Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2015-05-19TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. May 19. 2015 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Continuation of SEQR Determination: Cornell Uniyersity Niemand-Robison Softball Field Additions and Renoyations, 240 Pine Tree Road. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Niemand-Robison Softball Field Additions and Renovations project located at 240 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60-1-8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project includes replacing the existing dugouts, bleachers and press box with larger ones in approximately the same locations, adding a restroom and ticket window building, and paving the existing access drive. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael T. Stewart, Project Manager, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Rubin 2-Lot Subdivision, Troy Road. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lol subdivision located on the east side of Troy Road approximately 720 feet north of the King Road East intersection. Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49.-1-26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 62.1 -i-/- acre property into a 6.7 +/- acre property (Parcel A) which will be conveyed to a new owner and a 55.4 +/- acre property (Parcel B) to be retained by the existing owner. Paul Rubin, Owner/Applicant; Sharon K. O'Brien, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Clare Bridge Crossing of Ithaca project located at 101 and 103 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-11.3 and 27-1- 11.4, Planned Development Zone No. 10. The proposal involves a 23,275 +/- square foot, 32 unit, memory care community expansion located between the existing Sterling House and Clare Bridge facilities. The project will also include 27 new parking spaces, fire department access drives, new courtyards, walkways, and stormwater facilities. Brookdale Senior Living, Owner/Applicant; Edward Johnson, PDC Midwest, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed new office for E & V Energy, located north of 919 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35.-1-9.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves developing the vacant property with a new office building, storage facilities for heating oil, kerosene, gasoline, and propane, and a propane refilling station. The storage facilities would include four 25,000 gallon tanks and two 30,000 propane tanks. The project will also include new gravel and blacktop driveways and parking areas, landscaping, fencing, and signage. Kimberly Silvers, Owner; T. James Marshall, Applicant. 7. Persons to be heard 8. Approval of Minutes: May 5, 2015 9. Other Business 10. Adjournment Susan Ritter Director of Planning 273-1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273-1747 or SPOLCE@TOWN.ITHACA.NY.US. (A quorum ol four (4) members is necessary to conduct Plannini: Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials arc accessible electronically on the Town's website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page (httn://www.towii.illiaca.iiv.tis/meetina-auendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, May 19, 2015 215 N. Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY 14850 Town Planning Board Members Present: Fred Wilcox(Chair), Linda Collins,Joseph Haefeli,John Beach, Liebe Meier Swain,Yvonne Fogarty,Jon Bosak, Hollis Erb Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Dan Thaete, Town Engineer; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and accepted the secretary's posting and publication of the public hearing notices. AGENDA ITEM Continuation of SEQR Determination: Cornell University Niemand-Robison Softball Field Additions and Renovations, 240 Pine Tree Road Michael Stewart addressed the parking. The person who does the scheduling for athletics reached out to all the coaches, who provided the information included in the packet. They identified a few times per year when parking becomes tight to overflow on the site.This is usually when softball, tennis, and equestrian events overlap. Informally, they have been using East Hill Plaza parking lot,which is owned by Cornell Real Estate, as their unofficial overflow lot. They asked and received permission to use it as their official overflow parking lot, so their plan is to use that lot when necessary. Mr. Beach asked how someone will know to go to East Hill Plaza and whether they plan to have staff available to direct people in the event that someone is from out of town and doesn't know where East Hill Plaza is. Mr. Stewart responded that the athletics department prefers to provide permanent signage.Athletics is responsible for scheduling and coordinating the site and accommodating their visitors, so they provide staff at other events at other sites when it becomes an issue, but he can't speak for them. Ms. Collins pointed out that their narrative said that "permanent signs can be placed" and that she would feel more comfortable knowing that it "will" happen. Mr. Stewart said that Cornell's intent is to provide permanent signage. That's up to athletics. They have done it for other sites, e.g., football and hockey. He can accommodate signage in their budget. Ms. Erb said she appreciates the detailed information and that she is completely satisfied with the proposal, as long as people are well directed to East Hill Plaza. She asked Mr. Bates how the signage will be classified. Mr. Bates responded that as long as the sign is on the site, it will fall under the directional sign classification, so it is not regulated under our sign law. PB 05-19-2015 Page 2 of 19 Mr. Wilcox said he is not happy because he wanted a plan, and that a plan comes with a commit- ment; for example, we will put a sign that says this here or we commit to putting a person here.They didn't provide a commitment to do anything other than that they will do something when there's the potential for overflow. He urged the board to add whatever conditions are necessary so that there's a commitment that they must do something - whether it's have a person on site or have a sign in a certain location - subject to the approval of staff. He also pointed out that there should be verbiage on both sides of the sign so that people leaving a full parking lot know where they can go to find overflow parking. To a question from Ms. Erb, Mr. Stewart indicated that he envisioned two signs: one at the entrance to each parking area. Ms. Fogarty said she is also not as enamored with the plan as other board members. It looks like there are about five months out of the year where they have to think about parking. The board was very specific about wanting a plan. Mr. Stewart responded that the athletics department schedules their events well over a year in advance. The information he got back from all the coaches was that, of those five months, there are maybe three times per year where they totally max out the site. He added that it isn't necessarily the case that expanding the seating will bring additional people, but rather that with the seating they're adding, some people who are now standing will be sitting. Ms. Fogarty said she still doesn't see a plan and still doesn't know what the signs will say.Who will make the signs?Where will they be put up? Once again, Cornell is asking the planning board to come up with a plan. Mr. Stewart said he didn't understand that such level of detail would be required for site plan approval. They have a vested interest to accommodate their guests. Mr. Bosak conceded Ms. Fogarty's point that we didn't get what we aked for, but also noted that what we asked for isn't essential to approving the request.The only thing that is essential is that we have to be able to find that "the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use." We don't have to find that they've given us a plan. Ms. Balestra said that an email from Kristen Gutenberger didn't make it into the packet. It gives permission for the East Hill Plaza parking lot to be used for overflow parking in the event it is needed for sporting events across the street. Mr. Bosak said that given that commitment and the condition that the signs be put up, he's satisfied that the facilities are sufficient for the proposed use. Mr. Bates said they will have to provide three ADA parking spaces closest to the field. They will also have to provide ADA parking for the tennis center, so some of the parking spaces that are currently used by anyone will now have to be designated for handicapped parking. PB 05-19-2015 Page 3 of 19 PB Resolution No. 2015.019: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan &Special Permit, Niemand- Robison Softball Field Additions/Renovations, 240 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 60.1.8.2 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Niemand-Robison Softball Field Additions and Renovations project located at 240 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60-1-8.2, Low Density Res- idential Zone. The project includes replacing the existing dugouts, bleachers and press box with larger ones in approximately the same locations, adding a restroom and ticket window building, and paving the existing access drive. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael T. Stewart, Project Manager,Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; and 3. The Planning Board, on May 19, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environ- mental Assessment Form(EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, a narrative, schematic designs prepared by Tetra Tech Architects and Engi- neers, including Sheets EXG, C1-05, and Al A7, all dated March 30, 2015, Parking Plan for Reis Tennis Center - Oxley Equestrian Center - Niemand Robison Softball site, date-stamped May 10, 2015, and other application materials; and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental signifi- cance 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 Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Niemand-Robison Softball Field Additions and Renovations project located at 240 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60-1-8.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The project includes replacing the existing dugouts, bleachers and press box with larger ones in approximately the same locations, adding a restroom and ticket window building, and paving the PB 05-19-2015 Page 4 of 19 existing access drive. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael T. Stewart, Project Manager, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Hearing no one, he closed the public hearing at 7:28 p.m. Mr. Haefeli noted that the way the gravel lot is fenced, it implies that people shouldn't park there, but he thought they might encourage overflow parking in that lot. Ms. Erb disagreed, saying that she would actively discourage miscellaneous parking there because you can never tell when a trailer needs to come in or is intending to come in or if a horse gets away from a handler. The fencing is there, even though there are openings in it, partly to contain loose animals. For safety's sake, the only people who should park there are people who have something to do with Oxley arena and are expecting horses and trailers. PB Resolution No. 2015.020: Preliminary and Final Site Plan&Special Permit, Niemand- Robison Softball Field Additions/Renovations, 240 Pine Tree Road, Tax Parcel No. 60.1.8.2 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Niemand-Robison Softball Field Additions and Renovations project located at 240 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 60-1-8.2, Low Density Res- idential Zone. The project includes replacing the existing dugouts, bleachers and press box with larger ones in approximately the same locations, adding a restroom and ticket window building, and paving the existing access drive. Cornell University, Owner/Applicant; Michael T. Stewart, Project Manager, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project has, on May 19, 2015, made a negative de- termination of environmental significance, after reviewing and accepting as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff; and 3. The Planning Board, at a public hearing held on May 19, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a narrative, schematic designs prepared by Tetra Tech Architects and Engineers, includ- ing Sheets EXG, C1-05, and Al A7, all dated March 30, 2015, Parking Plan for Reis Tennis Cen- ter - Oxley Equestrian Center - Niemand Robison Softball site, date-stamped May 10, 2015, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby finds that the considerations for approval of the requested Special Permit listed in Article XXIV, Section 270-200, Subsections A- L of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met, specifically that: PB 05-19-2015 Page 5 of 19 a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning, will be promoted, because the proposed modifi- cations to the access and upgraded facilities will foster safety for participants and visitors of the events at the Cornell Niemand-Robison softball field; and b. the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use because the use already exists and the proposed upgrades will be located in the same area as the existing facilities; such use will fill a neighborhood or community need because the Cornell women's collegiate softball program provides a venue for the community to come together to enjoy collegiate-level softball and the applicant has demonstrated the need to upgrade the softball facilities to a level that is compa- rable to other collegiate softball programs; and c. the proposed use and the location and design of any structures are consistent with the charac- ter of the district in which they are located, as the proposed new facilities will be in the same location as the existing and the design of the structures will be similar to the existing struc- tures; and d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devalue the neighborhood property or seriously inconvenience the neighboring inhabitants because the character of the existing neighborhood consists of colle- giate level sports fields and facilities and the proposed modifications will maintain that charac- ter; and e. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reasons of noise, fumes,vibrations, illumination or other potential nuisance than the operation of any permitted use in the particular zone, for the reasons noted in "b," "c", and "d" above; and f. community infrastructure and services, including but not limited to, protective services, road- ways, garbage collection, schools and water and sewer facilities, are currently, or will be, of ad- equate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, as the use exists and the proposed re- placement structures will only involve a minor increase in capacity(i.e., increased number of patrons in the enlarged bleachers); and g. the proposed use, building, design and site layout comply with all provisions of Chapter 270, Zoning, and, to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations and or- dinances of the Town, with the Building Code and all other state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and with the Town Comprehensive Plan; and h. the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses are safely designed and the site lay- out provides adequate access for emergency vehicles, as most of the proposed modifications involve structures with at least one side completely open for easy access and egress, the en- trance drive will be paved to improve emergency access and the restroom/concession facility will be designed with safety in mind; and i. the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole, including such items as traffic load upon public streets and load upon water and sewer systems, is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community, for the reasons noted in "a," "b," "c," "d," "e," "f," "g," and "h," above; and j. the lot area, access, parking, and loading facilities are sufficient for the proposed use and ac- cess, parking, and loading facilities are adequately buffered to minimize their visual impact, as PB 05-19-2015 Page 6 of 19 the applicant has provided parking information that addresses issues related to overflow park- ing for multiple events at the Cornell Niemand-Robison softball field and the existing softball field and associated entrance drive and structures are easily accessed and nearly completely hidden from all viewpoints; and k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices and in accordance with any applicable Town local law or ordinance, and existing drainage ways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, for the rea- sons noted in "a," "f" and "g" above; and 1. the proposed use or structures comply with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in Town Code Chapter 270, Zoning; AND BE IT FURTHER 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 a significant alteration of neither 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 Cornell University Niemand-Robison Softball Field Additions and Renovations project, located at 240 Pine Tree Road, as described in the narrative and drawings prepared by Tetra Tech Architects and Engineers, referenced in Whereas #3 above, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of one large-size original set of the final site plan drawings (Sheets Al A7 and C1, C5), revised to show three ADA parking spaces for the softball field, 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, prior to the issuance of any building permits; and b. Submission of an Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, for review and approval by the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of any building permits; and c. Granting of any necessary variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the issuance of any building permits; and d. Any outdoor lighting, including wall packs and security lights, shall comply with the Town of Ithaca Outdoor Lighting Law requirements; and e. Submission of a revised parking plan requiring directional signs to be placed at Reis-Oxley- Softball Field parking areas sufficient to inform visitors of overflow parking availability at East Hill Plaza's main lot, and showing the location of the signs, subject to the approval of the Di- rector of Planning and Director of Code Enforcement. Vote Ayes: Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Bosak, Erb Nays:Wilcox, Fogarty PB 05-19-2015 Page 7of19 AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Rubin 2-Lot Subdivision, Troy Road Ms. O'Brien said Mr. Rubin is proposing subdividing the property to sell the smaller lot. Mr. Bosak said that,with regard to the usual pro forma findings regarding dragonflies from 1925 and so forth, this is the first time he hasn't seen a specific explanation that the property does not pose any kind of threat to them. The language says that "if future development is proposed on parcel A, a survey for these plants may be appropriate." Putting in a two-family house could possibly have some impact. Even though such a development isn't in front of us,will that issue be reviewed if develop- ment is proposed in the future? Mr.Wilcox said a single- or two-family home wouldn't be reviewed by the planning board. That's an administrative action. Mr. Bosak said that Part 3 of the SEQR usually says why no one should be concerned about this, but it doesn't. It's either, should we be concerned about that or if we shouldn't be concerned about that, why are we ever concerned about it? Mr. Wilcox said that sometimes we know the purpose of the subdivision. The last few times that has happened, we've expressed some concern about stormwater management and have added conditions that take effect when they come in for the building permit. Dealing with stormwater management issues is part of issuing a building permit.We have no information as to what the use of the subdivid- ed parcel may be. Ms. Erb pointed out that Part 3 on page 4 of the form actually says "it is unlikely that either of these sedges are present, but if future development is proposed on parcel A, a survey may be appropriate." Parcel A cannot hold sufficient development to bring it in for anything more than a building permit; therefore, this language suggesting that when Parcel A is developed, they could be considered is incorrect in that implies there could be consideration. Mr. Bosak said what he's hearing is that if a developer has something in mind that might affect this situation, they can choose not to share that information with the board, and what Mr.Wilcox said is that, in that case,we can't take cognizance of it, which is a pretty slick thing for the developer to do. Ms. Erb said that there's an implication that if future development is proposed, a survey might be appropriate. But there is not a force by which such a survey can be required. So,why is that language here? Mr. Bosak said his larger concern is that if we're not supposed to take cognizance of these issues, why is it here?Why are we going through the motions of a mapper, etc? Ms. Brock said we do need to know what's on the site, and we don't know. Mr. Smith is saying it's possible these threatened species are on the site, and we don't know. Mr. Smith said that according to the mapper, the blobs for the town of Ithaca show the potential that they're on the property, although it's not centered within the area, but when you look at the types of PB 05-19-2015 Page 8 of 19 habitats for those two sedges, potentially those habitats are on the property, so the sedge could be also. Mr. Bosak said that in the past, this has not been an issue because in every single instance, Mr. Smith or Ms. Balestra have done the diligence of looking at the site and finding that it's not the type that supports these things. Ms. Brock asked whether the habitat is widespread across the parcel, only on a small part of the parcel, or we don't know. Mr. Smith responded that he hasn't walked the whole thing, but it could be scattered around in different locations. Ms. Brock said that even though we don't know what the development will be, so we can't assess the impacts of the development, if we think it's possible that the sedge is located throughout the parcel, and so any development would destroy threatened species, that would be something we would want to know in terms of the environmental review. The purpose of a subdivision is to foster some type of development. Right now, we cannot say whether it's possible to do any development that would not destroy a threatened species. Maybe we should get that information. Mr.Wilcox pointed out that one can buy a parcel of land to preserve it. Mr. Bosak said that raises a larger issue, which is how far do we contemplate the possibility of development when we do a subdivision?We keep coming around to that question. Ms. Brock said that if the board knew where it was, you might have a condition that any development cannot be in the area that contains the threatened species. Our problem is that we can't make that condition because we don't even know if it's there, and if it's there, we don't know where it is. Mr. Bosak said that this should be born in mind by staff in future so we get the kind of thing we've had before. Ms. O'Brien did not know what's on the land in terms of these threatened species. Ms. Erb said the final sentence on page 4 implies that there should be consideration of a survey if there is development, but that is a toothless statement if there's no way to force such a survey. Ms. Brock said that is not necessarily true if it comes back to this board for an approval. When you do SEQR on a specific development, you can require that information, but if it's a single-family home, it doesn't come back to this board, it just goes for a building permit, and there's no SEQR done for building permits because that's a ministerial action. Ms. Ritter suggested conditioning any approval on their doing a survey before they apply for a building permit, and that no building can occur where the sedge exists. The board agreed to that condition. PB 05-19-2015 Page 9 of 19 Mr. Bates said that such a condition could be regulated, but pointed out that it might render the lot unbuildable. Mr. Bosak responded that that was what SEQR was designed to address. He pointed out that it's not that onerous to get a plant expert to spend an afternoon walking six acres to tell you there's a place you could put a house that's not on top of one of the sedges. PB Resolution No. 2015.021: SEAR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Rubin 2-Lot Subdivision, Troy Road, Tax Parcel No. 49.1.26.2 Moved by Yvonne Fogarty; seconded by Joseph Haefeli WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 4ot subdivision located on the east side of Troy Road approximately 720 feet north of the King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49.4-26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 62.1 +/- acre property into a 6.7 +/-acre property(Parcel A) which will be conveyed to a new owner and a 55.4 +/- acre property(Parcel B) to be retained by the existing owner. Paul Rubin, Owner/Applicant; Sharon K. O'Brien, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval; and 3. The Planning Board on May 19, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands of Paul Rubin," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 8/2/2013 and revised 4/8/2015 to show the parcel to be conveyed, and other application materi- als; and 4. 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 Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality Review for the above referenced action as proposed, based on the information in the EAF Part 1 and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located on the east side of Troy Road approximately 720 feet north of the King Road East PB 05-19-2015 Page 10 of 19 intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49.4-26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 62.1 +/-acre property into a 6.7 +/- acre property(Parcel A)which will be conveyed to a new owner and a 55.4 +/- acre property(Parcel B) to be retained by the existing owner. Paul Rubin, Owner/Applicant; Sharon K. O'Brien, Agent Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. A gentleman who lives on the other side of Troy Road wanted to remind the board that this section of Troy Road has been supposed to get a sidewalk since 1992, and none of the planning board actions since then have done anything to make that happen. Ms. Ritter said that it was in the 1997 transportation plan, but probably not as high a priority as it is in other areas they're focusing on now because of the lack of density of housing on Troy Road.We have a triage of sidewalk needs. The gentleman said he was hoping to get a sidewalk. It is an extremely scary road to walk down given the 45-mile-per-hour speed limit and that it's dead straight. Mr.Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2015-022: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Rubin 2-Lot Subdivision, Troy Road, Tax Parcel No. 49.4.26.2 Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 24ot subdivision located on the east side of Troy Road approximately 720 feet north of the King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49.4-26.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 62.1 +/-acre property into a 6.7 +/-acre property(Parcel A) which will be conveyed to a new owner and a 55.4 +/- acre property(Parcel B) to be retained by the existing owner. Paul Rubin, Owner/Applicant; Sharon K. O'Brien, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on May 19, 2015, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmen- tal Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on May 19, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands of Paul Rubin," prepared by T.G. Miller P.C., dated 8/2/2013 and revised 4/8/2015 to the show parcel to be conveyed, and other application materi- als; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: PB 05-19-2015 Page 11 of 19 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, haw ing determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in a significant alteration of neither the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision located on the east side of Troy Road approximately 720 feet north of the King Road East intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 49.-1,26.2, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map Showing Lands of Paul Rubin," subject to the following condition: a. Submission for signing by the Chairperson of the Planning Board of an original and three dark lined prints of the final subdivision plat, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Depart- ment, and b. Prior to issuance of building permits, submission of a survey by a plant specialist showing the location of any endangered or threatened sedges on Parcel A, and c. Development shall be sited to avoid any such identified sedges. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed Clare Bridge Crossing of Ithaca project located at 101 and 103 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27-1-11.3 and 27-1-11.4, Planned Devel- opment Zone No. 10. The proposal involves a 23,275 +/-square foot, 32 unit, memory care community expansion located between the existing Sterling House and Clare Bridge facilities. The project will also include 27 new parking spaces, fire department access drives, new courtyards, walkways, and stormwater facilities. Brookdale Senior Living, Owner/Applicant; Edward Johnson, PDC Midwest,Agent Edward Johnson, Brookdale Senior Living, and Gregory Sgromo, Dunn &Sgromo Engineers, were present. Mr.Johnson gave a brief overview of the existing Sterling House and Clare Bridge of Ithaca, which have been part of the neighborhood since 1998.They offer a personalized assisted-living approach to their residents. Sterling House, a 46-unit, 46-bed community, offers graduated levels of care to meet individual requirements and the preferences of each person. It is sited in the northern portion of the two parcels with expansion potential between it and the existing Clare Bridge community. It has an entrance/exit off of Bundy Road.The parking will be reconfigured to include eight new parking spaces and two handicapped spaces. South of the existing entry drive, they will add seven new parking spaces, and 12 spaces will be located in the existing teardrop area within the turnaround. There will be a total of 65 parking spaces. Clare Bridge is a 32-unit, 32-bed memory-care community designed to meet the specific needs of people with dementia. These residents do not have vehicles on site, as they no longer drive. It is sited in the south portion of the two parcels with expansion potential between it and Sterling House. It is served by the same entrance off Bundy Road. The proposed Clare Bridge PB 05-19-2015 Page 12 of 19 Crossing is a 32-unit, 32-bed memory-care facility located between the existing Sterling House and Clare Bridge. Each community is interconnected, but will function independently,with independent common spaces, support areas, dining, and court yards. A Clare Bridge Crossing resident requires assistance with daily activities, but has not progressed with Alzheimer's or dementia as far as a Clare Bridge resident. It's a transition community for people who need more assistance than the Sterling House community, but not as much assistance as the Clare Bridge community provides. Clare Bridge Crossing residents also do not have vehicles on site.Additional parking will be for the Clare Bridge Crossing staff and visitors. Clare Bridge Crossing will keep the architectural style to match the existing two buildings. It will share the existing entrance off Bundy Road. Based on traffic studies of similar projects, the traffic impacts will be small to negligible compared to the traffic impact the site currently generates. Mr.Wilcox pointed out that the two existing buildings are on separate parcels and that the new building will straddle the two. He asked whether there will be legal impediments to combining the parcels under the assumption that they were kept separate for financing purposes, etc.. Mr.Johnson said there will not; they are owned by the same entity. Mr.Wilcox said that for the previous projects, the applicant explained the security system on the doors. He stated that he has not heard of a person getting out of the building and causing a problem on or near Trumansburg Road. Mr.Johnson said that the residents of Sterling House are allowed to come and go, but that Clare Bridge is a secure facility. To meet code requirements, the doors are alarmed. They can't lock the doors, but when a resident wanders to a door, it takes them three seconds to hold the panic bar in. After three seconds, an alarm sounds and then the doors unlock within 15 seconds.Within that 15 seconds, staff come to assist, and the resident is escorted back into the building. Ms. Fogarty said she is familiar with the facility because she lives on Bundy Road It's a great facility. She commented that the seven new parking spaces are very close to the house next door. She thinks they could pose a problem with noise and lights. Mr. Sgromo said there's a significant grade change (10 feet) and there's a hedgerow. Mr.Johnson added that there's a retaining wall, so when a car pulls in, it will be at least ten feet lower than the homes and the lights themselves will shine on the retaining wall. Ms. Erb said the trees might add protection, so she will want to see their tree protection plan when they come back. Ms. Fogarty loves the parking spaces in the middle and wondered whether there might be a way to get more parking in there and somehow to eliminate the seven from the back. Mr.Wilcox said that if they can move the spaces someplace else, that would be the best option, and if not, they could put up some visual screening to keep the headlights from shining onto another residence. PB 05-19-2015 Page 13 of 19 Ms. Erb said she's fascinated about them digging into the rock in the back portion.The board will want to know how that will be done. She will want to know about guard rails along the raw rock wall and about the tree protection plan. She will be concerned about the quality of life of people living there during the heavy-duty construction. That will also be of interest to the neighbors. She will want to know about contractor parking and materials storage - how they will manage this on a very tight site. Ms. Erb said the board will want material swatches. Mr. Sgrecci, 1130 Trumansburg Road, said that his wife is a trustee and that she and her father are the owners of the adjacent property. He said he and his wife have had a good relationship with Clare Bridge and Sterling House since they were built. He realizes that the natural inclination is to put the dumpsters in the back, but it's the front of her father's property, and it's what they look at when they sit on the deck, which is almost on the same plane as the dumpsters. He asked that they consider relocating the dumpsters, possibly to the area where they usually park the bus. He also suggested they consider something other than a slatted wooden fence around the dumpster. He's picked up debris frequently that has escaped and he thinks a more sold material would prevent dumpster debris from flying around. Regarding the swale and detention pond, significant water fills into swale, but it doesn't flow into the detention pond, but rather down Route 96; it then overflows into their driveway. He pointed to another swale near his driveway. It's an open ditch with weeds in it and it isn't attractive. He thinks it should be covered over and seeded,which could possibly provide an opportunity for some more parking. The current fence in the back of Clare Bridge has deteriorated and is looking very weathered and rickety. Future materials should be more durable and lasting. Ms. Erb said that the board likes trees, especially native ones, and likes to avoid monoculture. Mr. Sgrecci added that when they went through the planning process for the original structure back in the late 1980s, they purposely selected trees that would keep a low profile out of respect for the development so that just in case the rest of the farm was ever developed, they could maintain their site lines of the lake. Mr.Thaete added that trees are a good way to meet the green infrastructure requirement. PB Resolution No. 2015-023: Lead Agency - Declaration of Intent, Proposed Clare Bridge Crossing, Tax Parcel No.'s 27.-1-11.3 &27.4-11.4, 101 and 103 Bundy Road Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on May 19, 2015, considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Clare Bridge Crossing of Ithaca project located at 101 and 103 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 274-11.3 and 274-11.4, Planned Development Zone No. 10. The proposal involves a 23,275 +/-square foot, 32 unit, memory care community expansion located between the existing Sterling House and Clare Bridge facilities. The project will also include 27 new parking spaces, fire department access drives, new courtyards,walkways, and stormwater facilities. Brookdale Senior Living, Owner/Applicant; Edward Johnson, PDC Midwest, Agent; and PB 05-19-2015 Page 14 of 19 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board, is a Type I Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, because the proposal involves the construction of more than thirty new residential units connected to publicly owned utilities (Section 148-5 B.2, Town of Ithaca Code); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed project, as described above; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests 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 thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Consideration of a sketch plan for the proposed new office for E &V Energy, located north of 919 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35.4-9.1, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves developing the vacant property with a new office building, storage facilities for heating oil, kerosene, gasoline, and propane, and a propane refilling station. The storage facilities would include four 25,000 gallon tanks and two 30,000 propane tanks. The project will also include new gravel and blacktop driveways and parking areas, landscaping, fencing, and signage. Kimberly Silvers, Owner; T. James Marshall,Applicant. Mr. Marshall said it's been three years since he's been before the board. The business has grown well. They leased the property they're on, intending to find a permanent home once the business grew. They need at least three acres to accommodate what he wants to do. He wanted feedback from the planning board before going before the ZBA. His fencing will be a white PVC fence that doesn't need maintenance. He needs to protect the value of the entire property because his purchase offer is on the entire property, even though he will only develop a small part of it. He wants to keep his project as low impact as possible to protect the value of the home. Mr.Wilcox pointed out that the applicant will go the ZBA first for a use variance, and if he gets it, he will come back to the planning board for site plan. He pointed out that there's a propane farm to the south about three-eighths of a mile and a previous subdivision approval was given for the property back in 2010 when Ms. Silver planned on putting her dermatologist's office at 919 Elmira Road. Ms. Collins is not at all in favor of this site for the business. If he comes back to the planning board, she will be open to hearing how he will mitigate the issues. Her primary concern is that this is next to an ag business, across from a state park, there's the Black Diamond Trail (BDT) that will eventually go PB 05-19-2015 Page 15 of 19 through, and there's the house. It is not zoned for this and is not part of the Comp Plan for this semi- rural part of the town. There are many environmental and aesthetic issues. Mr. Bosak said he doesn't know whether he would vote to approve or disapprove. He is on record many times as saying that the town is a very appropriate place for light industry. He was in favor of Mr. Marshall's proposal a couple years ago. However, this proposal makes him uneasy because of the proximity to the park entrance, the proximity to the Babcock House (a structure of historical interest), the proximity to the BDT, and the fact that it's not in keeping for the zoning nor the recently passed Comp Plan. It would require an additional curb cut. Trying to get in and out on that stretch of highway is scary, and the thought of propane trucks doing that does not make him feel good. He would not be surprised if there is public opposition to the project, and we know there will be a problem from county planning, based on Mr. Marx's letter.The signs and portents are not good. His advice is for Mr. Marshall to look for another location. Ms. Erb echoed what was already said. If the ZBA okays it, she will look at it with an open mind. She will want very serious screening on all four sides. She is concerned about the soils because he's storing fuels very close to a floodplain and a unique natural area. She will need to know what he's going to do for catchment and spills and how he will prevent anyone from the BDT from having to look at his truck storage area as well as the tanks. Marcus Riehl, senior natural resources planner for the New York State Parks said that there is concern with the visibility of this proposed. He read a statement from Fred Bonn, Regional Director of NYS Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation: "The NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation would like to provide comments regarding the E &V Energy facility proposed at 919 Elmira Road, Ithaca, NY 14850. NYS Parks is concerned with the visibility of the proposed facility and the potential negative impact this may have on the experiences of patrons visiting the Ithaca area State Parks. The proposed facility is to be located across from Robert Treman State Park and near the corridor for the future Black Diamond Trail. Robert Treman State Park is a remarkable resource attracting tens for thousands of day users and campers from across the state each year. NYS Parks completed a master plan for the Black Diamond Trail in 2008. The plan identifies a route that extends the trail from Buttermilk Falls State Park to Robert Treman State Park. The future Black Diamond Trail will potentially be a huge attraction, and high levels of use are expected along this section fo trail between the two state parks. The applicant's site sketch and description information describes plans to leave trees and shrubs along the boundaries of the property. Fencing is also proposed to screen non-office elements of the facility from the Route 13 corridor.We are encouraged by these details described by the applicant. However, NYS Parks believes a significant portion of the facility will potentially remain visible from several highly used areas of Robert Treman State Park and future Black Diamond Trail if not adequately softened by additional plantings. We encourage the planning board to consider the potential visual impacts this project may have on neighboring properties and also to request a site-specific planting plan for consideration before approving this project." PB 05-19-2015 Page 16 of 19 Ms. Erb said she's glad his business is growing and she likes the idea of storage closer so there's less truck travel. She said there will be serious sight-line issues that would have to be addressed, including those from high up in Treman Park. Mr. Haefeli said that traffic concerns him; there are elevation and sight-line issues. Mr.Wilcox noted that the board approved a site plan for a dermatologist's office there. He would be careful not to say 30 cars a day driving in and out of a dermatologist's office is okay, but 20 propane trucks running in and out is not. Board members pointed out that the acceleration from a dead stop is different for a private car than for a propane truck and that the consequences of hitting a propane truck are different from those of hitting a car. Regarding another curb cut, Mr. Marshall said it didn't matter to him. He added it because he thought it would help. Mr. Wilcox said that the building hiding many of the tanks is good. Much of the feedback from the board has dealt with visual impacts, so he suggested that anything Mr. Marshall could do to mitigate visual impacts will be appreciated by all. Mr. Marshall said that the oil tanks can be housed inside a pitched roof, four-sided structure. Blocking visibility from a height would be harder. Propane tanks cannot be housed. Ms. Erb said that the lookouts at the park will be important. She also noted that the farther east he pushes the project, the closer it gets to the flood plain and the BDT. Mr. Marshall said that the elevation changes substantially between this parcel and the piece behind. There's almost a cliff that drops down 10 to 15 feet in elevation. He has asked all the property owners at his current location whether they would sell because staying in the light industrial zone seems to make the most sense, but he couldn't find any available property. Ms. Brock's concern is that if there's a spill, the material will migrate to the inlet and the inlet flows to the lake,which is our drinking water source. Mr. Marshall said everything is contained.Where the trucks load and where the transport trucks come in to pump off is all within a contained area. It's all regulated by the DEC. Ms. Erb said she wants it to look as much like a house as possible and is not sure people at Treman would want to look at a white PCV fence. If that's what he puts in, it should be interrupted with a bunch of shrubbery or something to break up the visual appearance - something in more of a woody color and a couple cypresses to break up the wall. The more you hide the fact that it's an industrial use, the better off it's going to be. Any garage-like structure that would be allowed for the trucks to keep them out of site would also be good. Mr. Marshall said he actually held back from putting structures on the property because he was afraid it would be too much, but that he can hide all the trucks in the garage; he actually prefers that option. PB 05-19-2015 Page 17 of 19 Ms. Erb said it would behoove him to know exactly where the BDT will be some day, and whether that steep rise will block the appearance from the trail. AGENDA ITEM Lead Agency Designation for Environmental Review of Modifications to College Crossing Develop- ment Mr. Wilcox noted that this was a late addition to the agenda. Ms. Ritter stated that Mr. Monkemeyer has had trouble getting the number of tenants he needs to secure a loan from a bank.What the banks do see in the Ithaca area is that residential use is hot and is not a risk in terms of giving a loan. So Mr. Monkmeyer wants to increase the amount of residential use in the building. The reason it needs a use variance is because although mixed use is allowed in the neighborhood commercial zone, the way it's proposed, you would have more square footage of residential than commercial use,which is not allowed. It also requires an area variance because he's exceeding the amount of square footage allowed in the neighborhood commercial zone. He was already exceeding the amount with the original proposal, but the ZBA gave him an area variance, and now he wants to exceed it more. Because of the number of parking spaces and the amount of area, this is a Type I action, and the ZBA doesn't usually get involved in a Type 1 action.And usually with a project like this, if it did not require a use variance, the planning board would act on it first, by doing the SEQR review and making a determination. In this case, the use variance is so significant, staff decided it should go for the use variance first, but because it's a Type 1 action, it requires the long form and a lot of paperwork - we have to send it out to interested and involved agencies - and the ZBA was not comfortable being lead agency. If the use variance is granted, it would come back to the planning board. So, instead, the process would work this way: If the planning board were to be lead agency, we would then submit the documents to interested and involved agencies to see if they concur with the planning board being lead agency, we would put it on the agenda for SEQR review, then, depending on the determination, it would go to the ZBA(if it's a neg dec). If a use variance is warranted, it would come back to the planning board for site plan PB Resolution No. 2015-024: Lead Agency -Declaration of Intent, College Crossings Modification, Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.23, Corner of Danby Rd. &King Rd. East Moved by Hollis Erb; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting on May 19, 2015, considered declaring itself as lead agency in a coordinated environmental review for the proposed modifications to the College Crossing development, located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and East King Road intersection, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43-1-3.23, Neighborhood Commercial(NC) Zone. The proposed modifications include increasing the floor area of the approved building to 32,000+/-square feet(from 19,000+/-square feet) to accommodate residential units on the upper floors and increasing the height of the building to 54+/-feet tall (from 40+/-feet tall) to accommodate a third story. The modifications will also include changes PB 05-19-2015 Page 18 of 19 to the stormwater management facilities, reconfigured parking layout, change in the number of parking spaces, landscaping and other site modifications. Due to the project modifications and increase in residential component of the project, the project requires use and area variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, in addition to site plan and special permit approval from the Planning Board. College Crossings, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Evan N. Monkemeyer,Agent; and 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan and special permit approval by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, is a Type I Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, because the proposal involves the construction of more than 100 parking spaces, and more than 25,000 square feet of gross floor area(Section 148-5 C.3 and C.4, Town of Ithaca Code); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed project, as described above; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests 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 thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies. Vote Aye:Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2015-025: Minutes of May 5, 2015 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by Hollis Erb RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of May 5, 2015, as amended. Vote Ayes:Wilcox, Collins, Beach, Fogarty, Bosak, Erb Abstentions: Haefeli AGENDA ITEM Adjournment PB 05-19-2015 Page 19 of 19 Upon a motion by Ms. Erb, the meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Respecth^ submitted, Dcbra Dc^^â– ugioti^^e, Deputy Town Clerk