HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-06-20All FILED
TOWN OF ITHACA
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Clerk
JUNE 20, 1995
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, June 20, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann,
Herbert Finch, James Ainslie, Robert Kenerson, Fred
Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner),
JoAnn Cornish (Planner II), George Frantz (Assistant Town
Planner) , Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney
(Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Mark Macera, Fred Noetscher, Virginia Bryant, Carl
Guy, Ronda Engman, Jeff Stimpson, Noel Desch, John
Yntema, Barbara Blanchard, Chris Pelkie, Chuck
Brodhead, Peter Voorhees, Susan Brock, Scott
Hamilton, Jamie Warren, Bonnie S. Warren, David A.
Herrick, Tom Niederkorn.
Chairperson Smith declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35
p.m. and accepted for the record the Secretary's Affidavit of
Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town
Hall and the Ithaca Journal on June 16, 1995, and June 21, 1995,
respectively, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by
Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the
properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the
City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County
Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of
Public Works, upon the New York State Department of Transportation,
and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on June 16,
1995. (A copy of the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and
Publication is attached hereto as Exhibit #1)
Chairperson Smith read the Fire Exit Regulations to those
assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State,
Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Smith
closed this segment of the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS
AND ADEQUACY FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT OF THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) FOR THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN
FOR THE ITHACARE CENTER SENIOR'LIVING COMMUNITY, TO CONSIST OF A
115,000 ± SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH 60 ADULT CARE UNITS, 20
ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, LOCATED ON
THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD (RT. 96B) APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET
SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA COLLEGE, ON THAT 28 ± ACRE PORTION
OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 39- 1 -1.3, DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL
LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 7, ITHACARE CENTER, APPLICANT; MARK MACERA,
AGENT.
1
Planning Board Minutes
o
June 20, 1995
Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened
at 7:36 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as
posted and published and as noted above.
Barbara Blanchard addressed the Board representing the Team of
Consultants that worked on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(DEIS) for the proposed Ithacare project, and stated that the
entire team was here and would be a resource for the Planning Board
and the public if there were any questions throughout the public
hearing. Ms. Blanchard stated that she was representing Planning/
Environmental Research Consultants, Ms. Blanchard introduced the
people that were attending this meeting with her that have worked
on the project and would be answering any questions that were
raised.
Ms. Blanchard introduced: Noel Desch, Ithacare Board of
Directors; Mark Macera, Executive Director of Ithacare; Fred
Noetscher, architectural firm working on this project; Tom
Niederkorn, Principal and owner of Planning /Environmental Research
Consultants; Chris Pelkie, the creator of the computer graphics in
the DEIS; Carl Guy, Court Street Construction; and Susan Bock,
legal counsel for Ithacare.
Ms. Blanchard stated that there had been a bright pink paper
distributed to the Board Members which is an addendum to the DEIS,
which incorporated a couple of corrections that were noted at the
meeting of June 6, 1995 and picking up a couple of other
corrections that had been found in the interim. Ms. Blanchard
stated that in the scoping document, the various paragraphs were
identified by Roman Numerals; those Roman Numerals do not
correspond to the Roman Numerals in the DEIS. (A copy of the
addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit #2)
John Yntema addressed the Board and stated that he lives at
993 Dandy Road, which is directly across from the overlook on Route
96B. Mr. Yntema stated that it was his understanding that Board
Member Fred Wilcox is related to the applicant, Mark Macera, by
blood; and asked if Mr. Wilcox would abstain from voting and from
the discussion.
Board Member Fred Wilcox addressed Mr. Yntema and stated that
it was not his intent to abstain. Mr. Wilcox stated that he was
not sure what the relationship is. Mr. Wilcox stated that his
mother's maiden name was Macera.
Mark Macera stated that he thought that they were distant
cousins.
Board Member Wilcox stated that unless he hears advice from
counsel, he did not see the distant relationship as relevant.
Planning Board Minutes 3 June 20, 1995
Mr. Yntema stated that he did not know what the situation was,
but that he had heard from separate sources that Mr. Wilcox was
related to Mr. Macera and wanted to mention it.
Mr. Yntema read a prepared statement to the members of the
Board and the public. (Mr. Yntema's comments are attached hereto
as Exhibit #3)
Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone else from the public wished to comment on the DEIS
for the proposed Ithacare project.
Ronda Engman of Danby, addressed the Board and stated that she
had reviewed the DEIS page by page and prepared a written
statement. Ms. Engman made comments to the Board by reading from
a prepared statement:
Referring to Page S -3:
"1. Ithacare states that the anticipated impact on vegetation
will be moderate. The proposed facility will eliminate 3 acres,
another 6 acres will be opened deliberately. Those 9 acres alone
constitute 32 of the entire parcel. The impact of this change on
vegetation is significant and without mitigation measures. The
replacement of a wide variety of vegetation with grass and numerous
non - native trees and shrubs, does not constitute mitigation. The
most numerous tree in the proposed landscape plan is Malus
floribunda, a tree native not to the U.S., but to Japan.
2. Ithacare states that the anticipated impact on wildlife
will be moderate. Thirty -two percent of the land will be either
cleared or taken up by the facility. The travel routes of deer and
other animals will be interrupted or eliminated. The intrusion of
humans, cars, delivery trucks, ambulances and nature trail walkers
will be permanent. Consequentially, the impact on wildlife will be
significant, and for the most part, long -term with no mitigation
measures available.
3. The SEQR Handbook states that 'the description of impacts
should be objective (page B -33).' The Ithacare DEIS does not
follow the Handbook.
Referring to Page S -10:
1. Ithacare states that the 'ecological environment of the
site will be enhanced by specialized landscaping. The landscaping
around the proposed facility will not replace the vegetation and
habitat that is lost. It creates, particularly around the
building, a different and less desirable habitat. Even those
animals that might normally avail themselves of the small amount of
food and habitat created by the landscaping most likely will not do
.so because it is a) exposed, b) close to the building, c) near
areas frequented by humans, and d) near the road."
I-
Planning Board Minutes 4 June 20, 1995
Ms. Engman then stated when the commonwealth of Pennsylvania
did their breeding bird atlas study in 1985 to 1990, they found
that the most numerous bird in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania was
the robin. Ms. Engman stated that this was due to the urbanization
and suburbanization of the east coast. Birds like the robin, which
can find food in open habitats around houses and facilities like
Ithacare wants to build, would be very well accommodated. Ms.
Engman stated that the kind of habitat that is being eliminated is
a shrubby habitat in which one finds shrub - dwelling warblers,
shrub - dwelling sparrows, and a variety of other wildlife that will
not be accommodated by the landscaping around Ithacare.
Referring to Article II -14:
"According to the plan, run -off from the southern parking lot will
be piped to below the 'pond'.
Ms. Engman stated that she was not sure what Ithacare meant by
the pond, but it seemed to her that in the draft it seemed that
Ithacare started making some distinction between the wetland itself
and the water within the wetland, which Ithacare has called the
pond.
Ms. Engman stated, "No speculation was made as to how salt put
on the parking lot, particularly in the winter, will affect the
creek." Ms. Engman stated that with runoff in January there would
be salty water runoff from the parking lot running into the creek,
and Ms. Engman did not see anything in the DEIS that addressed this
potential problem.
Referring to Article III -12:
"la. The DEIS states that
conducted an 'environmental review'
this environmental review? What
results not put in the appendix?
one
of
John
Confer's classes
of
the
site.
What exactly is
did
it
entail?
Why were the
lb. Confer states that the site supports a rich variety of
wildlife. Why weren't these species listed in the appendix?
2. No inventory of breeding and non - breeding birds using this
site was conducted.
3. No inventory of reptiles and amphibians using the site was
conducted.
Ms. Engman stated that she had specifically requested an
inventory of reptiles and amphibians on this site.
4. No inventory of the insects using the site was conducted.
5. The SEQR Handbook states that DEIS should include 'both
Planning Board Minutes 5 June 20, 1995
quantitative and qualitative information (page B -33).' As far as
inventorying wildlife, the Ithacare DEIS has failed to follow the
Handbook.
Ms. Engman stated that she has lived at her address for 18
years and she had seen a skink on her property for the first time
ever. A skink is one of two lizards native to New York State.
This skink has a very small territory in the central part of New
York, Ms. Engman showed the Board the Heritage Program's list of
rare animals and the skink appeared on the list. Ms. Engman stated
that when she called the DEC and told them that she had a skink on
her property, Bob Godey (a Senior Biologist) stated that the only
other time he had seen a skink was at Connecticut Hill. Ms.
Engman stated "even though the DEC has no record of something on
this site that we are currently discussing, you never know what's
there." Ms. Engman stated that in the past 18 years she had never
seen a skink on her property. Ms. Engman stated one could never
tell what is on a site until the site is actually inventoried.
Referring to Article V -1:
"The DEIS states that calcium chloride used to control
construction dust may leach into the wetland. This should not be
and cannot be allowed."
Ms. Engman stated that calcium chloride is planned to be used
on road dust, if it rains, it will go directly into the wetland,
and that cannot be allowed to happen.
Continuing, Ms. Engman stated that there was additional
information that she felt was omitted from the DEIS for the
proposed Ithacare project:
"l. What is the length of the proposed nature trail?
2a. What will be the negative impacts of the creation of the nature
trail on wildlife and surrounding vegetation ?"
Ms. Engman stated she thought that the DEIS mentioned mowing
or creating some path that would be six feet wide. Ms. Engman said
one would measure six feet wide times how ever long the path will
be in order to determine how much area will be affected, what kinds
of vegetation will be affected, and with the site opened, how will
the animals that live there be affected by that path. Ms. Engman
asked how the path would affect deer travel patterns. Ms. Engman
stated that none of the information was discussed in the DEIS.
112b. What will be
trail by humans?
Ms. Engman a
the animals that
Engman stated she
the negative impacts of the use of the nature
Human encroachment."
3ked what human encroachment was going to do to
have normally had a very secluded site. Ms,
thought the impact was going to be significant
Planning Board Minutes 6 June 20, 1995
because the site is currently extremely secluded and there are
species living there that like dense, secluded sites and do not
like being disturbed.
113. What will
be the
negative
impacts of the noise from
construction, particularly
blasting,
on wildlife?
4. What will be the long -term negative impacts of noise from the
facility (human voices, air - conditioners, etc.) and accompanying
vehicular movement on wildlife?
5. What will be the impact on wildlife of lights being on all
night at the site."
Ms. Engman stated that having lights on all night at her home
for security reasons brought out an amazing number of insects which
were attracted by the light. Ms. Engman stated that not only will
there be insects that are attracted to the lights, but there would
be more animals that are attracted to these insects. Ms. Engman
stated that some wildlife will like the lighted situation, other
wildlife will not. Ms. Engman asked what was going to be the
effects of the lights on the site?
116. How does Ithacare propose to mitigate the loss of some of the
traditional deer paths on the property ?"
Ms. Engman stated that if one were to compare Robert Wesley's
indication of deer paths on the drawing provided in the DEIS, and
site the Ithacare building on that same map, one would notice that
the building itself takes over some of those trails. Ms. Engman
stated that she was sure that the construction would greatly alter
the deer paths. Ms. Engman asked if anyone had given any thought
to where the deer would get water, since from the map it appears
that they frequent the wetland. Ms. Engman asked what would happen
to the deer crossing the road at the site that they particularly
cross at now, where will they go instead of there. Will the deer
become more of a traffic hazard if they go further north. Ms.
Engman stated she felt that all of the concerns she mentioned
needed to be addressed in the DEIS.
117. Where will snow from parking lots and drives be piled, and how
will this affect vegetation and wildlife ?"
Ms. Engman stated she did not think there was anything on any
of the maps in the DEIS that indicated what Ithacare plans to do
with the snow. Ms. Engman asked where Ithacare was going to pile
all of the snow with the proposed landscaping.
Planning Board Minutes 7 June 20, 1995
Ms. Engman made the following statements of general concern about
the DEIS for the Ithacare project:
"In general:
1. The whining, threatening tone of section VII is
inappropriate to the DEIS.
Ms.
Engman
stated that
she
would let the Board members read
that section
and
make their
own
decisions.
2. Ithacare is a business..
The view adds to
the
"marketability" of the facility.
Perhaps, since Ithacare
will
make
money off that view, Ithacare
should pay the
Town and nearby
residents for the loss of the view. If you lived
across from
that
site, how much money would you want for the loss of that view?
But
then again, can you put a price
on a view?
3. Ithacare intends to "investigate the need for and
marketability of free - standing housing units for seniors as well as
residential health -care services." This is a clear indication that
Ithacare's concern for the wildlife and vegetation of the site is
a sham. Ithacare wants nothing more than to develop that site to
its marketability maximum. Ithacare whines about how, if Ithacare
doesn't build on that site, X number of houses can be built in
planned "developments, when all along it plans to do the same
thing."
Board Member Fred Wilcox asked Ms. Engman where the
information on the free - standing housing units was located in the
DEIS.
Ms. Engman stated that she could not tell specifically where
the information was located in the DEIS, but stated that it was
near to the end of the document.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that it was near the
appendices.
Board Member James Ainslie asked Ms. Engman if she disrupted
any insect paths when she built her house in West Danby.
Ms. Engman stated that she did not build her house, it was
already built when she purchased it. Ms. Engman stated that the
person who owned the home across the road from her property asked
her why she built her house there because she built it right on a
deer path. Ms. Engman stated that the deer were pushed further up
the road, and she asked that the county put up deer reflectors,
which was done. Ms. Engman recommended that if Ithacare does build
on this site, that the state consider putting deer reflectors along
that section of the road.
1
Planning Board Minutes
June 20, 1995
Board Member Ainslie stated that deer paths change with the
rotation of crops and it does not hurt them to take a different
route. Mr. Ainslie stated that they do it all of the time.
Ms. Engman stated that it probably inconveniences the deer
some, but the discussion with the Ithacare site is that on the map
you can see a great deal of travel around the pond, and the pond is
an attractant, and the deer seem to cross the road by what will be
the parking area. Ms. Engman continued by stating that if the
building disturbs the deer so much that they move their whole
crossing pattern toward Town, is that going to create more of a
hazard to the deer as well as those travelling on Route 96B. Ms.
Engman stated that was something that has to be considered. Ms.
Engman stated that deer cross the road where it is the most level
and the safest. Ms. Engman stated that there is some thought by
the deer as to where they should cross.
Board Member Ainslie stated that deer do not all cross the
road at the same place.
John Harding of 105 Woodcrest Terrace, addressed the Board and
stated that he was particularly interested in the discussion of
deer paths since there has recently been one developed in his back
yard. Mr. Harding stated that he was not appearing before the
Board as a resident, but as a representative of the Local Chapter
of the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). Mr. Harding
stated that Mr. Macera had made a presentation of the general plan
for the new Ithacare site and the AARP members were very much
interested and is looking forward to its construction. Mr. Harding
stated that the members of AARP were particularly concerned with
the shortage of adult care units in Ithaca and Tompkins County,
Mr. Harding stated that a number of the members are at a stage in
life where they may have to look for such a place within a matter
of a very few months and anyone familiar with the limitation
imposed by New York State on the construction of nursing homes
would know that there is not going to be an easy answer for
seniors. Mr. Harding stated that he wanted to speak in terms of
what AARP members see of an acute need for more adult care units.
Mr. Harding stated that the AARP members are not as concerned with
the independent living units because there are a lot of those
available.
Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone from the public wished to speak on the matter of
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Ithacare
project.
Jay Mattison
that he felt that
the analysis. Mr.
Map A.III.a which
as to the source
of 985 Danby Road, addresse
overall Ithacare had done
Mattison stated that there
lists the slopes of 150 or
Df information used to make
3 the Board and stated
a commendable job on
were no references on
greater, and inquired
the determination of
Planning Board Minutes 9 June 20, 1995
slopes.
to who is
Mr. Mattison
responsible
stated that information
for generating the map,
could not be found as
so there is no way of
finding out how it was done.
that information and that he
Mr. Mattison stated that he needed
thought that the Planning Board would
like to
have that as
part of
the analysis.
Tom Niederkorn of Planning Environmental Research Consultants,
stated that the topographic map was made from a survey done by T.G.
Miller Engineers and Surveyors with two -foot contours. Mr.
Niederkorn stated that it was simply a matter of measuring the
distance between the contours, which was between 13 and 15 feet,
and therefore, he knew it was less than 15 %.
Mr. Mattison asked if that was a reasonable and prudent way of
measuring slope on a topographical map.
Mr. Niederkorn responded that short of going out and having a
surveyor stake out the areas that are 150 or greater, this is the
best way he knows of to get an accurate representation of the land.
Mr. Mattison asked if this was the accepted and standard way
of making a slope determination.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker responded, that as the Town
Engineer, yes, it is standard and accepted.
Mr: Mattison stated that "we would like to make certain that
there is no doubt that Ithacare has the opportunity to go ahead
with this facility and I think that, speaking from my perspective,
they've had that opportunity and if we had sat down and had
meaningful discussions and mitigation last year at this time, they
probably could have had the building up and going but both sides
were unable to do that and instead there was considerable legal
expenses incurred. And so I hope that we can proceed ahead in a
meaningful way and have the issues addressed so that we don't get
hung up on these areas again. So I hope that both sides are
willing to compromise and I think that Noel Desch and I tried to
push that ahead a year ago, I don't know that we were as successful
as we would have liked to have been." Mr. Mattison asked, looking
at the market survey, which was done in 1992, and asked if that was
the most current and up -to -date survey. Mr. Mattison stated that
the survey focused on the demographics of Tompkins County and the
aging, and Mr.'Mattison felt that in order to make a decision it
might be best to have that updated so that everyone would know the
current population. Mr. Mattison added that it may be good to put
in the appendix the resident census of Ithacare and the origin of
the residents. Are they coming from Tompkins County or are they
coming from outside the County and in what percentages?
Mr. Mattison stated, regarding the Site Analysis on VII.C. of
the DEIS, which was done by Planning /Environmental Research
Consultants, March 23, 1990, that on Page 6, Section 6, Paragraph
Planning Board Minutes 10 June 20, 1995
2, says that 11S -1 belongs to Ithaca College" making the assumption
that S -1 is the site which is under consideration, "and their
policy (referring back to Ithaca College) on non - college use of
this land is not known. A serious concern with S -1 is the possible
loss of the best view of Ithaca." Mr. Mattison stated that this
statement was made in 1990 and stated that he was not sure what had
changed. Mr. Mattison stated that the statement he had just read
was made by the same consultants that made the complete analysis at
this time. Mr. Mattison stated that in the Appendix, there is a
letter from Tom Salm of Ithaca College, which reads: "In the 19
years at the college the single idea that has been advanced is that
a senior living unit is planned." Mr. Mattison stated that he was
surprised that in the discovery process in 1990 Planning/
Environmental Research Consultants had no idea what Ithaca College
was going to use the land for, yet Ithaca College has known for
some 19 or 20 years. Mr. Mattison stated he thought that issue was
important to keep in mind.
Continuing, Mr. Mattison stated that there are certain things
in preparing expert work for bodies to make decisions, and there
are some statements in the DEIS that are strongly over - stated and
rather subjective. Mr. Mattison stated that a statement on Page
VII -21, which reads: "Such a situation can contribute to confusion
and cause seniors to become irritable, restless and agitated." Mr.
Mattison stated that he thought that statement was rather demeaning
and a statement that is not fact that can be supported to make a
decision on a building plan. Mr. Mattison stated that "the Draft
Impact Statement does not need to be perfect, as Town Planner
Kanter pointed out, but it should have accurate information and
'information that could be used to make decisions that are
reasonable and prudent for everyone. involved so that the project
can go ahead."
Chairperson Smith noted that this is a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone else from the public wished to speak. No one
spoke. Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the
matter back to the Board for further discussion.
Board Member Gregory Bell asked Mr. Mattison if he had any
comments on the view it would impact, in terms of adequacy.
Mr. Mattison stated that the only thing he had to review was
the small photos, and the public has to assume that the assumptions
that were made in the DEIS are valid and prudent. Mr. Mattison
stated that he was not sure that the information is available. Mr.
Mattison stated that he was not sure how, exactly, the balloons and
the poles worked into the document. Mr. Mattison was not sure
exactly how the sites and the points of reference work into the
pictures, although he is assuming that those are adequate. Mr.
Mattison stated that there was no documentation that he could find
in either the text or on any of the photos. Mr. Mattison stated
that the answer to Mr. Bell's question is: "That I'm assuming that
Planning Board Minutes 11 June 20, 1995
the assumptions they (Ithacare) made are correct, but I don't think
so."
Board Member Bell asked if Mr. Mattison had a chance to look
at the photos that are in the DEIS.
Board Member Fred Wilcox addressed the public and stated that
the large photograph boards provided by Ithacare, are available for
public review in the Planning Department at Town Hall,
Ms. Blanchard asked Mr. Mattison if he had a chance to read
the text description of the methodology in the appendix of how the
photographic simulations were accomplished. Ms. Blanchard stated
that Chris Pelkie of Conceptual Reality Presentations would answer
any questions dealing with the photographs included in the DEIS.
Chris Pelkie addressed the Board and stated that he had
prepared the view simulations for the DEIS. Mr. Pelkie stated that
it was his clear assumption that the data given to him by the Board
of Ithacare was correct. Mr. Pelkie stated that he had chosen not
to show the poles and balloons, except in a few cases, that
indicated both the extent of the building and the height of the
building at the extreme. Mr. Pelkie stated that he worked from a
copy of 'the footprint of the proposed building and prepared the
drawings on AutoCadd. Mr. Pelkie stated that based on the site
plan and'site lines from the panoramic photography, he was able to
trace all five photographic sites back through a common center to
establish a rotation point for the building. Mr. Pelkie stated
that Mr. Noetscher of the Architectural Firm had given him a three -
dimensional AutoCadd drawing of the building, which allowed him to
then place that three dimensional object into the scene rotating it
around the access point until it was appropriately aligned with
other site marks that are obvious in the site plan, and thereby,
achieve the orientation that the building will have in the two
different plans.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that the photo of the view
from the overlook provided in the DEIS did not show the view as it
appeared in reality. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she had to walk up
the slope quite a bit to get the same view as shown in the photo
taken from the southern end of the overlook. Ms. Hoffmann stated
she was concerned that the image in the photo taken from the
southern end of the overlook looks 3 feet lower than it will be in
actuality.
Mr. Pelkie stated that he worked from the data given to him
and calculated the height of the camera into the calculation of the
angle that-is being given in the photos provided.
Fred Noetscher, Landscape Architect and Project Planner with
Kimball Associates, addressed the Board and stated all of the
horizontal and vertical information that is shown in the
Planning Board Minutes 12 June 20, 1995
. photographs was supplied by TG Miller using GPS systems and GIS
Software. Mr. Noetscher stated that he did the drawing of the
building using an AutoCadd system which is a standard in the
industry and Mr. Pelkie put everything together using all of the
basic information that was available. Mr. Noetscher stated that
Mr. Macera had the site photographed from the angles that the Board
had asked for. Mr. Noetscher stated that the only photograph
that was not taken was the one from across the valley.
Mr. Macera stated that the Board had requested that a
photograph be taken from the overlook extension but it could not be
provided because the extension does not exist.
Mr. Noetscher stated that in order to get the photo from the
overlook extension, we would have had to have someone on a crane
placed at the overlook extension at the correct elevation to
photograph the scenery in
order to
put this building back into
the
setting. Mr. Noetscher stated
Noetscher stated that the
the best of his knowledge,
that was not done at that time. Mr.
information provided in the DEIS was, to
the most accurate information possible.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that his concern is the
reproduction of the base drawings and the images in the DEIS. The
large photographs are a great improvement. Mr. Bell stated that
when the photos were discussed two weeks ago, Ms. Blanchard assured
the Board that the large photographs would answer a lot more
questions, and they do, and the Board appreciates that. Mr. Bell
stated that he was concerned because the DEIS becomes the ultimate
document, and even though the applicant has agreed to reference the
large photographs, they can not be filed in a cabinet, and Mr. Bell
did not feel that the public would see the large photographs, can
the Town keep the photographs, made into a format that does fit in
the DEIS book. Mr. Bell stated that not all of the photos were
necessary, but a few specific ones.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that he did not understand
Mr. Bell's concern. Attorney
Barney stated
that the
SEQR
specifically says that bulky and
large exhibits
that are
not
feasible to put in do not have to be made part of
the formal
EIS.
However, they can be incorporated
by reference.
Attorney Barney
stated that the applicant has done
that with the addendum. (Copy
of said addendum is attached hereto as Exhibit #3)
Board Member Bell stated that the public is not really able to
see the large photos very much and at least providing unmounted
copies that could be kept in a file would be helpful.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz asked Board Member Bell
if slides would be an appropriate way of having the photos fit in
the book and available for public review.
Planning Board Minutes 13 June 20, 1995
Board Member Bell stated that slides would not be as helpful
as the large photos, but it would be better than the small photos
contained in the DEIS.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that they would be
available and the Town has a slide projector. If someone wished to
review them it could be set up in five minutes.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she felt that large
copies folded up would be best.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that a set of slides
inserted in the DEIS binders would be more appropriate for the long
term for both viewing and storage.
Board Members Bell and Cornell stated that they would prefer
the photos on paper.
Board
Member Bell stated that
the
applicant must have a
duplicate
of the photographs shown on
the
large boards.
Board Member Cornell asked if the applicant had an additional
set of large prints.
Ms. Blanchard stated that she was trying to understand exactly
what would satisfy Mr. Bell's concerns. Ms. Blanchard asked if he
was asking to have one unmounted set of the photos available at
Town Hall for people to review.
Board Member Bell stated that he would like to see some of the
photos in the document. Mr. Bell pointed out a few photos that he
would be particularly interested in seeing in the DEIS.
Board Member Cornell asked how many copies Mr. Bell would want
that would fit into the DEIS notebooks.
Chairperson Smith asked if Mr. Bell was asking for one
complete document with the large photos for review.
Board Member Bell stated that he felt that there should be one
for each notebook that is produced.
Board Member Cornell stated that at the last Planning Board
Meeting it was pretty obvious that it would be prohibitively
expensive to do that.
Ms. Blanchard stated that there is an additional problem with
reproducing the photos at this scale for each notebook, putting the
expense aside, is that there is no technology to run this large of
a colored print. Ms. Blanchard stated that the photos provided
have been pasted together. Ms. Blanchard stated that if they were
to be provided, they would be provided in sections in order to fit
a
Planning Board Minutes
14
June 20, 1995
them into the DEIS notebooks. Ms. Blanchard stated that the Board
would receive a series of photos that follow one after the other,
and Ms. Blanchard stated that she did not feel that would make it
any easier. Ms. Blanchard stated that the other way of providing
the large copies to the Board would be to get the individual
pieces, paste them together, and somehow fold them up to get them
into the notebooks. Ms. Blanchard stated that it is possible and
it is expensive, but if that is what needs to happen then it can be
done, but Ms. Blanchard did not think that the Board would be much
happier with them.
Board Member Cornell asked if Kinko's could reproduce the
photos.
Ms. Blanchard stated that they could reproduce them up to a
size of 11" by 1711
.
Mark Macera, Executive Director of the Ithacare Center,
addressed the Board and stated that he felt that he understood Mr.
Bell's question, and the issue was comparing the enlarged photos
with the photographs provided in the DEIS. Mr. Macera stated that
the photos in the DEIS are identical to the enlarged pictures, only
they have been reduced to 11" by 17" to fit into the DEIS. Mr.
Macera stated that when the building was put in the box without
enlarging it, a lot of detail was taken away. Mr. Macera stated
that the project team decided to put the enlarged pictures of the
building on the top of the page, with the reduced version of the
panoramic view on the lower portion of the page, and then the Board
could determine the detail that would be lost in the reduced
version of the building. Mr. Macera stated that when the building
was looked at in the reduced version, one could not see the horizon
or the vegetation behind the building, and the project team felt
that the Board would be more interested in determining what the
building would block and what the contrast would be. Mr. Macera
stated that in addition to the opaque images provided to the Board,
there are some transparent images to address precisely what
"blockage" is occurring; both of the foreground (behind the
building) and what would be blocked by the high roof ridge. Mr.
Macera stated that the photos show how little view impact the
building has on West Hill, when looking at the left side of the
cupola the trees virtually hit the high roof ridge and to the
extent of the right side of the cupola, other than West Village and
down at the lower end, it is marginally above the existing tree
line. I Of course, that is from the north point, which was
determined by many people as the ideal view and the photo was taken
a few feet back from the end parking spot at the overlook. Mr.
Macera stated that the photos were taken from both the north end
and the south end. Mr. Macera stated that in the alternative
action, one would notice that the trees are well above the south
end of the overlook, well above the roof ridge on both sides of the
cupola, in various locations. Mr. Macera stated that the project
team was trying to address the issue of statements that had been
Planning Board Minutes 15 June 20, 1995
made that well in excess of 80 percent of the available view of
West Hill would be blocked, when in fact, it is going to be less
than half of that.
Ms, Blanchard stated that slides would work, that would be one
option. Ms. Blanchard stated that they could take color
photographs of the sections and make them into an 8" x 11" format
to fit into the DEIS. Ms. Blanchard stated that she would hope
that the color would come alright on that. Ms. Blanchard stated
that there is a limit of the 11" x 17" size of what could be
reproduced.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would have liked to have
seen the same photos in the same size with the view extended a
little more to each side. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she thought it
would fit on one page because the photos of the building take up
only half of the page, and with the extended view one each side, it
would probably still fit in on the same size paper. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that the text could be underneath the pictures instead of
beside them.
Tom Niederkorn of Planning Environmental Research Consultants,
addressed the Board and stated that the problem with Ms. Hoffmann' s
suggestion is that would require further reduction and more lost
quality. Mr. Niederkorn stated that by the time the photos were
reduced enough to fit into the panoramic view photo, the color
quality would be too poor.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was suggesting that the
photos of the building stay the same size and that a portion of the
panoramic view be added to each side of the building in the photos
that contain the building.
Board
Member Cornell stated that
the photos that show
the
building do
not show what the building would look like within
the
panoramic view
because the photos end at
the edge of the building.
Ms. Cornell
stated that she did not know
how critical color was
to
determining
the factor. By cropping the
photo on either side,
the
applicant is selecting what the Board is
seeing, and what the Board
is hoping
the photos simulate, is being there and seeing
the
panoramic view.
Mr. Macera stated that the project team would be happy to
provide the Board with anything they would like to see and would
only ask that the Board consider the resources, the time and that
the other objectives in this project, and whether or not what would
be provided would add anything or outweigh the difficulties,
expense and delays incurred while providing different maturizations
of what has already been provided which is consistent with the
Scoping Outline. Mr. Macera stated if the Board felt that they
needed an additional set of photographs from a different
Planning Board Minutes 16 June 20, 1995
perspective, and feel that it would not create a need for
additional information, then the project team wants to provide what
is necessary to make an informed decision.
Ms. Hoffmann stated, speaking for herself, that what is in the
DEIS together with the large photos is enough. If the public would
be able to see only what is in the DEIS, that would be not be
sufficient because it is hard to see details.
Chairperson
Smith stated that
the
large photo boards are going
to be on display
and
available
the
public.
at
copy
Town
the
Hall.
Mr. Macera stated that
addendum is that the large
one of the items
photo boards be
referenced in the
incorporated by
reference into the DEIS and are
Macera stated that since the last
available to
meeting two weeks
the public. Mr.
ago, the photo
boards have been available to
the
public.
office
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the photos would continue to
be available to the public.
Board Member Cornell asked if it had been published in the
newspaper that there are large photographs available for public
review.
Mr. Macera stated that he had not contacted the paper or made
any public statements regarding the large photograph boards.
Chairperson Smith
stated that
it would
be
nice
to
have a set
of slides kept with the
planning
office
copy
of
the
DEIS.
Mr. Macera stated that he would be happy to provide those to
the Town if that is what the Board desires.
Board Member Robert Kenerson asked Mr. Macera if the DEIS
represented the proposal that was originally approved prior to the
need to prepare the document.
Mr. Macera stated that because of the scoping outline required
for Ithacare, the proposed action is what is currently being
proposed. Mr. Macera stated that the alternative after the various
alternatives investigations determined that this meant the Town of
Ithaca Planning Board's objectives is different than what was
proposed and addresses the issues that were objectives of the DEIS.
Board Member Kenerson stated that he was trying to visualize
what the changes were.
Mr. Macera stated that it had not changed because the question
was, what did the building as proposed do, and as a course of the
review under the alternatives, the only alternative that addressed
the Town's objectives with regard to environment and views, is
Planning Board Minutes
17
June 20,
1995
addressed by the alternative presented in the
DEIS with the
opaque
and transparency in an
attempt to depict what
it does
to the
is not
view.
Board Member Kenerson stated that the Board is, in a sense,
looking at what was originally approved.
Board Member Cornell stated that, if that is the case, it is
just luck because with the process the Board is starting all over
again.
Board Member
Kenerson
stated that if
this is
the
same
proposal
that was presented
before,
than the Board
is not
starting
all
over.
Board Member Cornell stated that she felt that the process is
starts the project all over again.
Board Member Bell stated that this is the second version of
the proposal.
Mr. Macera stated that he wanted to add that the second
building, to the extent that the general footprint is roughly in
it
the same area, the alternative action is actually a change in the
structure of the building at the left wing which is nearest to the
wetland: The L- shaped appendage went toward the wetland area, that
appendage was flipped heading to the north. The building was
shifted,, counter- clockwise approximately 12 to 15 degrees. Both of
the wings at the ends of the building were taken off and those
units brought under, in a more garden approach, to reduce the
profile. Mr. Macera stated that the combination of reducing the
wings and turning the building had the result depicted by an
alternative which eliminated that portion of the view from the
foreground but has been termed as the critical viewing area toward
the valley of the lake and West Hill. Mr. Macera stated that none
of the other alternatives accomplished that without violating the
environmental conditions associated with wetlands, steep slopes and
more successional trees at the back of the property.
Board Member Cornell stated that if the applicant was going to
work within the environmental concerns, there would be a very
limited space on that property to build. Ms. Cornell stated that
it would be a question of the configuration of the building that
addresses the visual impact.
Mr. Macera responded, yes.
Chairperson Smith asked the Board members if they felt that
the concerns about views had been adequately addressed according to
the Scoping Outline,
Board Member Hoffmann stated that, in general, the applicant
provided a very good report and it does the job very well. Ms.
Hoffmann stated that she had a comment about the views; on Page 1,
Planning Board Minutes 18 June 20, 1995
Paragraph 2, Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures, it reads:
"The principal issue leading to the preparation of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement was the potential impact of views of
Cayuga Lake from South Hill, in particular, from the parking area
overlook from Route 963.1 Ms. Hoffmann stated that sentence
misstates what the Board has been working on because the view of
Cayuga Lake is not the only thing the Town is concerned about. The
Town is concerned about the whole panoramic view. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that she thought it a misstatement to say 'in particular
from the parking area overlook from Route 96B', because the view
from Route 96B itself going north is equally important.
Board Member Cornell
stated
that she concurred
because
she
thought,that the building
does not
disrupt the view of
the lake,
it
is the setting of the lake in the panoramic view; it is the whole
view that is under consideration. Ms. Cornell stated that she
thinks that the paragraph should be amended.
Mr. Macera stated that he agreed. Mr. Macera stated that the
DEIS was the project teams attempt to try to respond to the scoping
instrument to the best of their ability. Mr. Macera stated that
they may have made mistakes and that he understood in the process
of the Town of Ithaca developing the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) , the Town determines what this EIS should state
and if it does not include those proposed words the Town can change
them to read accordingly.
Board Member Bell, referring to the issue of what the actual
pictures are in the DEIS, stated that he did not know if the Board
had reached closure on this issue. Mr. Bell stated that when he
was speaking earlier about certain of the large panels being
reduced, he was not satisfied entirely. Mr. Bell stated that he
thought that there was a really good attempt made here to provide
some rather sophisticated graphics for the Town. Mr.Bell stated
that he thought that they do go a long way, except for Page
IV.H.2.d. which is the view from the north end of the overlook,
which is a critical page out of the whole document. What the panel
does that the DEIS does not do, is provide the panorama. Mr. Bell
felt that the issue is the panorama but the DEIS eliminates the
issue by putting the frame around part of the panorama. Mr. Bell
stated the issue is to provide the same scale, running the panorama
across the full page with the building in it.
Board Member Cornell asked Mr. Bell, if the applicant did as
he had suggested above, if the scale of the building would be
adequate for him.
Board Member Bell responded that it would be alright. Mr.
Bell stated, maybe the Board should have both since they are making
separate points with the different types of photos.
Chairperson Smith stated that he did not understand why the
Planning Board
Minutes
19
June 20,
1995
information in
the DEIS in
conjunction with
the large photo
boards
is not enough
Chairperson Smith
information for the Board to make their review.
stated that he did not understand why the
photo
boards needed
to be put in
a paper form.
was nothing in the DEIS
available.
Board Member Bell responded,
because
the
public
is not going
to come down to Town Hall to look
at the
large
photo
boards.
Board Member Kenerson stated that the public was not going to
make the decision, the Board will and that will affect each members
decision.
Board Member Finch stated that the information is at Town Hall
and if they do not review it, it is not because it is not
available.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that an addendum will be
added to the DEIS that will refer to the large photo boards and
say that they are available at the Town Hall to be seen during
business hours as part of the DEIS for public review and
information. Attorney Barney stated that what the Board is to
determine tonight is whether or not the DEIS is adequate for the
Board to present to the public for review. The issue of whether or
not the large photo boards will be available is being taken care
of. Attorney Barney stated that it will be in the book and, in
terms of sending out a public notice that relates to the acceptance
of the DEIS, the availability of the photo boards can be indicated
as part of that notice.
Ms. Blanchard responded that the reason the photos were
cropped like that is to get that window that is shown on the bottom
of the page with the panoramic view. Ms. Blanchard stated that
they could take the panoramic view and put the building in that
photo, make it the same scale and give the Board copies of that,
but the Board will not like them. Ms. Blanchard stated that it
would not do the Board much good because the color and the
resolution is going to be very poor.
Board Member Cornell asked if it would be financially
impossible to do the photo with the building within the photo of
the panoramic view at the scale requested.
Ms. Blanchard stated that they had done it previously and the
photos turned out so bad that the project team decided to throw
them away. Ms. Blanchard stated that the clarity of the photo made
it hard to determine the top of the building from the horizon and
Ronda Engman
addressed the Board and
stated that she had not
been
told
that the
photo boards were available
for review and she
had
been
to Town
Hall twice to review the DEIS and it was not
mentioned.
that
told
Ms. Engman stated that there
her the large photo boards were
was nothing in the DEIS
available.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that an addendum will be
added to the DEIS that will refer to the large photo boards and
say that they are available at the Town Hall to be seen during
business hours as part of the DEIS for public review and
information. Attorney Barney stated that what the Board is to
determine tonight is whether or not the DEIS is adequate for the
Board to present to the public for review. The issue of whether or
not the large photo boards will be available is being taken care
of. Attorney Barney stated that it will be in the book and, in
terms of sending out a public notice that relates to the acceptance
of the DEIS, the availability of the photo boards can be indicated
as part of that notice.
Ms. Blanchard responded that the reason the photos were
cropped like that is to get that window that is shown on the bottom
of the page with the panoramic view. Ms. Blanchard stated that
they could take the panoramic view and put the building in that
photo, make it the same scale and give the Board copies of that,
but the Board will not like them. Ms. Blanchard stated that it
would not do the Board much good because the color and the
resolution is going to be very poor.
Board Member Cornell asked if it would be financially
impossible to do the photo with the building within the photo of
the panoramic view at the scale requested.
Ms. Blanchard stated that they had done it previously and the
photos turned out so bad that the project team decided to throw
them away. Ms. Blanchard stated that the clarity of the photo made
it hard to determine the top of the building from the horizon and
Planning Board Minutes 20
tree line.
June 20, 1995
Board Member Cornell asked if the building could be
distinguished from West Hill.
Ms. Blanchard responded, much less so.
Board Member Cornell asked if photo series V.H.2.e, was the
applicants favorable choice.
Ms. Blanchard responded, Alternative VII.3.b. is the
preferable photo.
Board Member Cornell asked if the photos on Page V . H . 3 . b . were
the photos that Town Planner Jonathan Kanter wanted to have blown
up for review purposes.
Town Planner Kanter stated that was the photo that he wanted
to see at the same scale.
Mr. Macera stated that
be reduced to fit into the
view could be enlarged to
with little expense and ti
what the Board wanted that
the photo with the building in it could
panoramic view photo, or the panoramic
fit the photo with the building in it,
me. Mr. Macera stated that if that is
is what they will do.
Board Member Cornell stated that if the applicant could do
that, then with whatever intensity the building was being shot,
could be done darker so that a contrast could be seen.
Ms. Blanchard stated that it does not work.
Board
Member
Cornell
stated that she was sure that the
applicant
could figure
out
something and if nothing else, they
could outline
the
building
in pen.
Mr. Macera stated that they had done that in the original set
of documents to show the outline of the building and those photos
were not felt to be defined enough to provide an image
interpretation for this Board, which is why the current route was
taken.
Chairperson Smith asked what happened to the transparencies
which were mentioned earlier in the meeting.
Mr. Macera
stated that one would
have to approach
the
transparencies
within inches to determine where the tree lines
are
and felt that
not
to be effective. Mr.
Macera stated that
the
project team went
through a series of discussions and felt
that
there was no
one
answer that satisfied
all peoples curiosity,
whether larger
or
smaller, to include more
or less panorama.
Mr.
Macera stated,
if
one were to include the
entire panorama, which
Planning Board Minutes 21 June 20, 1995
was an issue in all of the discussions about the impact on the
panorama, we would have had to reduce the size of the building to
include that. Mr. Macera stated that if one wanted to increase the
size of the building one would lose the panorama and will not gain
a perspective of what the building does on the land.
Chairperson Smith asked if the large photos were acceptable at
the scale presented, showing what the Board members wanted to see.
Board Member Cornell responded, yes.
Chairperson Smith stated that the Board has some photographic
views that they can accept as adequate.
Board Member Cornell stated that
she was very
interested
in
seeing a photo from the proposed overlook extension, because to
that is one of the proposed mitigation measures. Ms. Cornell
stated that by extending the overlook, people would get out
their cars and walk to the overlook extension to see the view.
Cornell stated that she was interested in seeing that view to
her
of
Ms'
see
how much
of Ithacare you could see once
you were at
the end of
the
proposed
it would
extended overlook. Ms. Cornell
not be much of a problem from
stated that
the extended
she felt that
overlook.
Board Member Hoffmann stated, referring to V.H.2.e of the
DEIS, that it mentioned that the overlook extension would be
approximately 10 feet higher than where these photographs were
taken. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she was concerned how the height
of that overlook will impact the view from further south as one
comes along Route 96B, Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would not want
the overlook to create an obstruction of the view of the lake and
the basin. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it would be nice to see a mock
up of some sort to indicate how high that point will be.
Mr. Noel Desch stated that there is a cross section in the
document. (Which is the second drawing in Section V of the DEIS)
Mr. Macera stated that the cross section was V.H.l.a.ii. in
the DEIS.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that the cross section drawing does not
tell her what she wants to see. Ms. .Hoffmann stated that the
drawing does not tell her what the overlook would look like as she
came down the road from the south going north.
Attorney Barney asked Ms. Hoffmann how the applicant would get
a photo from an extension that does not exist. Attorney Barney
stated that there are limits to what he thinks the Board can ask of
the applicant.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that they could put a marker in the spot
of the point of the overlook that is furthest north; like a post in
Planning Board Minutes 22 June 20, 1995
the ground with a cross -bar nailed on it.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that Ms.
Hoffmann's question is as someone is going down Danby Road would
the extension of the overlook block the view of the lake.
Ms. Hoffmann responded, is it going to be high enough to
effect the view of the lake.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that in the files in Town
Hall there is a photograph where he had drawn a black line that
shows the approximate elevation, within a foot or so, of that
extended overlook.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she hoped that would help, because
she would not want to create something that creates an obstruction
of the view from one place and improves it from another.
Board Member Cornell
asked
about
presenting
the Ithacare's
project teams alternative
(VI.h.2.d.)
dated June 27,
in the same
scale.
Mr. Macera asked what scale that would be.
Board Member Cornell responded that she wanted to see the
panorama.
Ms. Blanchard stated, as she understands it, the photo that is
being requested, is the same one that is Alternative VII.B.3.
(IV.H.2.d.). Ms. Blanchard asked if that is correct. Ms.
Blanchard stated that the top photo is the proposed action, the
bottom is the alternative that the Board is requesting. Ms.
Blanchard asked if that was the photo that the Board wanted.
Ms. Cornell stated that the Town Planner, Jonathan Kanter, had
a good idea about this subject.
Attorney Barney stated that he wanted to-hear if the majority
of the Board wants that photo added to it. If the majority of the
Board wants that added to the DEIS, then it should be done, if the
majority of the Board does not want it done, then with all do
respect to those that want it done that way, the majority does
rule.
Board Member Cornell stated that having some landscape on both
sides of the building to show where the lake is would really put it
in perspective so that one could make a better decision.
Town
Planner Jonathan
Kanter stated that he
had suggested in
his
memo,
dated June 27,
1995, doing a photo at the same scale.
Mr.
Kanter
stated if there
is a way of doing the
photo at a larger
size
scale,
with a larger
foldout that could be
pasted together,
that
would
be great, and that
is what should be
done.
Attorney Barney stated that he wanted to-hear if the majority
of the Board wants that photo added to it. If the majority of the
Board wants that added to the DEIS, then it should be done, if the
majority of the Board does not want it done, then with all do
respect to those that want it done that way, the majority does
rule.
Board Member Cornell stated that having some landscape on both
sides of the building to show where the lake is would really put it
in perspective so that one could make a better decision.
Planning Board Minutes 23 June 20, 1995
Chairperson Smith
asked
how
many Board members
felt they had
enough information with
what
has
already been supplied.
notice posted,
Six Board Members felt that enough information was contained
in the DEIS and the large photo boards.
Board Member Greg
Bell
stated that he
wanted there to be an
opportunity to have the
full
size panels to
be presented for review
at the site, with a public
notice posted,
and let those that are
interested review them
at the
site prior to
the hearing on July 18,
1995, so that they can
think
things through.
Board Member Cornell stated that her motivation for having the
photo was for the permanent record.
Mr. Macera stated that if the Town wants to keep the Boards,
then so be it, they will be submitted as part of the permanent
record.
Town
Planner
Kanter
asked if a whole new series could be done
that
would
photo boards
not
be
on the
stated that he
would like to avoid making another
boards.
Mr.
Macera
responded in
terms of copying cost, labor and
materials,
those
photo boards
are between $500 and $600 for the
set. Mr.
Macera
stated that he
would like to avoid making another
set for
the sake
of nothing more than.serving as a file copy.
Planner II, JoAnn Cornish asked if the large photo boards
could be photographed and then slides be made from those
photographs.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that idea had been discussed.
Chairperson Smith asked if any Board Members were in favor of
asking for more prints than those that have already been provided
with the DEIS submission.
Two Board Members wished for additional photos, but felt they
were not essential for this stage and that if slides could be
provided, it would be fine.
Board Member Wilcox stated that
it was
interesting to him
that
members of the public stood up and
not one
person mentioned
the
view. Mr. Wilcox stated that the Board
has spent their
time
talking about the view and the
public
discussed vegetation,
wildlife and habitat. Mr. Wilcox
stated
that the Board is
not
addressing the Public's concerns.
Board Member Cornell stated that the issues raised by the
public were addressed at length at earlier meetings.
Board Member Wilcox stated that he had been reviewing the DEIS
Planning Board Minutes 24 June 20, 1995
and trying to find what is referred to in the Scoping Outline in
terms of insects and aquatic life, and the Scoping Outline does not
seem to go into the detail that some of the members of the public
have requested.
Board Member Kenerson stated that it was accepted by the Board
as the Scoping Document, does the DEIS comply or doesn't it.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the reason there is
little discussion on the impact on wildlife, for instance, is
because it was addressed in questions 8 and 9 of the Long
Environmental Impact Statement that was previously approved by the
Planning Board, in which they made the determination that there was
not going to be any potential large impact on either threatened or
endangered plant or wildlife species or any other plant or wildlife
species on that site. Mr. Frantz stated that when the Board
discussed the scoping the Planning Board essentially reiterated the
same findings and determined that there was no further need to go
into the issue of the impact on vegetation of wildlife on the site.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that if one were to refer
back to the Scoping Outline one would see that there were several
potential significant environmental impacts that were identified
and those were categorized as aesthetic resources, wetlands and
steep slopes, salt water runoff, downstream flooding and sewer
overflows in the City of Ithaca. Mr. Kanter stated, not to say
that the other issues were not included in the scoping, they were,
and the outline shows they are in there. Mr. Kanter stated that
the Board needs to focus on the potentially significant
environmental impacts that were identified in the Scoping, which is
the key question. Does the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
sufficiently address those topics?
Town Engineer Daniel Walker addressed the Board and stated
that this is the draft presented, did the applicants address all of
the areas they were asked to in the Scoping document. Mr. Walker
stated that the Final Environmental Impact Statement will leave
room for other information.
Board Member Wilcox stated that the draft does not have to be
perfect.
Board Member Kenerson stated that if the Board feels that
something was left out, that is what needs to be addressed at this
meeting.
Chairperson Smith asked if the Board felt there was anything
that was not adequately addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement submitted by the applicant that the Board feels needs to
be included.
Planning Board Minutes 25 June 20, 1995
Board Member Cornell stated that she was not sure of the issue
of the salt. Ms. Cornell stated that of Page S -3 under Surface
Water it states that there would be a negligible impact from the
amount of runoff anticipated.
Assistant Town Planner
determination of the Board in
Form (LEAF) at the June 21, 1992
to moderate or no impact with
quality or quantity, and thi
addressed in the DEIS.
Frantz stated that was also a
the Long Environmental Assessment
meeting; that there would be small
regard to surface or ground water
s may be why the issue was not
Town Attorney Barney stated that he would not rely on the LEAF
from that meeting. Mr. Barney stated that the Board should rely on
the Scoping Outline, which is the basis on which the DEIS was
prepared.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated, regarding the alternatives
for siting and configuration, one of the alternatives that was
looked at was moving the building to the west and the example shown
is moving the building quite a lot to the west, to the middle of
the parcel. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the applicants had considered
moving the building just slightly to the west, by 4 or 5 feet, and
lessening the impact of the height of the building which is quite
great as the Board can see on the pictures.
Tom Niederkorn responded, yes, the team had looked at that
possibility and had a drawing that showed what happened when that
was the case and with the parking lots, the pond and wetlands
around the pond were totally obliterated. Mr. Niederkorn stated
that it would have involved substantially filling up the quarry
pond, so the team felt that was not a viable alternative.
Board Member Cornell read from the SEQR Handbook: "All
relevant information has been presented and analyzed, but should
not require an unreasonably exhaustive or perfect document." Ms.
Cornell stated that there are things that are in the scope and are
not in this document, then that is something that Board Members
should bring up at this meeting. Ms. Cornell asked where the
impact to the City of Ithaca's sewer system was addressed in the
DEIS.
Ms. Blanchard responded that the impact to the City of Ithaca
sewer system is addressed in Section IV Page IV- 16.F.9. to Page IV-
17. Ms. Blanchard stated that she felt that it was also mentioned
in Section III of the DEIS. I -
Board Member Cornell stated whether or not the information is
correct is not part of the discussion at this meeting. Ms. Cornell
stated that she has no way of knowing if this information is
correct.
Planning Board Minutes 26 1 1 June 20, 1995
Town Planner Kanter stated that the Board does want to make a
determination on its adequacy in terms of the scoping outline.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the analysis of the
sewer system in the DEIS is adequate.
Town Planner Kanter stated, for the record, that he had
submitted to the Planning Board a memo dated June 15, 1995, which
addressed a number of items. Mr. Kanater stated that the items
most focused on were the significant environmental issues that the
scoping outline had identified. Mr. Kanter stated that he felt
that the DEIS had sufficient detail to initiate the process of
obtaining public input and comments.
Board Member Cornell stated that she felt the DEIS was
complete enough for public comment.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if
anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie:
Whereas, Ithacare Center has requested Site Plan Approval from
the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed Ithacare Center
Senior Living Community, to consist of a 115,000 +/- square foot
building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80
independent living units, located on the west side of Danby Road
(Rt. 96B) approximately 2,000 feet south of the entrance to Ithaca
College, on that 28 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 39- 1 -1.3, designated as Special: Land Use District No. 7, and
Whereas,
this is a Type I action for
which the Town
of Ithaca
Planning Board
is legislatively determined
to act as Lead
Agency in
environmental
review with respect to Site
Plan Approval,
and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board made a Positive
Declaration of Environmental Significance on December 9, 1994,
directing Ithacare Center to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) to evaluate potential impacts of the proposed
Ithacare Center Senior Living Community, and
Whereas, the Planning Board approved a Scoping Outline on
January 3, 1995, to identify relevant environmental impacts to be
addressed in the DEIS, and
Whereas, Ithacare Center has prepared and submitted to the
Planning Board on May 31, 1995, a DEIS which has examined possible
environmental impacts, and
Whereas, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency,
held a public hearing on June 20, 1995, to determine the
completeness and adequacy of the DEIS for public review and
Planning Board Minutes 27 June 20, 1995
comment, and has with the assistance of Town Staff, reviewed the
DEIS submitted on May 31, 1995, and has found the DEIS to be
satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for
the purpose of public review.
Now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, as Lead Agency, on June 20, 1995, hereby finds that
the DEIS for the Ithacare Center Senior Living Community is
satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for
the purpose of commencing public review, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a public hearing on the DEIS be
scheduled by the Planning Board for July 18, 1995, to obtain
comments from the public on potential environmental impacts of the
proposed action as evaluated in the DEIS, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to take those
steps, including filing a Notice of Completion of the DEIS and
Notice of SEQR Hearing as required under 6 NYCRR Parts 617.10 and
617.21 and distributing the DEIS to all involved and interested
agencies and the public, as may be necessary or appropriate to
commence the public review of the DEIS.
Town Attorney John Barney asked if the Board wanted Board
Member Bell's suggestion of public opportunity to review the panels
at the site incorporated into the resolution.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that if it was mentioned in
the public notice that the panels are available with the DEIS for
review, he did not feel it needed to be incorporated into the
resolution as well.
Mr. Kenerson stated that he did not feel it needed to be put
in the resolution.
Town Planner Kanter stated that staff could add a note into
the notice of completion and hearing, stating that the panels are
available for review at Town Hall.
Board Member Cornell asked Mr. Bell what purpose would be
served by having the panels available at the site.
Mr. Bell stated that he did not feel that very many people
from the public have an idea of what this project is all about, and
if there was some notification mechanism whereby they knew that on
a certain day there was going to be someone who knows something
about the project and some easels at the overlook and they could
come look at them. Mr. Bell stated that it would be similar to the
balloon flying but be a much more meaningful step beyond that and
people would understand it very well looking at the site and the
photos.
Planning Board Minutes 28 June 20, 1995
Board Member Cornell stated, for the record, in
Mr. Bell said is why she wanted the photo with the
her notebook so that she could take it to the site.
some ways what
larger view in
The Board determined that it was not necessary to make the
suggestion of having the photo panels available on the site a part
of the resolution because it could be set up by staff.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox,
Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Board Member Bell asked if the panels could be taken to the
site and a notice be prepared for time for the public to visit the
site.
Town
Planner
Kanter responded
that it
would
be done and that
he would
set it up
and put a press
release
in the
papers.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith declared
the Public Hearing for the consideration of accepting the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Ithacare Project
duly closed at 9:38 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL
FOR THE PROPOSED RYDER TRUCK RENTAL AND STORAGE OPERATION AS AN
ADJUNCT BUSINESS OF JUDD FALLS HARDWARE AT JUDD FALLS PLAZA LOCATED
AT THE INTERSECTION OF JUDD FALLS ROAD AND MITCHELL STREET ON TOWN
OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NOS. 62 -1 -11 62. -1 -2.2 AND 62- 1 -3.2, BUSINESS
DISTRICT C. M. SUSAN AND SCOTT HAMILTON, OWNERS /APPLICANT.
Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above -
noted matter duly opened at 9:40 p.m. and read aloud from the
Notice of Public Hearings and posted and published and as noted
above.
Scott Hamilton, owner of Judd Falls Plaza, addressed the Board
and stated that the hardware store had approached him several
months ago because they were approached by Ryder Truck in
establishing presence in East Hill and for two reasons; 1) Cornell,
they have a tremendous demand from that community, and 2) It would
enhance dramatically the hardware store business, which would
enable them to stay in business. Mr. Hamilton stated that he felt
there was no problem because it would not compromise the parking
that the Plaza currently has, and there would be no impact on any
traffic because it is only a depository and storage facility. Mr.
Hamilton stated that they were currently in the business of renting
Planning Board Minutes 1 29 June 20, 1995
various hardware goods, so it is a rental adjunct to what they
currently do. Mr. Hamilton stated that he had given the hardware
store owners permission without any physical thought a site
approval until he was approached that such would be required. Mr.
Hamilton stated that a plan�has been submitted, but that there
would be a revision of since talking with Town Planner Kanter, Mr.
Hamilton stated that he felt that it would be easier to provide a
space for the storage of those trucks in an area that is currently
not provided for parking; so there was an area that was set aside
to be prepared and used as a parking area for those trucks only.
Board Member Kenerson asked if eight parking spaces would be
adequate for the storage of trucks at that store.
Mr. Hamilton responded, yes and that eight would be a maximum
at a peak period in time, normally there would not be more than two
or three at any given time because of the fast turn over time. Mr.
Hamilton stated that there would be three sizes of trucks stored
there. Mr. Hamilton stated that he would rather have the
permission to use the current parking area toward the end of the
parking lot that is already established for two reasons; 1) The
spaces are already there, it 'is less of a visible aspect to our
property, and 2) It would not compromise his ability for future
development possibilities of the back parcel. Mr. Hamilton stated
that it would be much more desirable for him as the land owner to
use what is currently available. Mr. Hamilton stated that it would
not compromise his parking facilities because there are over 200
parking spaces and the Plaza never uses over 75 or 80 spaces at the
busiest times. Mr. Hamilton stated that he would rather have the
Board approve the ability to use existing parking for the proposed
purpose.;
Chairperson Smith asked if the parking bays were deep enough
for trucks.
Board Member Kenerson asked if that was the only place on the
property that the trucks would appear.
Mr. Hamilton responded, that the trucks would be parked there
when they are not being used.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that another possibility
would be to place the parking spaces for the trucks on the upper
corner of the back parking lot, but there would be concern for the
traffic flow in the lot.
Mr. Kanter stated that where the par}
roughly 45 feet of depth, and Mr. Kanter
truck that would be going there would be
room for easy parking. Mr. Kanter stated
check the base of the parking area to
trucks.
zing area is show there is
thought that the largest
24 -foot van, so there is
the Town should have the
make sure it can handle
Planning Board Minutes
Mr. Hamilton stated that
there for more than six years.
30
June 20, 1995
there have been school buses parking
Mr. Kanter stated that putting the parking spaces for the
trucks on the lower corner of the back lot would eliminate between
25 and 28 current parking spaces because the corner would need to
be reserved for the trucks.
Board
Member
Herbert
Finch
asked if any service to the trucks
would have
to be
provided,
such
the
as pumping gas.
Mr. Hamilton, responded, no.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she
trucks are already parked in the lot and she f
color very startling and Ms. Hoffmann stated t]
somewhat objectionable to see them there. Ms. Hof
she had seen two trucks parked on the Judd Falls
Plaza when she drove by today.
noticed that the
inds that yellow
zat she f inds it
fmann stated that
Road side of the
Town
Planner Kanter
stated
that
there
would
be additional
evergreen
plantings to buffer
the
view
of the
truck
parking.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the customers would physically
deliver and pick up the trucks in the front of the store, but they
are not parked there and they are not to be stored there. Mr.
Hamilton stated when trucks are seen at the front of the Plaza, it
is temporary and only a depository.
Jamie Warren, owner of Judd Falls Hardware, addressed the
Board and stated that the store was run by himself and his wife and
if he is there alone, it may take 10 to 15 minutes to move a truck,
but they do move them as soon as they possibly can.
Mr. Hamilton stated that part of the plan that has been
submitted allows for one truck to be in the front next to the wall
as a depository for two purposes. 1) Temporary drop off, and
2) Advertising,
Mr. Warren stated that the truck out front is not permanent
because if they are not used, Ryder takes them away and the
hardware store would end up with fewer trucks because Ryder does
not want the trucks to sit,idle. Mr. Warren stated that he would
like to keep one out front, if possible, so that people know they
are available from the hardware store.
Town Planner Kanter stated that the question of
the use
itself
is really what brought this matter to the Board. Mr.
Kanter
stated
that when
the Town's Code Enforcement Officer,
Andrew
Frost,
determined
that the Business "C" District does not specifically
provide for
outdoor storage or rental of trucks or automobiles.
Mr. Kanter
stated that there was no district in
the Town that
Planning Board Minutes 31 June 20, 1995
allows for that use, so this would have to go to the Zoning Board
of Appeals for a Use Variance. Mr. Kanter stated that the other
variance mentioned in the Draft Resolution relating to the three
parcels when considering the original proposal. Mr. Kanter stated
that this comes before the Planning Board for preliminary site plan
because it will have to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for at
least Use Variance action and depending on what happens there, the
Planning Board can resolve any final details when it comes back for
Final Site Plan approval.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would rather have the
trucks park in the existing lot, instead of removing green space
for additional parking.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that what is not shown on
the plan presented to the Board tonight is that there is a
pedestrian walkway along the outer edge of the parking lot, and he
had discussed with Mr. Hamilton to add cement blocks to stop the
trucks from being able to interfere with the pedestrian walkway.
Chairperson Smith asked if the trucks could be parked in the
next island of parking spaces, more into the center of the parking
lot, it would eliminate worry about pedestrian safety, more room to
pull the,trucks in and out.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that in the center of the
parking lot would provide for more security and visibility.
Attorney Barney asked Mr. Hamilton where the visitors to the
bowling alley parked.
Mr. Hamilton responded, that they parked in the back most of
the time, but no farther away than absolutely necessary. Most
people will park as close as they possibly can to avoid needing to
walk very far.
Town Planner Kanter stated that he had looked at the parking
requirements for the 1990 plan, which was 204 spaces. The current
parking spaces is 200, and if 20 spaces are used for this proposal
would still leave 180 parking spaces for the other uses at the
Plaza. Mr. Kanter stated that the required number of spaces would
be 175 including an addition to the front of the building that was
proposed in 1990 which has not been done. Mr. Kanter asked Mr.
Hamilton if there were still plans to finish the addition to the
front of the building where Ide's Bowling is located.
Mr. Hamilton stated that the addition was not under
consideration because the bowling alleys will probably be going out
within five to ten years and the space would be under another use,
probably retail. Mr. Hamilton stated that this was a very
desirable retail space.
Planning Board Minutes 32 June 20, 1995
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if
anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Gregory Bell:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the proposed Ryder Truck rental and storage
operation as an adjunct business of Judd Falls Hardware at
Judd Falls Plaza located at the intersection of Judd Falls
Road and Mitchell Street on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's.
62 -1 -11 62 -1 -2.2 and 62- 1 -3.2, Business District "C ", M. Susan
and Scott Hamilton, Owners /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead
Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan
Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, at a public meeting held on June 20, 1995,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II
prepared by the Planning staff, and a site plan entitled
"Alterations to Ide' s Bowling and Judd Falls Plaza, " dated May
9, 1995, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, and additional
application materials, and
4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative
determination of environmental significance with respect to
the proposed site plan, as proposed;
5. At the Public Hearing the applicant has agreed to relocate the
proposed parking area for the trucks to the middle row of
parking spaces behind the Ide's Bowling Lanes building;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative
determination of environmental significance in accordance with the
New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above -
referenced action as modified and, therefore, neither a Full
Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement
will be required.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote. '
Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Planning Board Minutes 33 June 20, 1995
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie:
WHEREAS:
1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan
Approval for the proposed Ryder Truck rental and storage
operation as an adjunct business of Judd Falls Hardware at
Judd Falls Plaza located at the intersection of Judd Falls
Road and Mitchell Street on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's.
62 -1 -11 62 -1 -2.2 and 62- 1 -3.2, Business District "C ", M. Susan
and Scott Hamilton, Owners /Applicant, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review,
has, on June 20, 1995, made a negative determination of
environmental significance, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on June 20, 1995,
has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II
prepared by the Planning staff, and a site plan entitled
"Alterations to Ide' s Bowling and Judd Falls Plaza, " dated May
9, 1995, prepared by Cornerstone Architects, and additional
application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain
requirements for Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on
the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, having determined from
the materials presented that such waiver will result in
neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan
control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town
Board, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan
Approval to the proposed site plan entitled "Alterations to
Ide's Bowling and Judd Falls Plaza," dated May 9, 1995,
prepared by Cornerstone Architects, which plan is intended to
now omit the new addition shown on the previous 1990 plan,
subject to the following conditions:
a. Obtaining of a use variance by the applicant from the
Zoning Board of Appeals to allow the rental and outdoor
storage of trucks in a Business "C" District;
b. Modification of the site plan to show the location of the
truck parking spaces in the middle row of the parking
spaces at the rear of the Ide's Bowling Lanes building;
C, Revision of the site plan to designate the one new truck
Planning Board Minutes 34 June 20, 1995
space in the front parking
Road as a truck return area,
trucks will be moved from
spaces in the rear as soon
area adjacent to Judd Falls
with the understanding that
such space to the parking
as practicable.
d. No more than eight rental trucks shall be stored on the
Ide's Bowling and Judd Falls Plaza site at any one time,
including trucks that have been returned by renters after
business hours and left overnight;
e. Revision of the site plan to show the size, location,
design and materials of any proposed signs in conjunction
with the proposed truck rental use;
f. Revision of the site
plan to
show the location,
type and
dimensions of any
existing or
proposed utility,
drainage
or similar easement within or in the immediate
vicinity
of the portion of
the site to
be used in conjunction
with
the truck rental
business;.
0
h
Revision of the site plan to
that now exists on the south
Mitchell Street;
show the pedestrian walkway
side of the parking lot near
Revision of the site plan to include the name and seal of
a registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the
parcel survey and the date of the survey; and
3. That the Planning Board finds that the proposed truck rental
use is compatible with the established commercial character of
the site and surrounding area, as long as the conditions
listed above are implemented.
There being no further discussion the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith declared
this portion of the meeting duly closed at 10:23 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE
PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE EAST HILL PLAZA
SITE PLAN INTERSECTION OF JUDD FALLS ROAD AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD ON
TOWN OF ITHACA.TAX PARCEL NOS, 62- 2- 1.121, 62 -2 -13.2 AND 62 -2 -13.71
BUSINESS DISTRICT "C ". PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE MODIFICATION
AND PAVING OF AN EXISTING STONE SURFACE PARKING LOT AND REPLACEMENT
OF AN OPEN DITCH DRAINAGE SYSTEM WITH A STORM SEWER, CORNELL
UNIVERSITY, OWNER /APPLICANT; DAVID HERRICK, T.G. MILLER, P.C.,
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, AGENT.
Planning Board Minutes 35 June 20, 1995
Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing for the above -
noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public
Hearings as posted and published and as noted above.
Dave Herrick of T.G. Miller Engineers and Surveyors, addressed
the Board and stated that he was representing East Hill Plaza
tonight for the improvements under consideration at the North face
of the existing building. Mr. Herrick stated that he was here to
answer any questions that Board members may have.
Board Member Fred
Wilcox
out the conditions that they
asked if Cornell University owned the
driveway to the north
of
the
plaza.
Mr. Herrick responded that he believed that driveway was part
of Cornell's holdings.
Board Member Wilcox stated that he did not see anything in the
site plan that addresses a problem. Mr. Wilcox stated that he uses
the East Hill Car Wash frequently, and people that use the
automatic car wash use the part of the driveway that is intended to
get customers to the back parking area, and there seems to be some
white lines down in an effort to keep people off the driveway, but
they line up in the middle of the driveway. Mr. Wilcox stated that
he would like to see that problem resolved.
Board Member Eva Hoffmann asked if the driveway to the north
was intended to be the main access -way to the parking lot.
Mr. Herrick responded that it is an access -way, and that there
are also two other entrance ways into the plaza. Mr. Herrick
stated that there are actually three access points to this parking
lot.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that so many things were
incomplete and inadequate that the Board could not possibly give
the project final approval tonight, the Board could give
preliminary approval tonight. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Board
needs additional information for preliminary and final approval.
Mr. Herrick stated that
he would have to ask staff to point
out the conditions that they
feel are
inadequate, because you
may
find that some of the conditions
are restatements of
the
preliminary and final checklists,
and
he does not believe that
all
of the incompleteness is exact or correct.
Mr. Herrick stated
that
street signage could be modified
and improved on in the final.site
plan. Mr. Herrick stated
that he
has shown all structures,
drainage ways, utility poles
and all
existing utilities along
the
back of the building. Mr.
Herrick
asked for clarification
for
exactly what is missing from the
plan of important to
the
acceptance of this project.
Planning Board Minutes
36
June 20,
1995
eliminated,
it would
cause a
lot
Planner II, JoAnn Cornish
responded that the
plans are not
that incomplete, but there
are some things that
are missing.
Several of the labels are missing,
for instance, the
Plaza,
hotel,
and car wash is not labeled,
which makes it difficult to read
the
plans as presented because of
the existing information that
is not
labeled.
Mr. Herrick stated that on the cover memo there is a location
map that has all of those facilities listed, if it is a matter of
restating what has already been stated once, he would be happy to
do that but the general information is provided.
Planner II, JoAnn
have existing structui
stated that the scale
should go from 20 to 4
of pavement detail is
Cornish stated that it is always helpful to
-es labeled on each site plan. Ms. Cornish
goes from 20 to 40 to 80, when in fact it
0 to 60. Ms. Cornish stated that the limit
difficult to read.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that the drainage analysis
shows that everything is going to work, but the construction
drawings are very confusing. Mr. Walker stated that the overall
site plan is fine as long as there is a condition that says the
Town will receive a set of final construction drawings that show
all of the structures that are - currently existing.
Board Member Robert Kenerson stated that the Board is not
reviewing the construction drawings as long as Mr. Walker receives
a set to review.
Town Engineer Walker stated that the layout of the plan was
fine and that there was some questions about an existing storm
drain going into a sanitary sewer that need to be addressed.
Mr. Herrick stated that currently there is an open swail
system behind the Plaza that picks up the adjoining Cornell
University properties plus the adjoining car wash.
Board Member Kenerson asked if they were going to be putting
the system underground instead of on the.surface.
Mr. Herrick responded, yes, right not if one were to see the
current system, it is quite unsightly, it tends to collect a lot of
debris.
Town
Engineer
stated
that
eliminated,
it would
cause a
lot
if all of
of problems.
the retention is
Board
Member
Hoffmann stated that condition "a"
of the draft
resolution
structures,
stated that
reads:
access
there
"Site plan should be revised to show
drives and /or temporary roadways."
is one roadway that is not shown on
all existing
Ms. Hoffmann
that site as
submitted.
Ms. Hoffmann continued reading condition
"a" from the
Planning Board Minutes
37
June 20,1995
draft resolution: "Existing signs and lighting, existing
landscaping and stripped areas which are pertinent to plan review
and should be adequately labeled." Ms. Hoffmann stated that
condition "b" reads: "Location of fire and emergency zones
including the location of fire hydrants should be shown on the site
plan." Ms. Hoffmann stated that there was enough information
missing that she felt that she would like to see added to the site
plan before making an approval. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the
information should be on the site plan already. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that the Board could work on this as a preliminary approval,
but before the final approval the Board should see the additional
information.
Mr. Herrick asked how some of the additional information would
be impacted by this improvement.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she likes to see on paper, as well as
in person out on the site, what the Board is discussing and what
the applicant is trying to do with the proposal. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that she did not feel sure about this proposal based on the
information presented.
Mr. Herrick stated that he would be happy to explain what the
will be doing at this site if the Board would like, and if it would
be beneficial.
Board Member Herbert Finch asked Ms. Hoffmann if she was
saying that she wanted to do only preliminary and not final
approval.
Board Member Hoffmann
stated
that
Mr. Finch was correct
because if she could see
some of the
things
requested, there may be
some objections to the
information
once it
is shown.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that Ms. Hoffmann could
change the motion to Preliminary approval only.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was going to do that,
but that she wanted to bring it up for discussion by the Board
first.
Board Member Finch asked Mr. Herrick what having preliminary
approval only would do to his scheduling.
Mr.
Herrick responded that right
now the
offices that
have
already
been approved for occupancy and
now are
being occupied
have
people using the gravel parking lot in a half - hazard manner. Mr.
Herrick stated that he would like, in this construction season, to
get that parking area improved and make the drainage improvements
and put the other landscaping amenities together so that they can
have a truly functioning, acceptable parking arrangement for the
people that use the new occupancy.
Planning Board Minutes 38 June 20, 1995
Board Member Bell stated that the Planning Board will be
having another meeting next week, June 27, 1995, and said that
would not be a long delay for the applicant.
Board Member Kenerson stated that he did not see where the
Planning Board should be making judgements on engineering details.
Planner Cornish stated that there
involved also, such as the fire lane. Ms,
she was on the site it was confusing as to
there were signs that said "no parking, fi
the site plan.
are site plan issues
Cornish stated that when
where the fire zone was,
re zone" which are not on
Board Member Kenerson stated that should have been cleared up
before the plan come before the Board. Mr. Kenerson stated that if
the site plan is not complete the Board should not be considering
it at all.
Board Member Hoffmann concurred with Mr. Kenerson Is statement.
Ms. Hoffmann stated when she visited the site earlier today the
people parked in the gravel lot were lined up pretty well, however,
the people parked on the paved area were parked very disorderly.
Mr.
Herrick stated that this
project will not only address
the
parking
lot, it will also make
pavement improvements in front
of
what is
now being occupied.
Mr. Herrick stated that from
the
building
out will be new construction,
rehabilitated pavement
and
striped
spaces.
Board
Member
Kenerson
stated that this would have to be done
under a Building
Permit if
granted.
Mr. Herrick stated that he would have no problem providing Mr.
Walker with any technical information he may request in addition to
what has already been provided.
Town Engineer Walker stated that he did not feel that drainage
was the main issue here, the Board should be looking at lighting,
which will be the biggest impact to the neighbors and the
surrounding area. Mr. Walker stated that the Highway
Superintendent, Fred Noteboom, was concerned about the impact of
the adjoining landowners on primary driveways. Mr. Walker stated
that there is a big radius on the left hand side of the parking lot
which is there because the truck traffic from the plaza, primarily
serving P &C, enter the driveway closest to the building, back up
the loading dock and when the pull out they make this big turn.
Mr. Walker stated that is why the major lane is left open on the
site plan. Mr. Walker stated that the concept is very sound. Mr.
Walker stated that some of the issues, like where is the
handicapped parking and how is it related to the doorways, the
doorways on the building are not clearly marked as far as what
occupancies are using this parking space.
Planning Board Minutes 39 June 20, 1995
Mr. Herrick stated that at the time this plan was developed,
in order to get it in for the earlier June meeting, he did not know
what the occupancy was there, the occupants had not moved in.
Town Engineer Walker stated that the approval of the actual
occupancy probably should have included the parking lot, but
Cornell said that they had parking some place else and they did not
need this parking right away because of budgetary limitations, and
then they decided that they needed parking. Mr. Walker stated that
this project is the third phase of an project that has already been
seen. Mr. Walker stated that his biggest concerns with these
drawings is that there were a lot of discrepancies in pipe sizes
from one sheet to the next, and it does not give one the
information of how tall the lighting standards are. Mr. Walker
stated that there is a grading plan and some of the lines in the
drawings were pretty confusing. Mr. Walker stated that Ms. Cornish
and himself are experienced at reviewing site plans, but that they
really needed to study these drawings for a while to get to
understand what was presented.
Board Member James Ainslie stated that the Board felt that the
staff must have felt that they were supplied with enough
information because they drafted resolutions for the Board to
review.
Town Engineer Walker stated that what was presented was fine
for preliminary approval and to make comments and changes for final
and that the list of conditions are adequate for preliminary.
Chairperson Smith stated that he felt that the Board should
hold off on preliminary approval as well.
Town Attorney John Barney stated that if the Board felt that
they needed to see more information before making a decision then
he felt that it would be premature for even preliminary approval at
this meeting.
Board Member Kenerson stated that drainage and lighting are
technical issues and the Board is not responsible for technical
issues. Mr. Kenerson stated that the resolution says that the
issues are to be' checked and approved by staff, then what is the
problem for what the Board needs to approve.
Town
Engineer Walker stated that it is important for
the Board
to look
at traffic,
impact on adjacent properties,
impact on
pedestrian
activity, lighting
and plantings, as part of
site plan
review by
the Planning
Board. Mr. Walker stated that the
technical
drainage
issues are fine
to be reviewed by staff.
Chairperson Smith noted that this is a Public Hearing and
asked if anyone wished to speak. No one was present to speak.
Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing.
Planning Board Minutes 40 June 20, 1995
Attorney Barney stated that the Board should adjourn the
public hearing until the next meeting.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she wanted the conditions
listed in the resolution to be on the site plan before she can
agree to the resolution. Ms. Hoffmann stated that with the parking
spaces indicated, it is not clear where the handicapped spaces are
located. Ms. Hoffmann stated that as Ms. Cornish pointed out in a
memo to the Planning Board Members, it is not clear where the door
is where people who park would enter the building. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that she can not judge if that is the best location for the
handicapped parking spaces.
Chairperson Smith asked how many employees are located in that
building, which would determine if the handicapped parking is
adequate.
Town Engineer Walker asked Mr. Herrick what his schedule was
for final construction documents.
Mr. Herrick stated that they were being prepared now for the
purposes of bidding.
Chairperson Smith stated that he would like to see a site plan
without the stormdrain information superimposed on it. Chairperson
Smith stated that a clear site plan of the parking and related
information would be easier for the Board to read and understand.
Chairperson Smith stated that access would be easier to read
without the additional information on the plan.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she.felt as though she was
shirking her responsibility as a Board Member if she can not make
an intelligent recommendation based on what she is seeing, and she
can not do that because it feels incomplete. Ms. Hoffmann stated
to put the responsibility on staff to make those decisions does not
feel right.
Board Member Kenerson stated that the Board does that all of
the time.
Chairperson Smith asked if the Board Members would like to
either table or vote on the proposal as submitted. Chairperson
Smith suggested that the Board table it until the Board receives
more of the items listed as conditions in the draft resolution;
such as, access drives, existing lighting, emergency zones,
handicapped parking, plantings within the parking area and more
information on the site plan related items and less on the drainage
issues, or at least the two portions of the proposals separated out
for easier understanding.
Attorney Barney stated, if he understands it correctly, this
is East Hill Plaza has already been granted an waiver to have less
Planning Board Minutes 41 June 20, 1995
than the required amount of parking spaces, so that is supplemental
parking. Attorney Barney asked what the benefit the Town was going
to get out of this process since a waiver was granted.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that number 3 under "Whereas"
in
the draft SEQR
resolution says that the Planning
Board at
this
hearing has reviewed
and accepted as adequate not only the
SEAF
Part I and Part
II prepared by Planning staff, but
also those
four
drawings, which
Ms. Hoffmann did not feel were
adequate.
Ms.
Hoffmann stated
that she could not vote yes on this
resolution
for
that
reason.
Board Member Finch stated that he felt that the drawings were
adequate for the drainage plan they propose and for the parking
lot. Mr. Finch stated that they may not be adequate for the
understanding of what is going on in the building, but he
understood that the Planning Board approved that already.
Board Member Hoffmann asked abut issues such as; where is the
fire access area which is supposed to be off limits for parking.
Mr. Herrick stated that there is a description of what Local
Law Number 3 of what the Town of Ithaca requires specifically for
East Hill Plaza.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she had read the Local Law
and that' it was still unclear to her, and that she would like to
see that fire access marked on a drawing.
Mr. Herrick stated that in the improvements that are being
proposed, there will be more than ample space from the face of the
building to the first of several curbed islands, which would
include the emergency access area as it is defined. Mr. Herrick
stated that there is now and signs had been added subsequent to
when the topographic map was generated and even subsequent to when
the materials were submitted in early May. There are emergency
signs along the back side of the building indicating `Fire Lane Do
Not Park'. Mr. Herrick stated that he was sorry that the signs
were not on the drawing, but that the came after the drawing was
submitted to the Town.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that there are other things that
are not clear or adequate.
Attorney Barney stated that if the Board determines not to
approve this site plan at this meeting, he would suggest that the
Board defer a vote on the SEQR resolution and give Mr. Herrick an
opportunity to present the materials that the majority of the Board
feel are sufficient.
Chairperson Smith asked if the Board Members wanted to push
this agenda item to the next Planning Boar meeting.
Planning Board Minutes 42 June 20, 1995
Three Board Members voted not to move the agenda item to the
next meeting.
Four Board Members voted to move this proposal to the next
meeting to give the applicant time to present additional
information.
Board Member Kenerson withdrew his motion. Board Member
Ainslie concurred to withdrawing the motion.
Mr. Herrick stated that a number of issues that have come up
at this meeting that he may have been able to answer in a timely
manner had he known about them in advance.
Chairperson Smith declared the Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval for the proposed modification to the East Hill Plaza site
plan for proposed parking lot and drainage improvements duly
adjourned until the Planning Board Meeting of June 27, 1995, at
which time the applicant will present to the Board, updated
information based on the conditions listed in the draft resolution.
(Said draft resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit #4)
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF DELETION AND /OR MODIFICATION OF
CONDITIONS 2(a)(i), 2(a)(ii) AND 2(a)(iii) OF FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL FOR THE POYER CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION, AT EVERGREEN LANE OFF
DUBO I S ROAD, TOWN OF I THACA TAX PARCEL NOS. 22-1-1,21 AND 22-1-1,23
THROUGH 1. 32, RESIDENCE DISTRICT .R -30. SAID CONDITIONS, IN A
RESOLUTION DATED OCTOBER 4, 1988, REQUIRED THE INSTALLATION OF A
12 -FOOT LONG, 20 INCH CULVERT TO SPECIFICATIONS OF THE TOMPKINS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE TRAIL
RIGHT OF WAY WITH DUBOIS ROAD, CLEARING AND GRUBBING OF THE ENTIRE
LENGTH OF THE TRAIL RIGHT OF WAY, AND GRADING FOR DRAINAGE ALONG
THE TRAIL RIGHT OF WAY, SAID DELETIONS ARE BEING REQUESTED BY THE
TOWN OF ITHACA HIGHWAY AND PARKS DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING
DEPARTMENT,
Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened
at 11:18 p.m, and read aloud from the Planning Board Agenda.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz addressed the Board and
stated that in 1988 the Planning Board granted subdivision approval
with a 20 -foot wide trail right of way from Timothy Ciaschi' s Woolf
Lane project down the back side of the Poyer Subdivision to DuBois
Road. Mr. Frantz stated to make up for the 10% set aside, the
applicants come up with a cost estimate for clearing (cutting down
vegetation) and grubbing (removing the root system of vegetation)
the right of way, installing a culvert at DuBois Road and doing
some unspecified grading for drainage. Mr. Frantz stated that the
work discussed plus the 20 -foot right of way came out to be
equivalent to the 10% park and open space dedication. Mr. Frantz
stated that in retrospect, it does not seem like a good idea to
install a culvert at DuBois Road at this point because the Town is
not ready to build a bike path and a culvert in this location is
Planning Board Minutes 43 June 20, 1995
felt to be premature. Mr. Frantz stated that there has been no
design work done at this time, so the Town does not know how to
direct Mr. Poyer regarding the grading for drainage, such as where
to grade what.
Board Member Kenerson asked if there was a time frame.
Mr. Frantz stated that the time frame is that the work needed
to be completed before he could receive a certificate of occupancy
for the fifth house which is already half complete. Mr. Frantz
stated that the Town has been talking to Mr. Poyer since March or
April of this year about modifying these conditions in a way that
is in the interest of both parties. Mr. Frantz stated that in
exchange for not having to do the culvert and drainage, Mr. Poyer
has agreed to pay a surveyor to set eight boundary pins which
should have been shown on the final plat but were not, and those
boundary pins are going to help better define the trail right of
way. Mr. Frantz stated that the idea tonight is to delete
conditions 2 (a) (1) and 2 (a) (III) and to modify condition 2 (a) (ii)
of the adopted resolution of October 4, 1988. Mr. Frantz stated
that the trail will be completed at some point in the future.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if Mr. Poyer will clear and grub
the parts of the trail that are remaining.
Mr. Frantz responded, yes.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Frantz had mentioned in
a memo that in the future the Town may be able to get an easement
from the property to the west to allow the path to bypass the
trees.
Mr. Frantz responded that there is a 10 acre parcel that is
owned by Dolph'.s and they have a pasture in the back of their land
and it may be possible for the Town to negotiate an easement that
would allow the Town to put a path to the west of the tree line to
Timothy Ciaschi's Woolf Lane project.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if
anyone were prepared to offer a motion.
MOTION by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Herbert Finch:
RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby
modifications to the
conditions set
forth in
resolution
Approval to
of October
the " Poyer
4, 1988 granting
Cluster Subdivision"
Final
to:
1. Delete
conditions
2.a.i and 2.a.iii;
approves the
the attached
Subdivision
Planning Board Minutes 44 June 20, 1995
2. Modify condition 2.a:ii to exclude from the area of the
trail right of way to be cleared and grubbed, that
section extending northerly along the westerly boundary
of Lot No. 9 to its end;
3. Add a new condition
eight boundary
2.a.i.
pins as
that Mr.
shown on
Poyer install the
the map entitled
"Reference Map: Proposed
approval for Poyer Subdivision"
Changes to
dated
Subdivision Final
June 13, 1995.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell, Wilcox.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the Chair closed this
segment of the meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he felt that the Chair
of the Planning Board should write a thank you letter to John
Yntema for submitting his concern regarding the Ithacare project.
Attorney Barney stated that would be a good idea after the
Board discussed the comments.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the Board could
discuss this item under other business at the June 27, 1995
Planning Board meeting.
Board Member James
violation on Route 96 at
a double sided sign witr
night long. Mr. Ainslie
one drives up or down the
this matter up two weeks
it yet.
Ainslie stated that there is a sign
the Seventh Day Adventist Church which is
1 four flashing lights, that stay on all
stated that it is actually distracting as
road. Mr. Ainslie stated that he brought
ago and that nothing had been done about
Town Planner Kanter stated that Mr. Frost, the Code
Enforcement Officer had been advised of the problem and would take
care of it.
Planning Board Minutes 45 June 20, 1995
ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the June 20, 1995
meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting duly adjourned
at 11:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Wav
Starr Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
Mary
Administrative Secretary.
7/7/95.