox - So we. could grade it in some way, gate it in some way, but
nonetheless, should it be necessary, it could be used.
Mr. Walker — But the access is not, that's internal access on the site. But what the
concern was between the end of Summerhill Lane and the north side of the hotel is the
access that we were suggesting. This has been discussed for many, many years, the
fact that Summerhill lane is very, it got to be a fairly long road with a fairly high density
of housing on both sides with the hotel and the apartments, and there is no secondary
connection into that back site. By going from the, not regularly traveled way, but
providing emergency access between the loop suggesting and the parking lot on the
north side of the hotel, could that also allow, it could actually, between opposite the east
side end of the parking lot and'Summerhill lane which would provide emergency vehicle
access to this facility from two directions, or fix us a length from two directions. And
that's what I've been suggesting.
Chairperson Wilcox - That's the goal.
Mr. Walker — At one point there was discussion between Cornell and the Town to make
a formal road between Pine Tree Road and Summerhill lane, basically following this
driveway. Nobody wanted to spend the money to build it.
Board Member Conneman - I have one other question. How many employees do you
expect to be in this building?
Mr. Nicotra - I don't know that yet, because the interior of the building has not been laid
out in terms of number of offices.
Board Member Conneman - But You will know that?
Mr. Herrick - Yes. Right, and based on the parking, we figure about... [inaudible]
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I get you to pull the microphone a little bit closer so we can
pick you up. OK, that's fine.
Mr. Nicotra Yes, I'm sorry.
45
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions at this point.
environmental?
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
You want to go on with the
Herman Sieverding, IAD
Yeah, please. So, I think in the back section of our presentation we talk about the
environmental review, and I think we all recognize that this is a Type I action. We are
proposing an expanded Long Environmental Assessment Form. And by expanded we
will do the LEAF attached to it. I think four key documents I think will pertain to the
types of impacts that you all have been raising here. The first would be impact on local
traffic, as a result of this additional 60,000 square foot office building, stormwater
management, visual impact, and possibly impact on character of the neighborhood. To
address those issues in terms of the traffic studies, we've retained SRF, Steve Frante
and his group to do a traffic analysis for the site. We had had a previous conversation
with Jon about the scope of that traffic analysis and the intersection that you see listed
in our narrative here are the ones that we agreed SRF should be looking at. Since the
time that they've started their traffic study, you all have been looking at the development
proposal from Ellicott Development for redeveloping the Ides' property, the Hamilton
property on the corner of Mitchell and Pine Tree. John and I also discussed that, and
decided that the traffic consultant retained by Ellicott should get together with SRF and
coordinate their studies, and that has been done. So, I think when you see the traffic
analysis by SRF, you'll see that they have assumed in their forecast in terms of
increasing traffic, the potential for 45,000 of retail on the corner and vice versa when
you look at the FRA traffic study for Ellicott that they will have assumed 60,000 square
feet that we're proposing to build. Relative to where I think you were suggesting in
terms of number of intersections, I think the FRA analysis includes a lot more
intersections then we've looked at here. So I think between the two reports you're going
to see a pretty broad area covered in terms of the impact of traffic on how intersections
function. I think we've also taken the step in terms of traffic and containing traffic, get
together with TCAT and obviously Cornell will be working with their transportation
demand and management program to encourage the people who work at this building
to take advantage of that program as much as possible. And obviously our discussions
with TCAT are to facilitate that by making it easy for folks to use the bus if they so
desire.
Stormwater management, I think there's a second area of impact. We'll attached the
LEAF stormwater management plan that Dave Herrick's group will put together and
think Dave gave you a pretty good sense of what's going to be in that report, and I think
it will show that the stormwater runoff generated by the project can be managed and
contained and mitigated.
Visual impact then is a third area, and I think we're prepared to take the comments that
you've given us here and incorporate that into a visual impact assessment, take a look
at what you will see as you drive down Pine Tree, what you might see if you're standing
out in front of the East Hill Plaza or at the intersection of the Pine Tree, Ellis Hollow, and
Mitchell. And we'll also as part of that study take a look at the lighting, order a
EN
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
photometric plan so you get the idea of what the light around the site will look like. And
lastly, impact on the character of the neighborhood, I suppose is an issue that we can
look at. And just analyze the proposed development relative to the context of the
surrounding area and how it fits and how it may in fact, improve once there.
We're hoping that with this type of Environmental Analysis, you'll have enough
information to make your determination of significance and then move onto the next
step of the review process which will be site plan review, and we suggested I think in
the last section of this report, a schedule for that. It is our hope to be back here on
November 15 for the SEQR determination, and hopefully we'll have preliminary site plan
approval, and then I think back in between December 19, we're proposing to go to the
Zoning Board to request the height variance, and then February 7, to be back for the
final site plan with the idea of hopefully being able to commence construction on this
building of May and June of next year, approximately a 12 month build -up, and so that
the building would be ready for occupancy some time in June /July of 2007.
Chairperson Wilcox - Comments? Eva, go ahead.
Board Member Hoffmann - I would like to suggest that you add three more intersections
to look at from the traffic point of view, that is Pine Tree Road and Snyder Hill Road,
Pine Tree Road and Honness Lane, and last, but not least, Pine Tree Road and
Slaterville Road. I think those are going to show you some interesting numbers, show
all of us some interesting numbers.
Mr. Sieverding - And to the extent, Eva, that these intersections have been included in
the FRA study that has been done for the Ellicott development, and their conclusions
take into account the 60,000 feet that we're proposing to build, that would answer your
question. Because I believe that those are among the intersections, John, that...
Board Member Hoffmann - It depends on when that was done.
Mr. Kanter'- They were done about... the same time frame the Cornell studies were
done. Very recently. I can't tell you if they did their count... it was probably late spring
as opposed to late summer.
Chairperson Wilcox - So, but this year.
Mr. Kanter - Oh, absolutely.
Chairperson Wilcox- Thank you, Thank you.
Mr. Sieverding - Our traffic counts were taken in spring while students were still here.
Their counts, I believe, were taken in beginning of September, shortly after students
arrived.
Board Member Hoffmann - Could you say that again, the last part?
47
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Sieverding - I said our counts were taken in the spring, when students were still
here, because we had our traffic consultant working on this during the summer. I
believe the FRA counts were taken in the beginning of September.
Board Member Talty - September, this month?
Mr. Sieverding - Yeah. Right,
Board Member Hoffmann - Before the students were here?
Mr. Sieverding - After students arrived, because classes began August 28th, August 29th
and I think they took their counts in the beginning of September.
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, it sounds like it would be acceptable. I would certainly
like to have other people's comments on it too, but that's what I was thinking of.. And as
far as the visual impact, you're going to go to the Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Roads
intersection for traffic studies, I'd like to see what this site would look like from there too.
Mr. Sieverding - From Ellis and Game Farm?
Board Member Hoffmann - Because you'll see it across a big open field from there, and
you'll see the whole length of the building and the height should, if it makes a big
difference, the height, it should be visible from there.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anything else, Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - Let me check what other notes I have.
Chairperson Wilcox - And Herman you took some notes from previous discussion about
height of varying buildings in the area?
Mr. Sieverding - Yes, yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox - OK. Anybody else in terms of what they think they might need
help making a decision. Staff, comments at this point? Anyone wish to go on record?
Engineering staff? Not at this point.
Mr. Kanter - Too early.
Chairperson Wilcox - No, it's too early, we haven't seen final drawings, I understand.
You have everything you need at this point?
Mr. Sieverding - Yes, I think so.
Chairperson Wilcox - Let me give the public a chance to speak, if I can, so I'll let you...
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Sieverding - Good, thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Herman.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'll let you collect your stuff. Ladies and Gentlemen, it is 9:00. We
have another Agenda Item after this. Nonetheless, for those of you who have been very
patient, I want to give you a chance to speak this evening and provide input early on in
the process. I'll remind you that this is not a public hearing. There will be at least two
public hearings coming up in the future as per the schedule, one for Environmental
review and preliminary site plan and a second when and if Final site plan approval
comes. Nonetheless, if you keep your comments short and to the point, we'd
appreciate it. Name and address please.
Ms. Erb - Thank you, Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road, Ithaca. I think it's a very pretty
building; I like the fact that there is so much landscape already there. I would urge the
landscaping to be considered also from the point of view of the residents of the
Summerhill project and more than even from the elevated intersection at Game Farm
and Ellis Hollow road, I would like to know what it's like looking across the athletic fields
now at this much bigger building. I wondered when I first saw the sketches why there
wasn't a bus cutout in front of or just north of the driveway. So I am pleased to here that
there is some discussion with TCAT about that. I am, I know that the traffic question is
under consideration. I am wondering what 100 cars coming from the Cornell side at a
quarter to 8 in the morning and trying to turn left across traffic is going to be like, or what
100 cars leaving the parking lot in the afternoon trying to turn left to go South would be
like. Those are rush hours and people are not very good at figuring out how to use the
middle turn lane as it is and there's something a little wrong- minded to me in my mind
about wanting a height variance but insisting on building on maybe the high point of the
property. I just will say that. I nevertheless like the reduction in the amount of parking
places currently proposed and the detention pond, several aspects like that. I doubt
that this is going to be visible from the nature trail, I think the bluff is pretty high across
the creek there, so I'm not really concerned about that but I am very concerned about
whether this is going to add new skyline, new roofline over East Hill Plaza. So, yes I'm
very glad that you're asking for heights of adjacent building. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Very good, thank you Hollis. Anybody else?
Mr. Beyers - Hi, Steve Beyers, 1328 Slaterville Rd, Town of Ithaca. I just, as more and
more people are pushed up East Hill from Cornell, I just want to make sure we consider
the pedestrian and bicycle links between East Hill and campus. Already there's a lot of
traffic, and it's rather dangerous actually, biking or trying to walk. And I know there's a
sidewalk, but that doesn't link to t a lot of campus, and as we kind of sprawl campus, I
think it's really important to keep those links in mind, so I just hope the board will look at
that.
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. I appreciate it. Anybody else? Alright, thank you very
much. Hollis, traffic counts at the entrance road are on the list to be done. The visual
impact across the new athletic fields, if you're up there you can take another picture,
and see if we can come across that. Heights, we'll look at. And bicycle, pedestrian
access, making sure that we don't in anyway impinge upon whatever plans don't
impinge upon bicycle access and safety of bicyclists in the area, certainly. And bicycle
access to the site obviously. Anything else at this point?
Board Member Hoffmann - I have a question on the text we got from them. On page 5,
under parking layout, it talks about the parking lot has also been designed to mitigate its
visual impact from surrounding public right of way, which some 350 feet away. What
public right of way are you talking about, there? I couldn't figure it out.
[inaudible]
Board Member Hoffmann - Pardon me, Pine Tree Road?
Mr. Herrick - In terms of the [inaudible] that parking lot.
Board Member Hoffmann - OK, thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Herman, you all set?
Mr. Sieverding - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Hollis, briefly.
Ms. Erb - Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road, on my list I forgot to ask about signs into the
area.
Chairperson Wilcox - When they come back, I'm sure, any signage we'll have
illustrations of any signage. Thank you very much. You're all set, Herman and
everyone else.
Board Member Hoffmann - I just remembered something else.
Chairperson Wilcox - If I gave Hollis a second chance, you can have one too.
Board Member Hoffmann - I had a telephone message, I was away, and I had a couple
of telephone messages from Jon Meigs who is on our Conservation Board about other
projects as well as this one, and for the Conservation Board, he said that he's very
concerned about the runoff that might come from this pond if there are rain events that
create so much water that it overflows, and he feels that the runoff should be monitored
and treated so that in the major event, pollutants from the parking lot and this site don't
go into Cascadilla Creek and then into the Lake where we get our drinking water.
.»Wi
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - For the record, David Herrick and Herman Sieverding are nodding
their heads.
Mr. Sieverding - This is from Jon Meigs?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes.
Mr. Sieverding - OK.
Board Member Hoffmann - And we also got some other comments from the
Conservation Board, let's see, I'm trying to remember if it was about this.
Chairperson Wilcox - That's it.
Board Member Hoffmann - Right, that's this, but he had some other ones too. He
counted up 237 parking places, including the 7 on the entrance loop, which is supposed
to be for visitors, so he was wandering if there was enough for the employees. And he
also suggested what other people have suggested, that since the loop comes so close
to the Best Western Hotel, it would be a good idea to connect the roads, so that people
in the hotel have another access and there is generally better circulation for fire access
than maybe there is now.
Chairperson Wilcox - A brief comment if I may on parking. And if somebody else wants
to chime in. If they believe 240 are sufficient, I'm not going to argue, because I'd rather
have 240 spaces than 300 spaces, and we can grant a 20% reduction. It would not be
in IAD or Cornell's best interest to build a parking lot that is too small and have to go
back in a year and add additional spaces, the cost would be expensive. So, I'm sure
they will do their best to build an appropriate size lot. We will require that the plans
show where 60 additional spaces could be located.
Mr. Sieverding - We won't provide less than what the 20% will...
Chairperson Wilcox - That's right, now I was thinking if you were going to the zoning
board for a height variance, you could go to the zoning board for a number of spots, but
that's your decision.
Mr. Sieverding - The discrepancy in the number of parking spaces may be that because
I think Ed Marx wasn't [inaudible] looking at the revised August 9 illustrated site plan,
versus the September 1 more detailed plan that TG Miller put together, and that's the
one that [inaudible].
Chairperson Wilcox - Hold on... [tape is flipped]... Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah, by the way, do you have an idea now of where any
extra parking spaces might go?
51
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Sieverding - I'm sorry?
Board Member Hoffmann - Do you have an idea at this point where extra parking
spaces might go on this...?
Mr. Sieverding - The [inaudible] spaces that we need to provide — we're talking about...
Board Member Hoffmann - The possible extra 60 spaces.
Mr. Sieverding - No, we'll have to work that out with Dave and analyze the site and see
on which side of the parking lot we can best do that. And then that will show up on the
next set of site plans that we submit for at the November meeting.
Board Member Hoffmann - And another thought that I've had about this whole thing,
which might create a lower outline of the building is, if you moved the whole parking lot
and the building as you have them laid out now, closer to Pine Tree Road, because
there is going to be a space there where you are demolishing those concrete buildings
that housed the animals. There is a rather large space of just occasionally maintained
lawn between the current cizer building and the parking lot you're proposing. If you
were to move the whole new proposal a little closer to the left, you could get the building
down off that higher spot a little bit. I think I understand why you are proposing it with
that higher spot, in a way, and that is that you are going to get nicer views for everybody
that works in that building, and so I'm glad...
Mr. Sieverding - It actually has more to do, Eva, with establishing a relationship between
the office space that exists in East Hill plaza and the new building so that it's easy for
people to get back and forth between the two.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah, but those distances are not that great, really. And if
you are providing sidewalks for people to walk, if they walk a few more steps diagonally
across that parking lot instead of straight across, it's not going to make such a big
difference. And I think, isn't there also just one place in back of East Hill Plaza where
people can enter to go into the Cornell office like park and go through a corridor and get
to the Southern fagade of that building?
Mr. Sieverding - Right, and that's more or less where our sidewalks line up now. It's in
that sort of parking area that they've developed immediately behind East Hill Plaza and
there is a defined entry and that dictated in large part where we decided to build it.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah, but I'm wondering if one considers all the different
impacts and doing it different ways, if that would really be such a big impact, if people
walked a few more steps diagonally.
Mr. Sieverding - We'll look at that and address it in the next addition.
+
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - We have one bit of business to take care of and that is we have a
resolution drafted in front of us, which I will read briefly to those who are in. attendance:
Be it resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby request the concurrence
of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to
be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within 30 days from the date of
notification. This is the Planning Board asking other agencies to concur that we should
be lead agency for environmental review. So moved by the chair.
Board Member Thayer - Second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Larry Thayer. All those in favor?
Board — Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody opposed? No one is opposed the motion is passed
You can't go yet.
Board Member Conneman - It would be interesting to know how much of. a height
variance you wouldn't ask for if you moved that building site.
Mr. Sieverding - OK.
Board Member Conneman - OK? Because that would be interesting, is it 4 feet, is it 5
feet, is it 10 feet, because I think it's going to stick up, OK?
Mr. Sieverding - We'll take a look at it. Thanks.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you all.
Mr. Sieverding - Thank you very much, folks.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you very much. [pause] Yes, Ma'am?
Woman in audience - May I ask a procedural question?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes you may.
Woman in audience - If the next presentation runs until 10:00, will there be time for
public commentary?
Chairperson Wilcox - the procedural question is, is that legally there is no right for the
public to speak, and I'm sorry that gentleman is standing right there, so I'll come over
here. If, we will give you every opportunity to speak. If there are a couple people who
wish to speak, we would probably go a couple minutes after 10 to give you the
opportunity especially because you've been sitting there.
53
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Woman in audience - Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - If they should proceed with this application and come back at a
future time for environmental review and site plan review then you would have a chance
to speak at that time for sure. The other thing you can always do is provide written
comments or e-mail to the Town Staff, but we will try to give you an opportunity to
speak... You've been sitting there very patiently this evening, and I appreciate that.
OK, once again you are welcome to come over here you're welcome to bring a chair if
that works so you're better able to view the visuals that will be used tonight. Having
said that, Peter, are you all set to go? All right. And once again, ladies and gentlemen,
thank you for being patient. At 9:15 the next item is consideration of a sketch plan
review for the proposed Equestrian Center located between 1456 and 1460
Trumansburg Rd, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24. -1- 19.12, Agricultural Zone. The
proposal involves the development of an equestrian center including pastures, trails, a
hunter /jumper exterior arena, paddocks and an interior arena and a hay storage and
machinery barn. The project will also include a residence for the owners, three multi-
family rental units, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce and Dorothy Babcock
owners, Russ and Paula Wedemeyer applicant, Trowbridge and Wolf LLP, agent.
Consideration of a sketch plan review for the proposed Equestrian Center located
between 1456 and 1460 Trumansburg Rd, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24. -1- 19.12,
Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the development of an equestrian center
including pastures, trails, a hunter /jumper exterior arena, paddocks and an interior
arena and a hay storage and machinery barn. The project will also include a residence
for the owners, three multi - family rental units, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce
and Dorothy Babcock owners, Russ and Paula Wedemeyer applicant, Trowbridge and
Wolf LLP, agent.
Chairperson Wilcox - Welcome Peter. Name and professional address and the floor is
yours.
Mr. Trowbridge - Peter Trowbridge, [inaudible] and Brenda Blum who should also be
here is project manager from our office. We're here representing tonight Russ and
Paula Wedemeyer. Paula Wedemeyer is a rather world- renowned horse trainer,
currently located in Tuscon Arizona, they're very much looking forward to moving their
operation to Ithaca. They, Russ is a former upstate resident, and they very much like
this location and their relationship to Cornell Veterinary. College. A facility like this may
not have come before the board recently, but I think that most of you are familiar if
you've driven down Sheffield Road; there are two horse farms, one in Enfield and one in
the Town of Ithaca. And the reality of this facility is not terribly different than the
facilities that you see on Sheffield road. Both of those facilities have large interior
spaces, and exterior pasture. There are some differences, but they are fairly little ones.
We've brought two different scale of maps this evening, and I know in your packet we've
provided some visual information that might help understand the architectural character
that the Wedemeyer are thinking about. This parcel is ultimately 72 acres plus this
northern parcel has two significant, what we can call parent parcels that form that lot.
54
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Farther there is a 60 -acre southern parcel and there is 70 plus acre northern parcel.
The parcel has access and frontage on Trumansburg road. It is a long deep parcel, and
as you know from Mike's notes and we encountered it on the drawing that [inaudible]
which is primarily a wetland that is at the extreme western end of the property actually
and it is mostly on a neighboring parcel. There's an area on our parcel, but there is no
intention of doing anything near that area.
The land, if you've been up there, is probably ten or fifteen years out of agriculture, it's a
rough re -grown area. [inaudible] into the parcel, we know that it has been very hard to
walk out into the area. This facility is, part of the facility is very permanent, it's been
sitting around. There is also training of racehorse; you want a much bigger facility than
this. So the primary income from this is both training and also boarding horses, and
we're looking at 15 stalls at this point in the interior arena. As you can see the gray
area is on this map. As you come up the driveway there is pasture on both sides of the
driveway. The interior arena with stalls that are connected to it, primarily for wintertime
training or off weather training where you can bring the horse directly out of the stall into
the arena where most of the training will occur. There are also some turned -down
areas for paddocks, some hose pastures for [inaudible], and larger pastures that will be
managed in this area. There is a group of training facilities, which is pretty much an
open sand area. The hunting /jumping area will also be a pretty pristine lawn area given
the expense of these horses that area has to be maintained almost like a lawn. In
general with the training area is also a lawn and the lunge area, which we will call a
bullpen around the house, sometimes it's closed, sometimes it's open. In this case,
we're intending it to be open. It's a long gray line for training, training horses.
So, the complex is quite compact, and the Wedemeyer want a house that overlooks this
facility. As you can imagine, many of these horses are worth hundreds of thousands of
dollars. It is' not a facility that you can leave unattended for any amount of time, so there
are some rental units, some of which they intend of employees, they're very eager to
have pre -vet students on site. [inaudible]. This type of operation, you really need
someone there all the time in attendance, so it does require not just a primary
residence, but some tenant residence as well. They will run clearance in wintertime,
primarily for` the horses they are boarding. People might bring other horses on site, or
they could primarily on weekends, or exclusively on a weekend, there are maybe shows
where people and spectators, either people who trade horses or spectators can come to
look at some of the displays on site. There is conversation with Tom Dougherty with the
Fire chief. We have a driveway and a turnaround that is approximately 1000 feet long.
The turnaround is allowed for; it is large enough for fire vehicles, not to back up but to
turn. We've` thought about the potential for using public water, which as you know is on
Trumansburg road as well as well water. Facilities like this can't afford to have down
electric. Similar facilities I know have ... so water is pumped up. It's gravity fed into the
barns. My sister in law has like a 30,000 gallon tank, so that it they don't have electric
for days at a time, they can continue the water. And if there was need for fire fighting, et
cetera.
55
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
So there will be a complex network of water systems on the farm that we are currently
exploring, and next time we come in, we can talk about those in great detail. What we
would like to do tonight is to characterize the overall program for the Board and to let
you know that [inaudible] and there is going to be discussion about Town homes, that's
not their means for income. Income really is boarding and training, and the town homes
are going to be there as a combination of onsite labor and they have the potential for
some additional income on the site. I know that there has been quite a bit of discussion
on staff because the inclusion of a town homes program, and we feel that in an
agricultural zone, there is a good chance to cluster the homes rather than stagger them
throughout the site. If at some later date, this facility were to be built and sold, there
would always be the potential for either subdividing them if someone wanted to
subdivide them at some later date, but the intent is clearly to have them owner occupied
as part of that Equestrian Center. There are a couple of ponds that are proposed for
aesthetic purposes also for on -site attenuation and potential mitigation of stormwater.
We will be meeting, periodically, with clients and this is because people will board their
horses and ,again, from experience, given the quality of the horses, often times the
people are from out of town and will fly in and visit their horses.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry, say that again. I'm sorry, I heard you, thank you Peter.
Mr. Trowbridge - People, again the quality of the horses that they are going to be
boarding, are such that it's a rather national pool of people that either own the horses
[inaudible] or own them outright.
Chairperson Wilcox - Want to mention the trails if you will?
Mr. Trowbridge - Yeah, the trails are really not important, horses like these need
exercise every day. This is not a facility where you are necessarily going to bring your
kids and it will be rakes. The trails are [inaudible] at this point, are not a critical part of
the program!. Often times, just for exercise, horses will be walked around next to their
trails. But for the most part, these horses will be trained in an interior arena or in these
Equestrian facilities in and around the area.
Chairperson Wilcox - How much are these horses worth, did you say?
Board Member Howe - What type of horses?
Mr. Trowbridge - A combination of purebreds, some of them are [inaudible] mostly
Arabians... and they can be...
Chairperson Wilcox - I think you said, did I hear you say quarter million?
Mr. Trowbridge - easily.
Chairperson Wilcox - Oh, easily,. OK
RET
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Trowbridge - Yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions of the board at this point? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - You said the trails are not important, but if there are trails
built I would like to see them located outside of the UNA and as it looks now, they are
not. There is a northwestern loop that looks like it is in the UNA.
Mr. Trowbridge - The UNA is on your drawing. I'm sorry, it is not on the drawing in your
packet. We located it on our drawing.., the trails are outside the UNA.
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, it doesn't look like that to me, but...
Chairperson''' Wilcox - You will ensure that you don't encroach on the UNA. Anything
else at this point, Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — Lets see. I think there was a comment from someone else.
There was a comment from the County and also the Conservation Board, I believe.
Chairperson' Wilcox — I gave you my Conservation Board comments and things.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Here are some. They say to try to preserve as many
trees as possible. To be aware of the potential for erosion along the riding paths,
especially in times of heavy rain and because of the existing succession of vegetation,
which provides ideal habitat for various species, in particular for birds, they urge that
this habitat in nonpasture areas be left undisturbed as much as possible.
Board Member Conneman — You have the County comments, Peter. Could you give us
a feel for what the investment would be in a place like this?
Mr. Trowbridge — As you can imagine, it is a considerable investment.
Chairperson Wilcox — Good dodge.
Board Member Howe — Its nice having
agriculture zone. Typically we see trying
this,
a proposal come in that is agriculture for an
to change. So it's nice to see something like
Board Member Talty — I have a question. Do you have security on sites like this?
Mr. Trowbridge — Well, the security really is... most facilities, again, have partners and
my sister -in -law has 100 Arabians... they have apartments in the arena for ... (not
audible) ... security... you can see there are gates at the ... (not audible) ... into the farm
complex. You would have to drive up the driveway.
57
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Board Member Talty — I had a question, but before, you reminded me in that is, would
the people coming in to visit stay on site?
Mr. Trowbridge — No. The clinics typically run for 2 or 3 hours and the intent is to
demonstrate and there are kids programs as well. The idea is to demonstrate the
technique, riding skills. My daughter is a trainer as well and...small kids and they look
at dexterity... and feel more confident. Often times kids can relate to horses more than
they can to people, so they find that kids really learn... (not audible)... In the
summertime,'; shows are... more demonstration.
Board Member Conneman — In some facilities, Kevin, there are security cameras.
Board Member Talty — I was just thinking somebody could steel a horse or there is a
fire. There are a lot of different issues. $250,000 and up, I mean, you. know, and you
are not right here, right? The people are out of state, right?
Mr. Trowbridge — The owners are, but the real owners of this facility are moving in.
Board Member Talty — No. I understand. I'm talking about the owners of the horses
Mr. Trowbridge - ...typically you have very low flammable material associated with the
stalls.
y
Board Member Thayer — How many people will be attending these classes or whatever
and how often would they be?
Mr. Trowbridge — They think in the summertime they might have 4 or so' events and in
the wintertime they might be once a month. There are maybe 4 or 5 events over the fall
and then... (not audible)...
Board Member Thayer — How many people?
Mr. Trowbridge — In the wintertime, the clinics are pretty small. Often times 15 or 20
people. In the summertime, they will probably have more than that ... (not audible)... .
Chairperson ''Wilcox - You have read Michael's memo. Okay. Outlining the
environment issues to be reviewed. You also know this board pretty well. Anything
else over her Michael, you're all set from your perspective? Should we give the
public a chance to speak? Yes, Peter.
Mr. Trowbridge — I just wanted to give one comment. I know that often times ... the
complicated commercial retail development, you often times ask for elevations of all. of
the buildings. is My sense is that a number of these will be preengineered buildings that
won't typically have architectural elevations and they'll be pole barns with raised roofs
and so I'm not sure to what extent before final site plan approval we can provide and
can characterize what the buildings are, but my guess is that they are often times going
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
to be ... they'll have to be determined at such time when we come in for a building
permit. I'm not sure that we will be able to provide elevations for the house and barn
that we normally do for a retail development.
Mr. Walker I think just on a scale so that we can get an idea. These are pretty close
to the Oxley Arena setup, the indoor arena. It might be a little bit smaller than that, but
Oxley has the stable and arena setup pretty much the same way. I think that the stable
area is turned 90 degrees to the arena, but it is very similar in size I would say. The
height would have to be the same.
Chairperson Wilcox — Peter, are you saying that the suppliers for the equestrian
buildings wouldn't have promotional materials or other things that would indicate...?
Mr. Trowbridge — Oh, yes they would. They would probably be more photographic than
traditional architectural elevations. Again it would probably be ... (not audible) ... and less
than flammable materials. We are not going to want to have a lot of
construction ... and...
Attorney Barney — But you will have something that shows dimensions.
Mr. Trowbridge — Yes. We have those already.
Attorney Barney — In terms of height and...
Mr. Trowbridge Absolutely. I'm just used to showing you much more detail
architecturally than what will be shown.
Chairperson Wilcox — You want to have a seat, Peter. Ladies and gentlemen, thank
you for waiting around and being patient. I'm not going to repeat what I said before.
We will give you an opportunity to speak. I ask that you keep it brief and to the point.
We like to adjourn at 10 because after 10 p.m. we have learned that we don't
necessarily make very good decisions when it gets late. So having said that, I will let
this young lady go first and then after that raise your hand and I will call on you. I ask
that you provide a name and address and pull that microphone over so that we can pick
you up.
Louise Vignaux, 1470 Trumansburg Road
This afternoon at about 4 o'clock going down Cliff Street there was a multicar accident.
The Cliff Street was positively blooded. My point is this, we are going to be adding
much more traffic with rental units across from the hospital and then with this proposal
we are truly making a glut as well as a clot on Cliff Street. Because Mr. Babcock has
not farmed there in several years that particular area is very populated with the flora and
fauna of central New York as has already been mentioned. Because we are so
sensitive these days to being green and being protective of our environment, I ask you
to please be sensitive to this. Also, be sensitive to those of us whose property abuts
59
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
this proposal, as we will be having a visual impact not just as we drive by, but 24 -7 all
season. Thank you.
John Bosak, 1448 Trumansburg Road
My wife and I own the property right here on the map. So we are adjacent to this.
share concerns about traffic, I have to say. As far as the land use goes, it is great to
see an agricultural zone piece of property being used for an agricultural use. We would
like to see more of that actually than to see it go the other way. Chief concern that
occurs to us is we're on well water here. This whole area is our upslope. This is
feeding our aquifer. I'm seeing horses, I'm thinking Ecoli. I don't know whether there
are issues there or not. I'd like to see somebody think about them for a few minutes
before the plan is finalized. Thank you.
David Dunbar, 1457 Trumansburg Road
Myself and Linda Dolf own the property directly across the street and 1457
Trumansburg Road. As far as ... I've got several concerns, but the one that I am going
to voice here has to do with water also and the surface water and the impact that it
could have potentially on us. Currently across the street from us there is simply a
driveway that extends up the hill to a residence and water that comes down the hill
collects and goes underneath Route 96 and travels down a small ditch very close to our
house in a matter of 6 feet I would say. So I am concerned about the development of a
large road capable of the size that this would be running up that hill and what type of
mitigation of stormwater is going to be done to address that and potential concerns of
myself and my neighbor. As I look at the drawing, I see ponds and so forth to the north
and west, but it is this section and this section of the road and we live right over here
and just wondering if you put in a. large road, presumably you would have ditching on
the sides of the road and the potential for concentrating water and heavy rain situations
and having a lot of water in the same amount of time having to go through this one pipe
and go down through the property that hasn't been engineered to accept it. And already
some times it is compromised during heavy rains. So I would like to see the landscape
architects address potential affects for people just passed this property and passed
Route 96. 1 don't know if that is a State issue as well because you have water that
crosses underneath the State highway and if they have any part to do this, but that is a
concern that I would like to see addressed. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - I will just address that very quickly. When and if the applicant
does come back, as part of the environmental review certainly a stormwater analysis
including sedimentation and erosion control plans and detail of proposed ponds, etc,
etc. Will have to be provided and they would be reviewed by the Town Engineering
staff. So should they get to that point, they will provide the detail necessary. Anybody
else?
George Vignaux, 1470 Trumansburg Road
I'm a contiguous landowner. I like the idear of most of the setup. I have problems with
multifamily units unspecified as to number being dropped into a single - family section of
Ithaca. I sell real estate for a living, if this all doesn't work immediately and
.e
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
magnificently, I can see someone selling off these units quickly for cash. Subdivision,
multiunits having nothing to do with this marvelous facility suddenly into the
neighborhood where they haven't been in the past. So I would take exception to
multiunits coming into the facility. I did hear earlier that other facilities have placed
employees in the main facility itself for security. That seems to make an awful lot more
sense than locating them on the perimeter where they are nowhere near the horses.
That is a vast area. There is a good deal of distance between the proposed multiunits
and the facility. If you are going to need staff then ideally they should be located with
the horses. I used to live in Tuxedo Park where jock Mahoney had a home. He was an
Olympic medallist is versach, and his horses were in his house. He had stables on
either side of the house. And his staff were in the house, it was a big house. If the
owners are here and the horses are here, I don't see the staff down there. What I see is
rental units and possibly commissions for me as I sell them off to the public, but they are
not going to be part of the facility 5, 61 7 years down the road. We know someone is
going to come in and ask to have them zoned out of the facility as separate units. So
while I like the idear of the rest of it, the environmentalist among us may not be happy
that all, of the deer and wild turkey will all move into my backyard and be a lot less, but it
is a nice use of the land other than the multiunits. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Peter, you have the feedback that you need?
Any questions?
Mr. Trowbridge — I just wanted to...I know that the board understands this and the
public may that within the agricultural zone that residential units are allowed and its...I
understand the public's concern about these other units, but the zoned does allow one
unit for every 7 acres of land that these folks own. Certainly it is a critical part of their
proposal and it is something that we understand and certainly are sensitive to the
neighbors concerns about...
Chairperson Wilcox — Under the zoning, you could put 10 lots.
Mr. Trowbridge — More.
Board Member Conneman — Peter, it is unusual not to put the staff close to the horses,
at least what I know about the horse industry.
Mr. Trowbridge — The concern, partly George is that there are some fire safety issues.
We talked to the Fire Chief and there is 1,000 -foot long access issue. So we did have
them further away at one time and once we talked to the Fire Chief there was a concern
about emergency access to the units. That cul -de -sac is 1,000 feet off Trumansburg
Road. So it is a balance of ... and we didn't talk about and I know that it has been
brought up that while the driveway may not be paved, it might be a gravel driveway. It
is going to have to be designed for emergency equipment and the Fire Chief was
concerned about distance from Trumansburg Road,
Chairperson Wilcox — How much frontage does this lot have on Trumansburg Road?
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
Mr. Trowbridge — 60 feet.
Chairperson Wilcox — For the entire lot?
Mr. Trowbridge — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — The absolute minimum.
Mr. Walker — That is the standard width for a road right -of -way.
Chairperson Wilcox — And that's it. It would be very difficult to subdivide off the land
necessary for the houses as proposed and still have road frontage.
Mr. Walker - Basically, they would have to create a public road. .
Mr. Trowbridge — Which I why I think we are looking at these units under the clustered
provision.
Mr. Kanter — I think that there is probably some confusion over the term multifamily
country homes and cluster housing. The agriculture zone does not allow multiple
residences, but it does allow one and two family units as in other residential zones.
Mr. Trowbridge — And they would duplex and there might be a primary and secondary
duplex unit. We will make sure that is very specific.
Chairperson, Wilcox — Consistent with the zoning.
Mr. Trowbridge — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set. When they come back, public hearings you will be able to
speak. Email, call the Town staff, leave a message, but we still have one more thing
that we have to do and we want to get out of here so thank you very much. We all set,
Peter? Thank you all.
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting 9:52 p.m.
Approval of Minutes — August 2, 2005 and September 6, 2005
i RESOL
September 6, 2005
MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Howe.
62
PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 20, 2005
APPROVED
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the August 2,
2005 and September 6, 2005 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Howe, Talty, Thayer.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Hoffmann
The vote on the motion was carried.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Kanter gives the board an overview of what is on the agenda for the October 4,
2005 meeting.
Board Member Talty will not be at the October 4, 2005 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the September 20, 2005 Planning Board meeting at 9:56
p.m.
Respectfully submitted, 1
Carrie Coates itmore
Deputy Town Clerk
Me
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cleveland 3 -Lot Subdivision, 1032.5 Danby Road,
7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for
the proposed 3 -lot subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 39 -1 -9, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/-
2.6 -acre parcel into three parcels: one parcel of +/- 0.92 in the northeast portion
containing an existing residence, one parcel of +/- 0.56 in the southern portion, and one .
parcel of +/- 1.11 acres in the western portion of the lot. Travis & Kathy Cleveland,
Owners /Applicants. This proposal was postponed from the August 2, 2005 meeting as a
proposal for a 2 -lot subdivision.
7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: HSBC Bank Site Improvements, 302 Pine Tree Road,
7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modifications at the HSBC Bank
located at 302 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 1 -2.1, Community
Commercial Zone. The proposal involves adding two parking spaces, new landscaping,
and changing the building fagade by eliminating the north entrance and adding additional
windows on the north and east sides of the building. Yunis Realty, Owner; The Property
Advisory, LLC, Agent.
7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Indian Creek Farm Porch Addition, 1408 Trumansburg Road.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed front porch at the Indian Creek Farm located at 1408
Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 25.21, Agricultural Zone. The
proposal involves adding a +/- 1,500 square foot open air porch to the east side of the
existing barn for vegetable and fruit display. Stephen Cummins, Owner /Applicant.
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination:. Candlewyck Park Apartments Fitness Center, 1141 Trumansburg
Road.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed fitness center at the Candlewyck Park Apartments located at 1141 Trumansburg
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 26 -4 -33, Multiple Residence Zone. The proposal
involves demolishing the existing swimming pool and pool house to construct a +/- 850
square foot fitness center on the site for Candlewyck residents. Triquad c/o Integrated
Acquisition & Development, Owner /Applicant.
OVER
7:45 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building
project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63-1 -
3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several existing
barns and related abandoned buildings and constructing a new three story, +/- 60,000
square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include new
lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 240 parking
spaces. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant,
8:15 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed Equestrian Center located
between 1456 and 1460 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 19.12,
Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves the development of an equestrian center
including pastures, trails, a hunter jumper exterior arena, paddocks, an interior arena, and
a hay storage and machinery barn. The project will also include a residence for the
owners, three multi - family rental units, stormwater facilities and parking. Bruce &
Dorothy Babcock, Owners; Russ & Paula Wedemeyer, Applicant; Trowbridge & Wolf,
LLP, Agent.
12. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
13. Approval of Minutes: August 2, 2005 and September 6, 2005,
14, Other Business:
15, Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF „ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF IT1 ACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, September 20, 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, September 20, 2005, at 215 North
Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:10 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 3 -lot
subdivision located at 1032.5 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -9, High
Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the +/- 2.6 -acre parcel into
three parcels: one parcel of +/- 0.92 in the northeast portion containing an existing
residence, one parcel of +/- 0.56 in the southern portion, and one parcel of + / -. 1.11 acres
in the western portion of the lot. Travis & Kathy Cleveland, Owners /Applicants. This
proposal was postponed from the August 2, 2005 meeting as a proposal for a 2 -lot
subdivision.
7:20 P.M. Consideration of Site Plan Modifications at the HSBC Bank located at 302 Pine Tree
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 1 -2.1, Community Commercial Zone. The
proposal involves adding two parking spaces, new landscaping, and .changing the
building facade by eliminating the north entrance and adding additional windows on the
north and east sides of the building. Yunis Realty, Owner; The Property Advisory, LLC,
Agent.
7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the
proposed front porch at the Indian Creek Farm located at 1408 Trumansburg Road, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1- 25.21, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves adding a
+/- 1,500 square foot open air porch to the east side of the existing barn for vegetable and
fruit display. Stephen Cummins, Owner /Applicant.
7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan
at the Candlewyck Park Apartments located at 1
Tax Parcel No. 26 -4 -33, Multiple Residence Zc
the existing swimming pool and pool house to
center on the, site for Candlewyck residents.
Development, Owner /Applicant.
Approval for the proposed fitness center
141 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca
ine. The proposal involves demolishing
construct a +/- 850 square foot fitness
Triquad c/o Integrated Acquisition &
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, September 12, 2005
Publish: Wednesday, September 14, 2005
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: September 20, 2005
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
r
77
7 Soo
S�1L
(rLA vnct. Ks (o u
'VP�ocx.
L�
2 d'
o) 0,
C Al v;l
KI
IW bL -
1ED
(1n
9+,
l(Q 0A . 91L
r
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday September 20 2005
commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication
September 12, 2005
September 14, 2005
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of September 2005.
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York =
No. 01CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 �,