Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2015-11-17TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Shirley A. Raffensperger Board Room, Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. November 17. 2015 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Longhouse Cooperative Solar PV System, 770 Elm Street Extension. 7:00 P.M, PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed solar photovoltaic array for the Longhouse Cooperative, located at 770 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-28.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a 41.34kW array (approximately 156 panels, 2,700+/- square feet total area) to serve all nine residences in the Longhouse Cooperative. The array will be located in an existing open field to the east of the residences. Longhouse Cooperative, Owner/Applicant; Taitem Engineering, PC, Agent. 7:i5P.M. SEQR Determination: Clare Bridge Crossing at Ithaca, 101 & 103 Bundy Road. 7:15 P.M, PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of modifications to several Planning Board conditions from the July 21, 2015 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the Clare Bridge Crossing at Ithaca project located at 10! and 103 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 27.-1-11.3 and 27.-1-11.4, Planned Development Zone No. 10. The proposal involves modifying conditions associated with the Clare Bridge Crossings project approval, specifically conditions "i," "j," and "1" from resolution number 2015-033. PDC Midwest requests a change in the timing of submission and execution of project related ea.sements and agreements. Brookdale Senior Living, Owner/Applicant; Edward Johnson, PDC Midwest, Agent. 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Dogan 2-Lot Subdivision, 1408 Hanshaw Road. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a modification to one Planning Board condition from the June 2, 2015 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the 2-lot subdivision located at 1408 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70.-11-40, Medium Density Residential Zone. The modification involves condition "c" from the June 2, 2015 approval (resolution number 2015-027). The applicant has requested that the language be changed to "prior to the conveyance of either of the lots," instead of "prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 2." Esref & Belgin Dogan, Owner/Applicant. 7:45 P.M. Discussion regarding potential modifications to the proposed College Crossings 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 Zone. The modifications include moving some of the parking, shifting the building location, and eliminating the drive-thru lanes. College Crossings, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Evan N. Monkemeyer, Agent. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Draft Sign Law. 9. Persons to be heard 10. Approval of Minutes: September 15, 2015 11. Other Business 12. 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 of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) Accessing Meeting Materials Online Site Plan and Subdivision applications and associated project materials are accessible electronically on the Town^s website under "Planning Board" on the "Meeting Agendas" page nutp://www.town.ithaca.nv.us/meetlng-auendas). TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, November 17, 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, Jon Bosak Town Staff Present: Susan Ritter, Director of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Bruce Bates, Director of Code Enforcement; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Deb DeAugistine, Deputy Town Clerk Call to Order Mr. Wilcox called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and accepted the secretary’s posting of the public hearing notices. AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Longhouse Cooperative Solar PV System, 770 Elm Street Extension Tim Joseph stated that they are proposing a solar array at the nine-household cooperative situated on 30 acres of land. The array will be sufficient to provide all their electricity and will be located in one of the fields that they own off Elm Street Extension. Their cooperative has a site plan, and a change of over $20,000 requires a revision of the site plan. Mr. Wilcox commented that the plans show a wire in a trench going from the panels to the road where there’s a NYSEG box. He asked whether the electricity generated will be funneled in that direction. Mr. Joseph said that the power will flow into that transformer, and they’ll have remote net metering, where the power generated will be credited against their other meters. Mr. Bosak gathered that if the grid goes down, they’re out of luck. Mr. Joseph responded that net metering requires a system that goes down when the grid goes down so that the people who are working on the grid are not exposed to unexpected power. PB Resolution No. 2015-039: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Longhouse Cooperative Solar Array, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-28.4 Moved by Linda Collins; seconded by Fred Wilcox WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for the proposed solar photovoltaic array for the Longhouse Cooperative, located at 770 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-28.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a 41.34kW array (approximately 156 panels, 2,700+/- square feet total area) to serve all Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 2 of 20 nine residences in the Longhouse Cooperative. The array will be located in an existing open field to the east of the residences. Longhouse Cooperative, Owner/Applicant; Taitem Engineering, PC, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency for the environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval; and 3. The Planning Board, on November 17, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff, an applicant narrative, a set of plans entitled “Longhouse Cooperative, 770 Elm Street Extension, Ithaca, NY,” including sheets PV0.0, PV0.1, PV0.2, PV1.0, PV3.0, and PV3.1, all dated 9/16/15 and prepared by Taitem, 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; 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 Parts 2 and 3, and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed solar photovoltaic array for the Longhouse Cooperative, located at 770 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-28.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a 41.34kW array (approximately 156 panels, 2,700+/- square feet total area) to serve all nine residences in the Longhouse Cooperative. The array will be located in an existing open field to the east of the residences. Longhouse Cooperative, Owner/Applicant; Taitem Engineering, PC, Agent. Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Mr. Bosak said that because this proposal will go to the ZBA, he wanted it on record that he agrees that the intent of our zoning language regarding solar in the front yard doesn’t apply here. The proposed location is 240 feet from the nearest public roadway. He agrees with the applicant’s position about the 1000-square-foot limitation. Whatever the town board had in mind when they passed the regulation doesn’t apply here, because we’re not talking about a small yard. It is in the public interest to encourage this type of solar development. He doesn’t think there’s any negative environmental impact; to the contrary, there’s a positive impact, and he congratulated them for doing it. Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 3 of 20 Ms. Ritter added that the codes and ordinances committee is considering a new solar law that would make it so this would not have to come in front of the planning board or zoning board. This project helped motivate our writing a new law. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. PB Resolution No. 2015-040: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Longhouse Cooperative Solar Array, Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-28.4 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Fred Wilcox WHEREAS: 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for the proposed solar photovoltaic array for the Longhouse Cooperative, located at 770 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28.-1-28.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves installing a 41.34kW array (approximately 156 panels, 2,700+/- square feet total area) to serve all nine residences in the Longhouse Cooperative. The array will be located in an existing open field to the east of the residences. Longhouse Cooperative, Owner/Applicant; Taitem Engineering, PC, Agent; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the project has, on November 17, 2015, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Parts 2 and 3 prepared by Town Planning staff; and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 17, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate an applicant narrative, a set of plans entitled “Longhouse Cooperative, 770 Elm Street Extension, Ithaca, NY,” including sheets PV0.0, PV0.1, PV0.2, PV1.0, PV3.0, and PV3.1, all dated 9/16/15 and prepared by Taitem, 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 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 photovoltaic array for the Longhouse Cooperative, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.28.-1-28.4, Low Density Residential Zone, as described in the drawings listed in Whereas Number 3, subject to the following conditions: a. Submission of one original large-sized set of the final site plan and drawings on mylar, vellum, or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared the materials, prior to the application for a building permit; and Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 4 of 20 b. Submission of a grading plan and/or sedimentation and erosion control plan, if required, approved by the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to the application for a building permit; and c. Granting of any necessary variances from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the application for a building permit; and d. Submission of record of application for and proof of receipt of all necessary permits from any county, state, and/or federal agencies, prior to the issuance of any final electrical certificates. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Clare Bridge Crossing at Ithaca, 101 & 103 Bundy Road Mr. Einwalter, architect for PDC Midwest, representing Clare Bridge Crossing, attended via telecon- ference. Ms. Brock instructed the board that their task is to consider the impacts of the proposed modified conditions on the whole project. She said to look at the EAF the board previously approved and see if it needs to be modified because these conditions have changed and then determine whether to reaffirm the neg dec or whether it needs to be amended. That is the action the board should be taking. What you’re really doing is looking at in light of the fact that the timing of when certain things will be implemented is changing. Is that going to affect at all the prior SEQR determination or do you just reaffirm the neg dec? Mr. Einwalter explained why they requested the change. They’re a design-bid firm, and they’ve bid the project out, but have not awarded the bid yet because the project hasn’t been approved for construc- tion. The bids all have expiration dates, and they’re quickly approaching those dates. They’re also approaching winter, which means that if they don’t break ground soon, they’ll have to wait until spring, at which time the bids will have expired and they’ll have to put it out to bid again. They want to start the project and break ground and then start the building in the spring when they’ve had time to get the easements signed by the owner and the owner’s lender, who is Fannie Mae. The easements have been difficult to work on: the town has counsel, the owner has counsel, the owner had to change outside counsel, and the lender has counsel. They’ve gotten through the town counsel, the owner’s counsel, and the owner’s outside counsel. They anticipate taking a month or two to get through the federal agencies. That means that they won’t be able to break ground until fall, so are asking for a little relief from the requirement to have all the easement in place prior to starting the plan review. Ms. Brock stated that it was a reasonable way to proceed. PB Resolution No. 2015-041: SEQR, Modification of Planning Board Conditions, Clare Bridge Crossing of Ithaca, 101/103 Bundy Road, Tax Parcel No.’s 27.-1-11.3 & 27.-1-11.4 Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 5 of 20 Moved by John Beach; seconded by Linda Collins WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of modifications to several Planning Board conditions from the July 21, 2015 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Clare Bridge Crossing at Ithaca project located at 101 and 103 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 27.-1-11.3 & 27.-1-11.4, Planned Development Zone (PDZ) No.10. The proposal involves modifying condi- tions associated with the Clare Bridge Crossing project approval, specifically conditions “i,” “j,” and “l” from Resolution No. 2015-033. PDC Midwest requests a change in the timing of submis- sion and execution of project-related easements and agreements. Brookdale Senior Living, Own- er/Applicant; Edward Johnson, PDC Midwest, Agent; and 2. This is an Type 1 Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is the lead agency in the environmental review with respect to the proposed modification of conditions; and 3. The Planning Board made a negative determination of environmental significance when it approved the project on July 21, 2015; and 4. The Planning Board, on November 17, 2015, has reviewed and accepted application materials related to the proposed modifications; and 5. Town planning staff has recommended the reaffirmation of its negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed modifications; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby reaffirms the negative determination of environmen- tal 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 pro- posed, 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, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of modifications to several Planning Board conditions from the July 21, 2015 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the Clare Bridge Crossing at Ithaca project located at 101 and 103 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 27.-1-11.3 and 27.-1-11.4, Planned Development Zone No. 10. The proposal involves modifying conditions associated with the Clare Bridge Crossings project approval, specifically conditions "i," "j," and "l" from resolution number 2015-033. PDC Midwest requests a change in the timing of submission and execution of project related easements and agreements. Brookdale Senior Living, Owner/Applicant; Edward Johnson, PDC Midwest, Agent Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 6 of 20 Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Bates made a statement that the building department is against changing this requirement. It was put in place because over the last few years, the building department has had several projects that have run into problems like this, where paperwork can’t get to where it’s supposed to be and the building department is left holding the bag, taking the phone calls, and trying to run interference. Then the building department gets blamed when things don’t get done. This was to put the responsibility back onto the applicant to make sure things get done. That’s why we started adding these conditions. Mr. Wilcox asked whether we have any reason to believe that this particular applicant will be problematic. Mr. Bates responded that we have no reason to believe any applicant will be problematic, but it seems to happen. The worst that can happen is that the building continues to get built and when it’s all ready to be occupied, you not only have the builder trying to get the C of O to get his money, you have the future occupants calling our offices and the supervisor, asking why they can’t get the C of O. Mr. Haefeli said he wanted to make sure we’re not setting a precedent. He asked Mr. Bates whether he would be okay with it if it didn’t come back to haunt him. Mr. Bates said he would be, but history shows with other projects that it can be problematic. The condition used to be “prior to C of O.” Now, before you apply for the application, the applicant has to get all this stuff in place, and then we’ll do the review. It’s trying to save everyone the time of having to go through several steps again before we get everything in place. Ms. Balestra said in terms of precedent, this condition had been inconsistently applied as recently as a few months ago, where the Amabel project had almost the exact same type of conditions, only they needed to be met prior to C of O. With the condition being prior to application for building permit, the planning department is now getting all the phone calls. Either way, someone will get the phone calls. With this project, most of these conditions have been met; it’s not like they’re just starting. The O&M agreement has been almost completely worked out, the drainage easement and the water easement have also been mostly worked out. It’s working out the language behind the scenes with the attorneys, which is standard. They’re proposing having the code staff start looking at the building permit application while these are being finalized, not when they are just starting. Mr. Bosak said it sounds to him like the position we should be taking is that we have a policy, we had a good reason for putting that policy in place, and either the precedent already exists or this is the precedent. The policy is that we will make exceptions to that only if we have really good reason to, and we will look at these things on a case-by-case basis, then formalize a conclusion. Then we can make an exception to a stated policy. Mr. Haefeli asked how we would satisfy ourselves that this is not going to do that. Mr. Bosak said we run into that a lot; in fact, he was reminded reading the minutes that we ran into that with a project a few months ago. We could rigidly adopt this policy and get ourselves out from under some work, but it would mean a lot of phone calls to Ms. Balestra. Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 7 of 20 Ms. Ritter stated that we don’t have a set policy. It’s been changing from project to project. She thinks there has to be some discussion internally in the town about this issue. We have to be more flexible when applicants to come to the town, and that’s the message we get from the town board. Mr. Wilcox asked if we take into consideration our perception of the applicant’s professionalism. He wants to hear back from the building department if something goes wrong. Mr. Bosak said the key thing is that in each case, we enunciate the reasons for our decision. Mr. Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:44. PB Resolution No. 2015-042: Modification of Planning Board Conditions, Clare Bridge Crossing of Ithaca, 101/103 Bundy Road, Tax Parcel No.’s 27.-1-11.3 & 27.-1-11.4 Moved by Jon Bosak; seconded by John Beach WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of modifications to several Planning Board conditions from the July 21, 2015 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Clare Bridge Crossing at Ithaca project located at 101 and 103 Bundy Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.’s 27.-1-11.3 & 27.-1-11.4, Planned Development Zone (PDZ) No.10. The proposal involves modifying condi- tions associated with the Clare Bridge Crossing project approval, specifically conditions “i,” “j,” and “l” from Resolution No. 2015-033. PDC Midwest requests a change in the timing of submis- sion and execution of project-related easements and agreements. Brookdale Senior Living, Own- er/Applicant; Edward Johnson, PDC Midwest, Agent; and 2. This is a Type 1 Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to the modification has, on November 17, 2015, reaffirmed its negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental 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 November 17, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials related to the proposed modifications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants the requested modifications to conditions “i,” “j,” and “l,” from the July 21, 2015 Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for the proposed Clare Bridge Crossing of Ithaca project, located at 101 and 103 Bundy Road (Resolution No. 2015-033), by revising the conditions to read: i. Submission and full execution of a stormwater “Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement” between the developer of the Clare Bridge Crossing project and the Town of Ith- Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 8 of 20 aca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Depart- ment, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the structure; and j. (i) Submission of a drainage easement or other mechanism to assure the Town of Ithaca access to all stormwater facilities, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and Town Public Works Department and (ii) filing of approved easements with the Tompkins County Clerk’s Office, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the structure; and l. Submission and full execution of a water easement, if necessary, between the developer of the Clare Bridge Crossings project and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Attorney for the Town and the Town of Ithaca Public Works Department, prior to issuance of a building per- mit for the structure. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM SEQR Determination: Dogan 2-Lot Subdivision, 1408 Hanshaw Road Mr. Wilcox said this is to reaffirm the determination of no significance. PB Resolution No. 2015-043: SEQR, Modification of Planning Board Condition, Dogan 2-Lot Subdivision, 1408 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No. 70.-11-40 Moved by Joseph Haefeli; seconded by Liebe Meier Swain WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of a modification to one Planning Board condition from the June 2, 2015 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval that was granted for the 2-lot subdivision locat- ed at 1408 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70.-11-40, Medium Density Residential Zone. The modification involves condition “c” from the June 2, 2015 approval (resolution num- ber 2015-027). The applicant has requested changing the language to “prior to the conveyance of either of the lots,” instead of “prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 2.” Esref & Belgin Dogan, Owner/Applicants; 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 the proposed condition modification; and 3. The Planning Board made a negative determination of environmental significance when it approved the project on June 2, 2015; and 4. The Planning Board, on November 17, 2015, has reviewed and accepted application materials related to the proposed modification; and Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 9 of 20 5. Town planning staff has recommended the reaffirmation of its negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed modification; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby reaffirms the negative determination of environmen- tal 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, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of a modification to one Planning Board condition from the June 2, 2015 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the 2-lot subdivision located at 1408 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70.-11-40, Medium Density Residential Zone. The modifica- tion involves condition “c” from the June 2, 2015 approval (resolution number 2015-027). The applicant has requested that the language be changed to "prior to the conveyance of either of the lots," instead of "prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 2." Esref & Belgin Dogan, Own- er/Applicant Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. and closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Mr. Bates asked the board to consider making a condition that prevents the applicant from consoli- dating the parcels since there won’t be an agreement between the property owners being that there is only one; otherwise, once they have this, they can go to the assessment office and consolidate the parcels again. Mr. Wilcox asked how he can consolidate the two lots back together if he’s got a single-family house on each one. Mr. Bates read from our regulations, illustrating that it can be done. Ms. Balestra said that Mr. Bates is quoting from our subdivision regulations. Staff talked about this when Mr. Bates brought it up as an issue that the town might want to consider to restrict consolida- tion. It’s not something we’ve ever done in the past, and this is a larger conversation that will require a lot more research on staff’s part before we make any decisions. Mr. Wilcox asked why it’s relevant. Mr. Bates responded that he has three parcels that have been re-subdivided that he has to legally go after to tell them they’re in violation of our regulations. There were several parcels next to each other Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 10 of 20 that were combined for tax purposes and given one tax number. Now there are parcels that are illegally subdivided per our subdivision law. It’s an enforcement problem. Mr. Wilcox asked why a homeowner shouldn’t go into the assessment office and combine his parcels to save on taxes. Mr. Bosak said he could understand why we would be concerned about an illegal subdivision, but was losing track of what the difference is between that and an illegal subdivision that had never been subdivided in the first place. Why do we care? How is that more of an issue for the building depart- ment than if he were illegally subdividing and had never subdivided it in the first place? Mr. Bates said that here you have the chance to prevent that from happening before it’s an issue he has to enforce by adding some simple language. Mr. Bosak said that’s true only in the sense that you don’t have control over every other property owner. Mr. Bates agreed, but said that this property owner came in and wanted to make it two parcels, and he had to go before the zoning board because it was a flag lot, and now he can recombine the lots. The difference is that he is before this board. Mr. Bosak pointed out that it just means he could do the same illegal thing any ordinary property owner could do. Ms. Balestra cautioned the board against making a decision based on one particular situation when there should be more research to find out what the consequences of that decision might be. Mr. Haefeli wasn’t clear about what Mr. Bates would have to enforce. Mr. Bates responded that he would then have to give an order to remedy because the applicant would be in violation of our local zoning laws, assuming he builds a house on the second lot. Mr. Wilcox agreed that if he consolidated the lots, that would be a problem because he would have two primary structures on one lot. The assessment department allowing him to consolidate would definitely be a problem for Mr. Bates. But are we going to pass a town-wide ordinance that says that if you have two parcels that touch each other and each one has a primary residence or structure, you can’t consolidate them? That’s the issue. It’s a violation. But he’s not willing to have the planning board jump into the controversy at this point. Ms. Balestra suggested adding it the Codes and Ordinances Committee’s work plan so more work can be done on it. Ms. Brock pointed out that a statement in Ms. Balestra’s memo was to the effect that staff were representing the applicant in his absence. Ms. Balestra stated that staff are not officially representing the applicant; what she meant was that we didn’t need for them to be present, and that we could talk about the project on their behalf. Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 11 of 20 PB Resolution No. 2015-044: Modification of Planning Board Condition, Dogan 2-Lot Subdivision, 1408 Hanshaw Road, Tax Parcel No. 70.-11-40 Moved by Jon Bosak; seconded by Fred Wilcox WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of a modification to one Planning Board condition from the June 2, 2015 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval that was granted for the 2-lot subdivision locat- ed at 1408 Hanshaw Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 70.-11-40, Medium Density Residential Zone. The modification involves condition “c” from the June 2, 2015 approval (Resolution No. 2015-027). The applicant has requested changing the language to “prior to the conveyance of either of the lots,” instead of “prior to the issuance of any building permits for Lot 2.” Esref & Belgin Dogan, Owner/Applicants; and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency with respect to the modification, has on November 17, 2015, reaffirmed its negative determina- tion of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Envi- ronmental 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 November 17, 2015, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials related to the proposed modification; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants a modification to condition “c” from the June 2, 2015 Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2-lot subdivision located at 1408 Hanshaw Road (Resolution No. 2015-027), by revising condition “c” to read: c. If one of the lots is conveyed, filing in the Tompkins County Clerk’s office of a shared drive- way agreement and easement that has been approved by the Attorney for the Town, at the time of the recording of the deed for the conveyed lot, and submission to the Planning De- partment of proof of such filing, within 5 days of the filing, and Such approval shall be conditioned upon the filing of this Planning Board resolution in the Tomp- kins County Clerk’s office, indexed to the two lots, and submission to the Planning Department of proof of such filing, prior to the issuance of a building permit. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Haefeli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak AGENDA ITEM Discussion regarding potential modifications to the proposed College Crossings development located on the northeast corner of the Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) and East King Road intersection, Town Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 12 of 20 of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43.-1-3.23, Neighborhood Commercial Zone. The modifications include moving some of the parking, shifting the building location, and eliminating the drive-thru lanes. College Crossings, LLC, Owner/Applicant; Evan N. Monkemeyer, Agent Evan and August Monkemeyer were present. August Monkemeyer said that at one point, the building was approved and not built for economic reasons. They came back in the summer for a SEQR for a modification and are now asking for feedback from the board on how to mitigate their concerns. The board had issues with the parking lot, the road frontage, the building mass, and some of the architec- ture. The main mitigation was to move most of the parking to the back. They kept a couple rows in the front, mainly for exposure for retail reasons and also for setback reasons. They can’t move the building any more without affecting the underground stormwater system, which can’t be relocated because of the natural slope of the property. They’ve eliminated parking on the north, west, and south sides of the building, so there’s no parking on the King Road side. They moved as much parking as possible to the back without giving up all retail spaces in front. There will be more landscaping to provide a buffer from the road frontage. The board wanted to encourage walking. The walking trail to IC is still proposed. In addition, they have added a walkway to the corner of the East King Road side of the property. The speed limit is a main concern, and there have been three accidents at the corner in the last year. Should there be a reduction in speed, they would add a sidewalk on 96B. Building mass was a concern for the board. The step-up, step-down architecture of the building with the awnings at the gable ends will soften the mass. They will go for variances for density and height. They added density by making it three stories to make it economically feasible. This is their first mixed-use project. They are looking for the hill to grow. Mr. Bosak said he doesn’t think the board should be discussing this. If this were a formal motion, he would object to consideration of the question. The project got to this stage because on August 4, our planning staff found that this is in material conflict with the comp plan. Now the applicant wants us to tweak the proposal to be in conformance with the comp plan; i.e., to design his project. That’s not the board’s job; that’s why we have a planning staff. The comp plan calls for human scale buildings, and going from the approved two-story project to a three-story project is not moving in the direction of human scale, and these tweaks will not bring the project there. He suggested that the applicant sit down with the professional planning staff, who will guide them in redesigning it completely to fit the comp plan. It appears that some members of the public are under a misapprehension of the status of the project, and think the board has prevented Mr. Monkemeyer from building on his property. What happened on August 4th is that staff found the project in conflict with the comp plan. Ms. Balestra objected, saying that staff had two versions of the Part 3 EAF for the board to consider. Mr. Wilcox added that staff does not make those determinations; this board does. Mr. Bosak added that staff are experts on what a comp plan requires and how to design things that are in accordance with the plan. That’s why he suggests that the applicant sit down with staff and design something that fits. Ms. Ritter said staff don’t design projects for applicants, they provide guidance, and the applicant ultimately comes to the planning board with what they wish to present. The other problem is that there is zoning and there is the comp plan, and we’re between the two right now. Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 13 of 20 Ms. Balestra said our comp plan talks about significantly densifying this corner. She pointed out that human scale design can be done with several stories of a building, but with the first story being more pedestrian scale with awnings and different types of architectural features. It doesn’t mean that it’s only a two- or three-story building – it could be a ten-story building. Human scale doesn’t mean short buildings. Mr. Bosak said there’s a public misconception that the board prevented this plan from moving forward. What happened was that the board found that there was a material conflict. The result of that was not to prevent the project from going forward. The effect of that was to say that we can’t just, offhand, say that this has no negative environmental impact, but that we will have to investigate that. At that point, the proposal was withdrawn, not because we said it couldn’t happen. The second thing, which the public doesn’t know, is that Mr. Monkemeyer has had a plan in place for two years that has been approved for mixed commercial and residential development. If he wanted to develop it, he could start tomorrow. Evan Monkemeyer said it was not economically feasible to develop; otherwise, it would be in the ground. Mr. Wilcox suggested thinking of this as sketch plan review, where the applicant has come to the board with what he is proposing. He knows what the board didn’t like before, he knows the conflicts they ran into before, so he’s presenting some of the things he’s thinking about changing to try and get the board’s feedback. He wanted to start with zoning versus the newly adopted comp plan. The board spent a lot of time dealing with that issue at the last meeting. He asked Ms. Brock’s opinion. Ms. Brock said she sent a message to Ms. Ritter which she forwarded to planning board members on August 11th about this issue. In the comp plan, we have different goals and recommendations. Goal LU-1 talks about density and about envisioning higher density for this area. Her message said, “When evaluating the neighborhood issue for the SEQR analysis, you’ll need to discern the character the comp plan envisions for this area and decide whether the project would be consistent with that.” As far as parking, the plan says we should “discourage plans where parking visually dominates the site.” The board needs to decide whether or not the proposal meets that. Information in the appendices explains certain concepts about that, such as saying that parking should be behind buildings. That information in the appendices does not by itself impose any requirements or set any goals or recommendations. With traditional neighborhood design, there can be parking all along the street, right in front of all developments. It is not that all parking has to be hidden behind buildings. You don’t have to find that parking visually dominates the site just because you can see some cars. Because this project is bounded by two streets, they’ve got some real site constraints. As far as parking, she does not think the comp plan and zoning are in conflict. Our zoning does not require them to put parking in a way that it does not visually dominate the site. The height issue goes to the ZBA. For the planning board, it becomes a SEQR issue – whether the board thinks it is so out of character with what the comp plan envisions that it would create a significant adverse environmental impact. You could conclude that it’s out of character, but that it’s not significant. Ms. Collins agreed with Mr. Bosak in that it was the applicant’s decision to pull back, not that the board said yes or no on anything. The full EAF, which guided the board’s determination, showed there was potential for a significant environmental impact. There only needs to be one, according to SEQR, that would push this to higher level of environmental review, which is 17, Consistency with Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 14 of 20 Community Plan, and those plans are defined by the State of New York as being any plans that have been officially adopted by the town, which would include both our zoning and the comp plan. She felt we needed to take both into consideration as our job and responsibility. In doing that, she felt there was at least one possibility for potential significant environmental impact that has to do with consistency with community character. It wasn’t about density or parking, which are seemingly addressed in this new iteration, it was about community character and consistency with our current zoning and our comp plan. After taking a straw vote that night, the board was going to ask the developer to come back with a plan for the property that we want to be developed. Mr. Wilcox said, alternatively, the applicant could have conducted an environmental assessment and provided the board with reams of paper to show that there would be no environmental impact for that plan. He pointed out that Ms. Collins said they would come back with a different plan, when in fact they could come back with the existing plan showing no environmental impacts. But that’s an expensive option for the applicant. We’re back to zoning and comp plan. Ms. Ritter said this location is identified as a place we would like to see form-based zoning. Currently, we’re using our 2003 zoning. Mr. Bosak said that Mr. Wilcox keeps pointing out the conflict between the zoning and the comp plan as if the zoning required them to build this. He sees no conflict. Our new comp plan imposes more limits than the zoning does; he sees it as another layer on top, although a vague one. Eventually the town board will come up with specific zoning requirements that implement those considerations, but that’s not a conflict. Mr. Wilcox asked what would happen if they came in with a 50-foot-tall building because the comp plan calls for density. That conflicts with zoning. He looked to Ms. Brock and asked which one rule. Does the Comprehensive Plan indicate what we want, but the zoning indicates what we can work with today? Mr. Bosak said that they’re not in conflict. There’s nothing in the comp plan that contradicts any limitation in the zoning. Ms. Brock responded, “except perhaps height.” Mr. Wilcox said that this board was about to make a determination of potential significant adverse environmental impact. It had to do with massing and height. Mr. Bosak disagreed, saying that to his mind, SEQR, the way it’s now written, strongly implies that contradiction to an adopted plan is ipso facto an environmental problem. Ms. Balestra said that it’s one criterion from a list of 15: consistency with community plan. Ms. Brock responded that the community plan includes the comprehensive plan, which calls for dense, mixed use neighborhoods, in particular that the area south of Ithaca College should be developed with a denser, mixed use neighborhood. South Hill Center: this district is centered on the intersection of Danby Road and King Road. It’s calling for commercial and office development at planned neighborhood centers. Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 15 of 20 Mr. Bosak continued: principal uses, residences, single household and accessory units, bungalow courts, and pocket neighborhoods, attached units, small apartment buildings, elder housing, student housing, commercial and office development at planned neighborhood centers. If he looks at this entire thing, he might be able to conceive of this as being put into an existing setup, where you’ve got bungalow courts and pocket neighborhoods, but to have this be the one thing that’s in this area doesn’t sound like it’s implementing the comp plan. The problem he’s having is that it doesn’t seem to him that going from the plan we approved a couple years ago at two stories to this plan at more square footage and three stories is going in the direction this comp plan wants to go. He said that’s a judgement call. He agrees that we don’t have very clear criteria for making this judgement because the zoning doesn’t reflect it. That’s a personal opinion. Ms. Brock asked Mr. Monkemeyer how many units and beds he was proposing and how big the site is. The applicant responded that he’s proposing 8 units with 36 beds on three-quarters of an acre. Ms. Brock pointed out that the comp plan calls for residential density range within this neighborhood of 6 to 30 units per acre gross. And it’s calling for mixed-use residences, so he’s within the residential density and mixed use, including commercial and offices. So she didn’t understand how Mr. Bosak was saying that this isn’t consistent. Mr. Bosak responded that at this point, we’re not calling for hard criteria, we’re dealing with judgement calls. We’re subjective. He’s partly reflecting what he thinks the thinking was that went into this in the first place. A development that provides residences by putting them into one big building surrounded by parking doesn’t sound like what he thought this would be. This isn’t a neighborhood. You can’t put in a sidewalk and create a walkable neighborhood. Ms. Brock asked if he would prefer attached row houses, even if it was all really one big building and a façade articulated to look like row houses. Mr. Bosak said he would, but added that everything we do will be subjective. He would feel differently if this had already been developed as a walkable neighborhood and this building was put in to support it commercially. Ms. Brock said that somebody has to be first, and when you were taking a stand on the parking last time, that’s what you were talking about. Somebody’s project has to be the first one when we start applying what’s in our comp plan. Mr. Bosak said that this would set a precedent. If we approve this one, he doesn’t see how we can deny building another one on the next lot over. Ms. Brock said there could be site constraints: where stormwater facilities have to go because of site constraints. You look at each one on its own merits. She suggested the planners speak more about what this traditional neighborhood design concept is about and whether this has some elements and not others. Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 16 of 20 To a question from Ms. Meier Swain, Ms. Ritter said that a unit is not a bed, it is a dwelling unit, and there are 6 to 30 units per acre of implied density in this area. This is a 3-acre site. The units don’t exceed what would be imagined in the comp plan. The density is over the course of a neighborhood. Her hope is that this would become part of a master plan. The Monkemeyers own a lot of land, and her hope is to create a master plan for their property and other properties on South Hill, and in that, you would have higher density, you would hopefully have commercial with residential above it. When you have the commercial square footage, you’re not going to meet the density at that particular spot. Mr. Bosak said he would feel more comfortable with this if it were part of a master plan. Ms. Collins agreed. She thinks the comp plan is the culmination of years of work by many people who worked together in all kinds of settings. The document is interpretable, and that’s the planning board’s job. Last time, we decided we needed to look at this more carefully and the developer decided they didn’t want to do that. We have guidance from the State of New York in the SEQR regulations. No. 17C says, “The proposed action is inconsistent with local land use plans for zoning regulations.” This includes the comp plan. All we need is one check mark to say there’s potential for significant environmental impact. Mr. Wilcox said the issue is the word “significant.” Mr. Bosak disagreed. The only thing significance has to do with is whether it fits the SEQR criterion of compliance with an adopted plan. Ms. Brock countered, saying significance goes into whether the deviation creates the potential for a significant adverse environmental impact. If you feel it is not consistent, does it deviate in such a way as to create a potentially significant adverse environmental impact? Mr. Wilcox said that one of the issues is that Mr. Bosak has a more binary approach: he sees it is black and white, whereas Mr. Wilcox thinks of environmental impact as a scale. When do you cross that boundary when it becomes significant? Mr. Bosak said that if you adopt that approach, we’re left saying that the environmental impact is exactly the same regardless of whether we had adopted a comprehensive plan. Ms. Brock said let’s say, hypothetically, that the only way it deviates is that the building is set back further from 96B than you would consider under a traditional neighborhood design, where the buildings are much closer. And instead of having parking along 96B, because you can’t, the parking is inside, but looks somewhat the same. So it deviates from the comp plan in that way and that’s the only deviation. The board could say it’s not consistent with the comp plan, but it’s not a significant adverse impact in that the character of the community as envisioned by the plan isn’t significantly affected by that deviation. If there were no comp plan, you would not look at what the comp plan was calling for. You would look at how the area had developed and whether this project looks like everything else there. When you look at what’s required by the comp plan, you see that they meet all these other things, and there’s one piece that they’re not meeting, and you make a determination as to whether you feel there’s a significant impact based on that. Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 17 of 20 Mr. Bosak asked, “Wouldn’t its environmental impact be the same regardless of whether I was forced to look at it by the Comprehensive Plan? Isn’t the environmental impact a matter that’s independ- ent?” Ms. Brock said, “No, because the standards that you’re applying as to what it should look like are completely different: one is the comp plan as the standard; the other is just how it happens to have developed over time.” Mr. Bosak was not convinced. Mr. Haefeli asked whether the zoning reflects the comp plan. Ms. Balestra said the zoning does not reflect the comp plan. The comp plan is vague on purpose; it’s not a regulatory document. It’s got the concepts. You’ve got the name “form-based zoning” and the name “South Hill Center” and those are indicative of a traditional neighborhood development, and when the zoning follows those concepts, that zoning is generally higher density, closer to the road. The current zoning has a 50-foot setback from Danby Road; the form-based code might say 15 feet. Mr. Haefeli asked when these things might start crashing into each other. Ms. Balestra responded that it’s happening right now. Ms. Ritter said we’re really going in a different direction now. There weren’t such differences between our previous zoning and the previous comp plan. It is a unique situation right now. Ms. Collins said that when we think of this environmental law, we tend to think of more concrete things: can you feel it, can you smell it, does it flush by you? These are things that are easier to agree with. With SEQR, nothing is weighted, nothing is more important. Toxic waste is not more im- portant than community character, according to SEQR law. That’s not her opinion. Mr. Bosak said that where we were headed when this was withdrawn was toward a process that would lead to a more public discussion. He had made the statement of how sad he was that for a technical reason, we couldn’t do a conditioned neg dec. That would be an easier way to get this kind of review. This issue still needs a public discussion. If it boils down to this all over again, he’s going to be heading for an EIS again because it’s the only process that lets us do that and requires the public to get involved on a larger scale. Mr. Wilcox asked what he would want the applicant to change. Mr. Bosak said he couldn’t answer that. If we’ve all concluded we need to tweak this into shape, then we need to have a session where we tweak it into shape. Mr. Wilcox asked if there was something in particular with the plan that irked him more than anything else. Mr. Bosak responded that it seems totally out of character with what we thought we were going for. He’s visualizing this not by itself, but an entire neighborhood made out of this, because he doesn’t see Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 18 of 20 any legal standing to deny future buildings if we allow this. He’s willing to engage in the process, but hasn’t done the type of thinking he would need to suggest any type of mitigations he would want. Mr. Wilcox wanted to give them some feedback, as if this were a sketch plan review. Ms. Meier Swain thought the parking visually dominated the site. Mr. Beach said that over the summer, people were concerned with the mass of parking on the Danby Road side. This iteration has addressed that. He’s glad to see the parking moved. Evan Monkemeyer said that this is an inexpensive way to add parking. When the school has an event, they’re parking from the turn all the way up to the driveway on both sides of the road. He wouldn’t mind if they spilled over onto his lot. For the commercial, there needs to be parking for the employ- ees. Ms. Collins recalled that they have not had any luck getting commercial rentals in the building. August Monkemeyer said that statement was incorrect. It’s difficult to tell someone, “We’ll build you a building when we build it.” Without giving definite timetables for people who need to allocate money now, they don’t say yes. They have had commitments in the form of letters of intent, which are non-binding contracts. But that offers no reassurance for banks because it’s not real. Several companies still have interest, but the applicant just can’t tell them when it’s going to be ready. For commercial lending, a lot of banks will require that 50 to 60 percent of the retail space be pre-leased before you can even build the building. That’s why they added the rental, because Ithaca is a demand market for rental housing. The Monkemeyers are specialists in rental housing. They live on South Hill and know the market. The comp plan could call for 6 to 110 units, based on their 3.75 acres. What they’re proposing is something they know can be filled. The commercial will come later. Ms. Collins said one of her concerns about this project regarding parking is that they talk about covering a lot of their land with asphalt. We’re talking about a maximum of 36 cars in 111 spaces. She thinks that’s a tail wagging the dog. Mr. Bosak said that whenever we talk about the visual impacts of parking, we’re talking about it from the outside. What concerns him is what it will be like for the people living there, looking out on vast parking lots. Having said that, if this design has to be one big building, he’s not seeing how moving the parking around within the limits imposed by zoning is going to be improved no matter how you do it. He can think of radically different ways of doing this, which would be a lot closer to what’s implied in the plan. One thing that works is pocket neighborhoods. If we populated this property with pocket neighborhoods and made every fourth structure a commercial venture, you would have something closer to what the comp plan is aiming for. This wouldn’t be dense. In addition, he has seen places where density works well (Europe). It doesn’t work by building one big building and building up in the air. It works with a three- or four-story building, built around a central courtyard where people recreate. And they’re not isolated in the countryside like this is. There’s an active street life interacting with these different commercial establishments. He would like to suggest that this is a failure of imagination. August Monkemeyer responded that they still have to park. Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 19 of 20 Mr. Wilcox said we’re talking about South Hill. Mr. Monkemeyer asked Ms. Brock if the comp plan is a law. Ms. Brock said it’s an officially adopted plan. Mr. Monkemeyer said zoning is law, and this project reflects current zoning, taking into account the comp plan. This plan has the constraints of its max capacity as currently zoned with ideals taken from the comp plan. We’re using the setbacks; we’re using the density; we’re encouraging walking; we’re encouraging greenspace. We’re using a lot of ideas from the comp plan. Just because it’s not bunga- low housing on a commercial corner doesn’t mean we’re not in the comp plan. There’s a law and there’s an idea and there’s an intermediary between the two. We’re trying to get something built that takes into account both. Ms. Brock said it doesn’t follow current zoning – they have a number of variances from the ZBA. Mr. Monkemeyer said they could ask to be more comp plan-like; they could ask for another setback to be right along the road. It would be another hurdle to jump through. The cost of completely redesigning a plan that’s already approved; it’s the same footprint, just more dense. We’re adding a floor to a previously approved plan and modifying it to make sense today. Ms. Ritter said you’re opening yourself up because now there’s a new comp plan. Mr. Haefeli said that as far as getting design feedback, the building mass was an issue before and will continue to be. He’s already struggling with three floors and the mention of the fourth floor is too much. He asked what the car-to-student ratio is at IC and was told it is very high. Mr. Bosak reiterated that he’s convinced this issue deserves a larger public discussion. So the next time there’s a specific proposal in front of the board, unless something changes to make him change his mind, that’s going to be his position. He doesn’t think this board can figure this out by them- selves. Ms. Brock said that’s not the criteria for whether an EIS should be prepared or not – whether you think there should be more public discussion. Mr. Bosak said he disagreed, saying he thinks the intent of the SEQR is to make that one of the items that should trigger that kind of discussion. Mr. Wilcox said there are some things about this new plan that he likes. He likes the circulation. He likes that the entrance off King Road is lined up with the truck pulloff. He would hope that the number of parking spaces can be reduced, although zoning requites a certain number. Back when this was first approved, the zoning called for lots of smaller buildings, but Mr. Monkemeyer came in with one larger building that we liked and approved. The problem is that the building has gotten bigger and taller. He thinks, personally, that the residential look of this building mitigates the height. The easy stuff is asking for more landscaping, green buffers, public transportation – TCAT stopping there. We think sidewalks are important. Planning Board Minutes 11-17-2015 Page 20 of 20 Ms. Meier Swain has no problem with the density or height or the building - she wouldn't care if it went up to four stories. She drives down East King Road every morning and seeing the huge parking lot is an issue for her. AGENDA ITEM Public Hearing: Consideration of a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding the proposed Draft Sign Law Mr. Wilcox opened the public hearing at 9:44 p.m. Mr. Wilcox moved to adjourn the public hearing to a future meeting; seconded by Ms. Meier Swain. AGENDA ITEM Persons to be heard - Nobody came forward to address the board. AGENDA ITEM PB Resolution No. 2015-045: Minutes of September 15, 2015 Moved by Fred Wilcox; seconded by John Beach RESOLVED, the Planning Board approves the minutes of September 15, 2015, as submitted. Vote Ayes: Wilcox, Collins, Hacfcli, Beach, Meier Swain, Bosak Abstentions: Bosak AGENDA ITEM Other Business Ms. Ritter announced that the building renovation will be starting soon and that future meetings will be moved until the renovation is complete. AGENDA ITEM Adjournment Upon a motion by Ms. Meier Swain, the meeting adjourned at 9:53 p.m. Respectfiilly submitted, Debra PeAu g is ti n u