Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-09-19FINAL FILED TOWN OF ITHACA bate .Z / TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD Cler'n �� SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, September 19, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Town Planner), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: Joseph A. Cimmino, Doug Gillogly, Jr., Sally Grimes, Louis & Martha Mobbs, Elmer S. Phillips, Eli Lehrer, Noel Desch, Dan Liguori, Frank Liguori, Tom McGuire, Ellen Harrison, Mark Macera, Carl Guy, Fred Noetscher, Bruce Brittain, John Yntema, Barbara Blanchard, Anne Butler, Kristina Bartlet, John Gutenberger, Virginia Bryant. Chairperson Smith declared the meeting duly opene that 7:30 p.m. and accepted, for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearingslin Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on September 11, 1995, and September • 13, 1995, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice 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, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on September 14; 1995, 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. i There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH RESPECT TO A REQUEST FOR SPECIAL APPROVAL FOR ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 70, OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED DEPOSIT OF FILL MATERIAL IN EXCESS OF 2,500 CUBIC YARDS ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 31 -2 -26.2, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF FIVE MILE DRIVE /NYS ROUTE 13A APPROXIMATELY 500 FEET NORTH OF BOSTWICK ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. CATHOLIC CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, OWNER; DOUG GILLOGLY, AGENT, Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7:25 p.m, and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Planning Board Minutes 2 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Doug Gillogly, Jr. addressed the Board and stated that he had put in an application to .put in some fill dirt along Five Mile Drive or Route 13A. Mr. Gillogly stated that most of the material will be coming from the Octopus project along the banks where they are putting the approaches for the new bridges. Mr. Gillogly stated that the area he wishes to put the fill, which is located across the street from the cemetery, and is owned by the Immaculate Conception Church. Mr. Gillogly stated the land has pitch that drops off at the road, it would be beneficial because there is easy access for disposing the material, and increase the value of the churches parcel. Board Member James Ainslie asked what the cemetery does with the excess dirt. Mr. Gillogly stated that they put some of it out back, but was unsure. Board Member Ainslie asked if the cemetery would need the land under discussion to put their excess dirt. Mr. Gillogly responded that there is plenty of room there if they need the space. Mr. Gillogly stated that there were no • intentions of putting so much fill on this site that there would not be room for more. Mr. Gillogly stated that the entire Octopus job was estimated at 60,000 cubic yards, and we are looking at 35,000 to 40,000 cubic yards of that. Board Member Ainslie asked if the Catholic Church had reserved the land for future expansion of the cemetery if they need it. Mr. Gillogly stated that if the church were it would probably be used to expand the cemetex stated that the church has no use for the land time. Mr. Gillogly stated that it was undecided church wants to do with the land at this time. to use the land, -y. Mr. Gillogly at this point in exactly what the Board Member Robert Kenerson asked who determines what is clean fill. Mr. Gillogly responded that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) makes that determination. Board Member Kenerson asked if it was checked by DEC. Mr. Gillogly stated that they do check the fill, the prime contractors, Santaro Industries, has their person at the job site the entire time the excavation is going on, along with the DEC, and issomeone representing NYSEG is on the site as well. Planning Board Minutes 3 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Town Attorney John Barney asked how DEC checked the fill to ensure that it is indeed clean fill. Mr. Gillogly responded that it would depend on if there was a complaint, and what the complaint was about. Attorney Barney asked if a person from DEC was going to be on the site all the time overseeing the fill being deposited. Mr. Gillogly stated that there would not be someone from DEC there all of the time, the only people that will be monitoring the fill, at the time of excavation will be on the Octopus site. Attorney Barney asked what the nature of the fill was. Mr. Gillogly responded, dirt. Attorney Barney asked if there would be paving remnants in the fill. Mr. Gillogly responded that the with using concrete and asphalt, but for future expansion it would pose a stated that there was a site on Sage which is being used for that type of approved and permitted the use there. of the material that is not strictly church did not have a problem if they were to use the land slight problem. Mr. Gillogly Road, in the Town of Enfield, material. DEC has monitored, Mr. Gillogly stated that all dirt will be taken up there. Board Member Kenerson asked about tree stumps. Mr. Gillogly stated that DEC would not let them dump any stumps on the site. Mr. Gillogly stated that the only way one could dispose of stumps in on the property they are coming from unless it is a certified land fill. Board Member Kenerson stated that the only way to get rid of stumps is to grind them up. Mr. Gillogly concurred with Mr. Kenerson's statement. Louis Mobbs, property owner next the to area that would be filled, asked what the average depth of the fill would be. Mr. Gillogly responded that the land is so inconsistent that it would take approximately 2 feet below the current road level. Mr. Gillogly stated that he would be visiting the neighbors to take elevation shots of their land, and find out where the footer drain is located. • Mr. Mobbs asked if water would be running off the site into his property. Planning Board Minutes 4 1 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 Mr. Gillogly stated that he was trying to prevent that, and that they would be anywhere from 50 to 100 feet away from the property line. Mr. Gillogly stated that there would be silt fence around the property, and erosion control methods put into place, and if a swail is needed to divide lots to protect the lots, it will be taken care of. Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone else from the public that wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he was curious how Mr. Gillogly could live up to Item C3, from Part II of the Short Environmental Assessment Form (SEAF), which says that there are some mature trees on the site and that the truck entrance shall be located outside of the driplines of the trees and that there should be no more than six inches of fill within the dripline of the trees. Mr. Bell asked how that could be done when he will be putting in,3 to 5 feet of fill on the site. up. Mr. Gillogly stated that the trees being talked about are located right along the road. Mr. Gillogly stated that there was a 10 -foot span at the narrowest point from the shoulder of the road to where it starts to taper off. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she was concerned about the trees along the edge of the drop -off, because it looked as though some of the trees were right along the edge of the flat area and then there is a slope. If the trees are standing on the edge, how can Mr. Gillogly fill just six inches there. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the whole slope will not be covered up. Mr. Gillogly stated that the proposal would be approximately two feet below the top of the edge. Board Member Hoffmann stated that more than six inches would need to be filled within the drip line of the trees. Mr. Gillogly stated that Ms. Hoffmann was correct, and that the area being discussed is the back side of the trees where it drops off, and it would be under the drip edge of the trees. Ms. Hoffmann stated that a deep ditch would be created along one half of the trees. Mr. Gillogly stated that if it is not filled it, the ditch would be created. • Planning Board Minutes 5 September 19, 1995 is APPROVED 10/17/95 Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that she understood Ms. Hoffmann's concerns, and that the condition addressing the drip line of the trees may need to be modified and stand the chance of losing those trees, if the fill is allowed to go under the drip edge. Board Member Bell asked why wells could not be built around the trees. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is a whole row of existing trees there, so it would have to be an elongated well. Mr. Gillogly stated that he had assumed that putting fill against that bank would actually stabilize that area. Mr. Gillogly stated that there is a pretty deep drop off where those trees are located, and it is obvious that there has either been fill or some excavation done there in the past. Board Member James Ainslie stated that Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated it seems that when the road was improved by the State, that the road bank was built up so that the whole road would be on an equal elevation and it seems that the trees were planted at that time. Mr. Kanter stated that it is also possible that there was some cutting that was also going on at this site, at some time after the road was built as it is now. Mr. Gillogly stated that there is a pretty deep drop off where those trees are located, and it is obvious that there has either been fill or some excavation done there in the past. Board Member James Ainslie stated that the Members of the Board had received a letter from James Hanson from Tompkins County Planning Department, and that he was concerned about drainage and erosion, and asked if Ms. Cornish had any comments about Mr. Hanson's concerns. (Mr. Hanson's letter is attached hereto as Exhibit #2 Planner Cornish stated that the issues raised in Mr. Hanson's letter have been addressed in the resolution for approval, and stated that Mr. Walker, Town Engineer, may have something to say about those issues because has been involved with this project as well. Town Engineer Daniel Walker stated that a condition be put in requiring the drainage, erosion and sedimentation control, including vegetative restoration as part of the permit. The only area of flood plain that there is any concern about is in the vicinity of the railroad tracks, which is not really active floodplain because the railroad berm provides a natural barrier for the flood area. Board Member Ainslie asked if Mr. Hanson knew that the railroad bed was located there. Planning Board Minutes 6 September 19, 1995 OAPPROVED 10/17/95 Planner Cornish stated that she would assume that if he had looked at the map, he would have realized that it was there. Ms. Cornish stated that she thought there was still concern because the rear of the map shows that the property is in the flood zone. Ms. Cornish stated that she had spoken with Tracey Smith of the Tompkins County Planning Department, and Ms. Smith stated that they were also concerned with the volume of the fill; the 60;000 cubic yards was a concern. Town Planner Kanter stated that the flood zone shown on the map, which is on private property, is the Zone B which is the 500 year flood; not a Zone A which is the more restrictive zone. Board Member Bell asked if this area flooded in 1993. Town Engineer Walker stated that he did not walk into the site, but most of the flooding occurred in the City of Ithaca because the lake level rose and affected the areas within the influence of the lake level. Mr. Walker stated that putting fill in this area would protect buildings in the area from potential flooding. Mr. Walker stated that Zone B is an area that is allowed to be built on if built above the flood elevation in the flood zone. • Chairperson Smith asked what the permitting process was for a cemetery. Town Attorney John Barney responded that it requires a Special Approval process under the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Barney stated that a cemetery is permitted in all residential zones with special approval. Town Planner Kanter stated that there is also a process through the State Law.that the establishment of a new cemetery or an expansion of an existing cemetery requires approval from the County Board, Attorney Barney stated that there is also governmental regulation of how the cemetery be maintained. Board Member Ainslie asked Attorney Barney if this property would be considered a new site since is has been owned by the church for many years. Attorney Barney responded that by moving across the street would constitute this as a new site. Board Member Kenerson asked what type of vegetation coverage • would be used for this site. Planning Board Minutes 7 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Town Engineer Walker stated that a conservation mixture of grasses is the normal coverage. Board Member Ainslie asked if it is required to be mowed once a year Town Engineer Walker responded that it is not mown now. Mr. Walker asked how the Board wants to see the land maintained; as a hayfield, which is not mowed, will lead to weeds and everything else, or grow as a meadow to brushland to woodland succession. Attorney Barney stated that he felt that this Board's concern should be with erosion control and sediment control, and the impacts it may have on other land, but how they maintain it once those issues are addressed is up the landowner. Board Member Herbert Finch asked what the Town of Ithaca Right of Way was for as shown on the reason for the difference is map. Town Engineer Walker stated that he was not sure where the right of way come from, but that there used to be park land in the back of that land, and this could have been access for that park. • Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that he was told that the Town of Ithaca has fee title to that strip of land. Planner Cornish stated that Mr. Gillogly had indicated that he was going to stay 100 feet away from the boundaries of this site. Mr. Gillogly stated that he had figured from 50 to 100 feet from the boundaries of this site. Mr. Gillogly stated that the reason for the difference is because the contour of Mr. Mobb's property is fairly consistent, but on Mr. Carroll's property it is not very consistent at all. Mr. Gillogly stated that the properties named are the adjoining properties to the north and south. Attorney Barney asked if the operation of placing the fill on this site was a commercial operation. Mr. Gillogly responded, yes. Mr. Gillogly stated that he supplies Santaro with the trucks to move the construction materials to and from the site. Mr. Gillogly stated that any money that he has in surplus over the expenses incurred will be given to the church. Mr. Bell asked who approached the church for the siting. • Mr. Gillogly responded that they were approached by approximately 6 people for the Shady Corners job, the Buttermilk Falls job, and the Octopus job. Planning Board Minutes 8 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Attorney Barney asked if the definition of clean fill included or excluded asphalt and concrete. Mr. Gillogly stated that the DEC definition includes concrete and asphalt, but his contract with the church excludes both. Mr. Gillogly stated that there was one area on the site that is 18 feet deep which will be below any footer for a building and any grave, which would allow for disposal of minimal amounts of asphalt and concrete. Mr. Gillogly stated that the agreement is that anything that is going to be close enough to the ground to interfere with any future use of the land be eliminated. Board Member Kenerson asked, for the record, what alternatives are there if this land is not used for this purpose. Mr. Gillogly responded that they would need to look for another fill site. Board Member Kenerson asked if fill sites were easily available. Mr. Gillogly responded, no. • Board Member Ainslie asked how much more fill the site on Sage Road would hold. Mr. Gillogly stated that there is nine acres at that site and that five to six acres of that is useable, as soon as the fill approaches the woods there would be a lot of destruction. Board Member Ainslie stated that the trucks drive by his property night and day. Mr. Gillogly stated that the work is no longer being done at night now. Board Member Ainslie asked how many yards of fill have been taken away from the Octopus project. Mr. Gillogly stated that of the 60,000 yards, they have already removed approximately 8,000 yards. Chairperson Smith stated that Planner JoAnn Cornish submitted a Memorandum to the Planning Board Members in which she refers to the estimated number of trips that would be generated by this project. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to have Ms. • Cornish summarize the memo. Planning Board Minutes 9 September 19, 1995 ® APPROVED 10/17/95 Planner Cornish stated that Chairperson Smith, Board Member Cornell, and Planning Department Staff met and came up with some additional concerns that they felt would be helpful for the Board tonight. One of the concerns was the soil type that is currently on the site, which is a Class 2 Soil. Ms. Cornish stated that it was farmed previously up until approximately 5 years ago, at which time that operation on that land was stopped. Ms. Cornish stated that it is fairly good agricultural soil. Ms. Cornish stated that the main concern for this Board would be the traffic volume consideration. 60,000 cubic yards of fill, a truck carrying an average of 10 cubic yards of fill that brings the estimate to 6,000 truck loads of fill on that site. Ms. Cornish stated that he applicant is proposing a one to five year construction time for the fill project. Ms. Cornish stated, realistically, it would take approximately two years because the fill operation should not take a lot of time. Ms. Cornish estimated 45 days for the fill operation. Ms. Cornish then reviewed the trip generation figures as shown in her memo dated September 19, 1995. (Ms. Cornish's memo is hereto attached as Exhibit #3) Mr. Gillogly stated that his trucks hold an average of 15 cubic yards per load. Mr. Gillogly stated that regardless of whether the fill site is on Floral Avenue or in Enfield there will • be more trucks the farther you go, and there will still be the 6,000 trips on Town of Ithaca roads regardless of the destination. Board Member Ainslie stated that in addition to the concerns of the number of trips generated, there are concerns about the speed the trucks are moving at. Mr. Gillogly stated that the shorter the haul, the better it is for everyone concerned, the longer the haul the more trucks that will be needed, the more roads the trucks will be on and the longer it will take to complete the project. Town P control and to control Mr. Gi Board tarps when lanner asked that p llogly Member loaded Kanter Mr. Gil roblem. stated Keners stated that Ms. Cornish also mentions dust logly if he- had addressed in his plans how that he had not given it much thought, on asked if the trucks were covered with Mr. Gillogly responded, no. Mr. Ainslie stated that he would have to admit that even with as dry as the conditions have been, he did not see any dirt of the roads from the trucks passing his property, and the trucks were not loaded to the point where there was any spill. n Planning Board Minutes 10 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the dust problem would be on the site where there will be heavy trucks crossing areas of bare soil which will quickly, and a breeze comes be pounded up, the dust into very fine dust, very lands in adjoining lawns. Town Engineer Walker stated that the Town has standards in the erosion control manual that address dust control. Mr. Walker stated that there is a sewer main and a sewer force main, and a gas line 15 to 20 feet off the shoulder of that road. Mr. Walker stated that they want to make sure that is stable and not being disturbed. Mr. Walker stated that by building a construction entrance with a rumble strip on it made out of timbers will knock the mud off the truck tires before getting on the road. Mr .Walker stated that since this is a State Road, they will need to get a permit for a curb cut from the highway department, and they want to make sure that the state highway is kept clean also. Mr. Gillogly stated that he had planned on doing some extensive road ways, because they want to get the trucks in and out as clean as possible as well. Board Member Bell asked what type of road surface would be used: Mr. Gillogly stated that there would be a normal base of sand stone and gravel bone base and the topping would be a clean stone that would extend the length of the roadway for the trucks to dispense of the mud from the tires before getting to the highway. Mr. Gillogly stated that the road would be maintained daily. Board Member Ainslie asked Mr. Gillogly if he would be filling the site front to back. Mr. Gillogly responded, yes. Chairperson Smith asked Mr. Gillogly if the Board's estimate according to Ms. Cornish's memo, of 66 trips per day was accurate. Mr. Gillogly stated that the material could not be taken out within 45 days, the State has to replace the material one area at a time as it is taken out. Mr. Gillogly stated that the volume the State is requesting through the time frame is no where near the 45 days. Planner Cornish asked Mr. Gillogly how many days he felt would be the required to complete the fill removal. 11 Planning Board Minutes ® APPROVED 10/17/95' Mr. Gillogly relocation at the it would probably will do that. Mr. Santaro's schedule September 19, 1995 stated that if the State intends to do the road same time they are doing the bridge approaches, be within the summer, but he doubts that they Gillogly stated that he was not familiar with or their contract with the State. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that they had chosen 45 days because they will need to close down some major streets, and they will be closing them down for as little time as absolutely necessary. Town Engineer Walker stated that the State has been committed in the phasing plans, and he knows that they were to limit their work from 9pm to 6am, and the surface of the roads are to be able to be driven on by 6:30 am. Mr. Walker stated that is probably the same schedule they are following now so that at least one lane of Fulton Street is being kept open except when they have to cross it for the utility trenches. Mr. Walker stated that it would be done over the next two years because all of the roads can not be closed down at once for construction purposes. Mr. Walker asked what the fill cycle would be when they get into the big excavation. Mr Gillogly responded that it would probably be a five minute fill cycle when the big excavation begins. Mr. Walker estimated that, based on Mr. Gillogly's statement, there would be approximately 60 trucks loads per day for this project. Board Member Kenerson asked if Mr. Gillogly has a contract with the Catholic Church. Mr. Gillogly responded, yes. Attorney Barney suggested that the Board add a condition to the resolution to request something in writing from the Church confirming that the permit is wanted. Board Member Hoffmann stated that in Mr. Gillogly's Environmental Assessment Form he wrote, under the description of the project that the "intend to fill area which is otherwise unsuitable for use. Increase value of lot." Ms. Hoffmann asked Mr. Gillogly to describe in what way this land is unsuitable for use as it is right now. Mr. Gillogly stated that "unsuitable" is a poor choice of words. One could do a variety of things with it and the only thing fill would do is improve it. is Board Member Hoffmann asked Mr. Gillogly if the main intent of this project was to increase the value of the lot. • • Planning Board Minutes 12 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 Mr. Gillogly stated that the main intent is to have a place to dump the dirt because it is a close site and it would improve the lot by raising elevations. Town Planner Kanter stated that he thought it was an important issue for the Board to think about, because in making their recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board would have to find that there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location as demonstrated by the applicant. Mr. Kanter stated that if the Board makes that finding it should not be based on the need of this site because it is unusable, because that is not the case. Mr. Kanter stated that it would have to be linked to the need for an area such as this for disposing of fill related to significant construction projects going on in the area. Board Member Bell stated that materials submitted, he did not Octopus project in them. in reading over the application find anything relating to the ZF Board Member Hoffmann stated that on Page 2 of the description of this project it says that the main source of the fill will be from construction jobs around the Town of Ithaca area. Such jobs as the Octopus project would be major contributors for the materials. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the Octopus project is not in the Town of Ithaca although it benefits the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Hoffmann stated that, from the discussion tonight, it sounds as though all of the fill materials will come from the Octopus project, not from any other sites from around the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Hoffmann asked Mr. Gillogly if the fill that will be taken from the Octopus job is going to be enough to fill this site. Mr. Gillogly responded, no. Mr. Gillogly stated that there are 60,000 cubic yards total for the entire job. They have removed close to 8,000 cubic yards to Sage Road already. Planner Cornish asked Mr. Gillogly if he was saying that the capacity of the site is 60,000 cubic yards. responded that they planned on that site terminating Mr. Gillogly stated that is not what he is saying. Mr. Gillogly stated that he was saying that the capacity of that site will take what the Octopus will put in there up to 60, 000 cubic yards. to the railroad tracks. Attorney Barney asked if the capacity was more than 60,000 cubic yards. t Mr. Gillogly responded that they planned on that site terminating before the end of the job. Mr. Gillogly stated that if you were to take the total amount, at the elevations shown on the drawings, it will take every bit that the Octopus has and you still won't be back to the railroad tracks. Planning Board Minutes 13 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Attorney Barney asked if Mr. Gillogly could translate what he just said into cubic yards. Mr. Gillogly responded that he could not. Planner Cornish asked where the 60,000 cubic yards came from? Mr. Gillogly stated that was the numbers on the agreement between the State and the prime contractor, as far as the bidding procedure their estimate of material that has to be disposed of from the project. Attorney Barney asked if the 60, 000 included the material that is going to the Sage Road site. Mr. Gillogly stated that 60,000 cubic yards included everything. Attorney Barney stated that Mr. Gillogly stated earlier that 8,000 cubic yards of material was already gone, so as of today, it would be a maximum of 52,000 cubic yards of material. And, of that, the stuff that has construction debris in it, which can not be dumped in this site and will have to be taken to a different • site, what is left. Attorney Barney stated that the problem is that the applicant is asking for a very wide range of material. The problems or concerns at 5,000 cubic yards is amplified at 60,000 cubic yards of material. Board Member Ainslie stated that everyone needs to be realistic and that everyone who has to drive the Octopus hope that this will benefit everyone, and we know to put this new road system in, one has to get rid of material. Mr. Ainslie stated that the material has to go somewhere and if it has to go to Interlaken or somewhere it will be even more costly. Chairperson Smith stated that it would be nice to know if the adjoining residents are facing 60,000 cubic yards vs. 30,000 cubic yards and the difference in the number of trucks coming into and out of the neighborhood. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Gillogly had stated that the fill that could be gotten out of the Octopus would not be enough to cover the whole site. Ms. Hoffmann stated that in the papers submitted it was stated that the fill would be spread out evenly over the entire site as work progressed so that it would not be half filled and then a drop off and the remaining land not touched. Ms. Hoffmann asked if the fill would be tapered off consistently as the job commenced, or if the fill would be tapered • off only when the job was completed. Planning Board Minutes 14 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Mr. Gillogly stated that the material would be graded as the work is done. Chairperson Smith asked if there was a time limit on this project. Board Member Kenerson responded, five years. Chairperson Smith stated that five years seems too far opened. Mr. Smith asked if the time could be compressed into a year or two years. Mr. Gillogly stated that he will have to guarantee Santaro that he can supply them with a place to dump and if he is going to be limited on that he will have to have exact figures so that he has time to find another site. Chairperson Smith stated that one would assume that 30,000 cubic yards is a closer figure to what will actually be deposited on this site. Mr. Gillogly stated that Chairperson Smith was correct. • Attorney Barney stated that he was troubled because he hears the need for the Octopus, but he heard other jobs being mentioned, and was not sure of the reason for dumping at this location from other projects. Mr. Gillogly Falls project (The be done quite a while stated that the other job was bridges on NYS Route 13), which ago, but that he did not have the Buttermilk was supposed to the time to put the plans together Gillogly stated that and submit there was the good application any earlier. Mr. topsoil at the Buttermilk Falls project and it would be great for reclamation of the site being discussed tonight. Board Member Ainslie asked if top soil would be kept separate from the other fill material. Mr. Gillogly responded, yes. Board Member Bell stated that the timing of this application seems to be odd. Mr. Bell stated that at first you assume that Mr. Gillogly will be removing material from the Octopus project and it is a long term project, but now the Board is hearing that Mr. Gillogly has trucks running right now, and if the Board delays decision from this meeting to the next meeting there would be problems for Mr. Gillogly. Mr. Bell stated that the Octopus • project has been under discussion for 20 years, and asked why the application has just come to the Board. r � U U U Planning Board Minutes 15 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 Mr. Gillogly stated that with his work schedule of 18 hours per day he has not had the time to get the necessary information together and to the Town any earlier than this. Town Engineer Walker stated that the Town has a regulation that requires that the Planning Board review all fill projects over 2,500 cubic yards. Mr. Walker stated that an application for placing the fill has come in on a site and Mr. Walker had made the determination that the fill could be placed on that site in a manner not to adversely effect adjoining properties, which is what the ordinance says. Mr. Walker stated that if the Planning Board feels that it is appropriate to issue a fill permit for this location, then the Board should so recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals, whatever the source of the fill material is. Mr. Walker stated that if the Board feels that it is not appropriate to place fill in this location, with reason, then the Board should not make a positive recommendation to the Zoning Board. Mr. Walker stated that the politics of how long it took to design the Octopus and other things is not the question before the Board; this is a fill permit application. The applicant has been discussing it with the Town for approximately six months, and it has been reviewed by appropriate members of Town staff. The Board is to determine whether or not this site is appropriate, and what the possible impacts are to the road and neighbors, which is appropriate. Board Member Bell stated that he felt that it was very important to know why the application is so late coming to the Board, because if the applicant is under pressure, then the Board is under pressure. Town Engineer Walker stated that the only pressure the applicant is under is that they have to deal with their contractor if the Board says no. The Board should not feel that pressure. Board Member Ainslie asked if Mr. Gillogly had the same situation with the Town of Enfield for the Sage Road site. Town Engineer Walker stated that they do not have any regulations regarding earth -fill permits. Mr. Gillogly stated that the only regulation was the DEC Army Corps of Engineers, which was all approved. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she had a question regarding the language in the proposed resolution. Ms. Hoffmann asked if there was, in fact, a change in land use as a result of this fill. Planning Board Minutes 16 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Town Attorney John Barney stated that this is an R -30 zone, which is why he had asked Mr. Gillogly what the commercial nature of this operation was, because an R -30 zone is basically residential and does not include,as one of its permitted uses, the operation of a commercial land fill. Attorney Barney stated that if this had to be litigated, it would be a gray area because we do provide under Section 70 of our Zoning Ordinance for a fill permit to apply to basically any district. Attorney Barney stated, on the other hand, it is an area where fill is being accepted from a variety of different locations for profit, which is the operation of a commercial land fill, which does not falls within the R -30 zone. Attorney Barney stated that it would not be inappropriate to say that this site should be limited to fill only from the Octopus and such other topsoil that the Town Engineer deemed appropriate in order to complete the restoration or the conservation project. Board Member Bell stated that he would like to revisit the issue of the trees that are existing along Route 13A, Mr Bell stated that the nature of this project has become more clear through this discussion, and it appears that this will not be leading a residential development or a cemetery or any specific thing, and it could be many years before anything is built on it. Mr. Bell stated that a grading plan could be designed to maintain . the existing trees along Route 13A, to maintain the look of that tree line. Town Engineer Walker stated that he thought it was a very reasonable restriction to put on the approval that all mature trees be protected to the extent possible. Board Member Hoffmann asked how the Board was to address the question of need. Chairperson Smith stated that he thought the need was addressed the identifying the highway construction and that the fill has to go somewhere, it is going to be trucked on Town of Ithaca roads, and the shorter the distance, the less the impact on the Town. Attorney Barney stated that the need that the fill has to be placed somewhere is a very clear need. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like it to be made clear, for the record, that the needs that are shown in the application are not the needs that are being used to make the determination to forward this project to the Zoning Board of Appeals. • There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. Planning Board Minutes 17 September 19, 1995 0 APPROVED 10/17/95 MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: • • WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals with respect to a request for Special Approval for the proposed deposit of fill material not to exceed 60,000 cubic yards on portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 31 -2 -26.2. Project area is located on the east side of Five Mile Drive, NYS Route 13A, approximately 500 feet north of Bostwick Road, Residence District R -30. Catholic Cemetery Association, Owner; Doug Gillogly, Jr. Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action Board of Appeals will ac and review, for w which t the Town o of I Ithaca Zoning 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on September 19, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning, Department, a site map entitled Sheldon Commercial Group Site Plan Topographical, not dated, Job No. 2 -57, and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board, in making recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals, determines the following: a, there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location, as demonstrated by the applicant, in that there is a need to provide a location as close as reasonably possible to the "Octopus" project for the disposal of fill generated by such project; b, the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project; C, the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is not in conflict with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca. 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved, subject to the following conditions: b, the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected as a result of the proposed project; C, the specific proposed change in land use as a result of the proposed project is not in conflict with a comprehensive plan of development for the Town of Ithaca. 2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved, subject to the following conditions: • • Planning Board Minutes 18 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 a. Applicant shall provide construction /phasing schedule, showing quantities and methods for controlling erosion, to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to granting of Special Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. b. That sediment and erosion control, and dust control methods in compliance with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation guidelines for controlling erosion, siltation and pollution to all waterbodies and wetlands and as approved by the Town Engineer, be practiced throughout each phase of the proposed project. C, Upon completion of the final grading, vegetation appropriate for the site be established on all areas disturbed by construction, to be approved by the Town Engineer. d. That the proposed permit expire after a period of three years from the date the resolution is signed by the chair of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. e. Submission of an original or mylar copy of the final site map, dated and signed by the preparer, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. Attorney Barney suggested the following conditions be added to the above -noted resolution: f. The fill is to be limited to dirt and natural stones, no asphalt or concrete pieces are to be deposited on the site. g. Construction of a stabilized, temporary curb cut and site access road to the site, satisfactory to the Town Engineer, to be removed at the termination of the permit. h. Provision of a letter or other document from the landowner authorizing application for a permit. P . The proposed grading plan be required to be designed to protect existing mature trees (as determined by the Town Engineer) on the site satisfactory to the Town Engineer. I . The fill shall be only fill from the "Octopus" project, except for such additional fill material as the Town Engineer finds appropriate to provide adequate stabilization and vegetation growth. • The Board concurred with additions. Attorney Barney's suggested Planning Board Minutes 19 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be Carried Unanimously, Chairperson Smith declared the matter of the recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the Five Mile Drive Fill Permit duly closed at 8:57 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED KOLAR MACHINE, INC. MANUFACTURING FACILITY, TO BE LOCATED IN THE EXISTING BELL'S WAREHOUSE /ROSCOE WOODWORKING BUILDING AT 612 ELMIRA ROAD, FOR WHICH SITE PLAN APPROVAL WAS ORIGINALLY GRANTED ON MAY 21, 1991, THE PROPOSAL CONSISTS OF MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE PLAN OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE CURRENTLY HOUSING A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT WOODWORKING OPERATION AND A 21000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE, TO ALLOW KOLAR MACHINE, INC. TO MORE INTO THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT AREA OCCUPIED BY THE WOODWORKING OPERATION, AND, IN THE FUTURE, EXPAND INTO THE 21000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE AREA. THE SITE IS „LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL • NO. 33- 3 -2.81 1.19± ACRES, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THOMAS BELL, OWNER; KOLAR MACHINE, INC., APPLICANT; FRANK LIGOURI, AGENT. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8:58 p.m, and read aloud from the Notice of Public hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Frank Ligouri addressed the Board and stated that he is requesting final site plan approval at tonight's meeting. Mr. Ligouri stated that an agreement had been reached with staff about the concerns of the Board which were expressed at the Preliminary Site Plan Hearing, Mr. Ligouri stated that he concurs with all of the conditions listed in the proposed resolution, and is assuming they will get a 500 cubic yard fill permit for this project. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he had a few comments to make about the conditions in the proposed resolution that Mr. Ligouri referred to. Mr. Frantz stated that Mr. Ligouri had provided the Town with the information on the depth of the fill being proposed. Mr. Frantz stated that he went back out to the site and walked the stream bed to determine whether or not the amount of fill that is being proposed was an appropriate amount and would it end up in the stream bed blocking the stream. Mr. Frantz stated that it appears to be alright, essentially what exists along the stream right now is a bank that is pretty uniform because what is there now is all fill that had been put in over the last 20 years. Mr. Frantz stated that what Mr. Ligouri is proposing to do Planning Board Minutes 20 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 is add anywhere from one to two and one half feet of additional fill material, which will result in an even embankment, which will still be stable enough provided that it is graded off and seeded to grass once it is finished. Mr. Frantz suggested that the bales of hay be placed at the toe of the slope at the edge of the stream, instead of at the top of the slope as indicated in the proposal. Mr. Ligouri concurred with that suggestion. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that thought it that the woody vegetation should be cleared before the fill process is started. Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the Public wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. There appearing to be no further discussion, the Chair asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch: • WHEREAS: 1. This action is Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Kolar Machine, Inc. manufacturing facility, to be located in the Bell's Warehouse /Roscoe Woodworking building at. 612 Elmira Road, for which Site Plan Approval was granted on May 21, 1991. The proposed action consists of minor modifications to the site plan of an existing industrial site currently housing a 10,000 sq. ft. woodworking operation and a 2,000 sq, ft. warehouse, to allow Kolar Machine, Inc. to move into the 10,000 sq. ft. area occupied by the woodworking operation, and, in the future, expand into the 2,000 sq, ft, warehouse area. The site is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 33- 3 -218, 1.19 + /- acres, Light Industrial District. Thomas Bell, Owner; Kolar Machine, Inc., Applicant; Frank Liguori, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, did, on June 6, 1995, make a negative determination of environmental significance, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on June 6, 1995, did grant Preliminary Site Plan Approval, with conditions, to the proposed project, and • • • • Planning Board Minutes 21 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on September 19, 1995, has reviewed a site plan entitled "Proposed Kolar Machine Plant" prepared by Frank R. Liguori, P.E. dated April 1995 and revised August 1995, and additional application materials, which substantially address the conditions attached to the Preliminary Site Plan Approval, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed site plan entitled "Proposed Kolar Machine Plant" prepared by Frank R. Liguori, P.E. dated April 1995, and revised August 1995, subject to the following conditions: a. Removal prior to the deposit of any fill of all woody vegetation within the area to be filled; b. Placement of the bales of straw proposed for use in sediment and erosion control at the toe of the existing slope of the proposed fill instead of where shown on the proposed site plan; C, Modification of the proposed plan to include the seeding to grass of the new embankment between the existing stream and the new parking lot; d. Submission of an original and two copies of the final site plan with the architect's or engineer's seal and signature for approval by the Town Engineer and Town Planner. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of Final Site Plan for Kolar Machine, Inc. to be duly closed at 9:08 p.m. Planning Board Minutes 22 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THAT PORTION OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY KNOWS AS PRECINCT 7, CONSISTING OF 271± ACRES, COMPRISING THOSE PORTIONS OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NOS. 63 -1- 10, 63 -1 -11, 64 -1 -11 AND 64 -1 -2, BOUNDED BY NYS ROUTE 366 ON THE NORTH, GAME FARM ROAD ON THE EAST, CASCADILLA CREEK ON THE SOUTH, AND JUDD FALLS ROAD ON THE WEST, AS SHOWN ON A MAP ENTITLED "SITE PLAN - CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRECINCT NO, 7, TOWN OF ITHACA SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 9" DATED AUGUST 10, 1995, FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30 TO SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO, 9. CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; SHIRLEY EGAN, ERIC DICKE, AND JOHN GUTENBERGER, AGENTS. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 9:09 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that after completing the Environmental Impact Statement review process, the Precinct 7 GEIS went to the Town Board and the Town Board set up a special committee to look into several issues and questions that had been raised by the public and some of the Town • Board Members, which has been going on for approximately nine months. Mr. Kanter stated that Ellen Harrison chaired the SLUD Committee, and is here to review some of the changes and revisions that have gone into the proposed land use district made by the Committee with the members of the Planning Board tonight. Ellen Harrison addressed the Board and briefly summarized the major changes proposed. Ms. Harrison stated that the Town Board had a public hearing and a couple of issues were raised at that public hearing and there were some Town Board Members who had additional ideas for the SLUD and over the last nine month final gestation period, a group of Town Board Members and members of Town staff met with Cornell University representatives (John Gutenberger, Shirley Egan, Eric Dicke, and Bill Wendt). Ms. Harrison stated that she thinks that the changes that have been made, strengthens the issues that the Planning Board was interested in. Ms. Harrison stated that transportation issues were addressed by the Committee, the GEIS recognized that there might be a substantial increase in traffic generation and that impact on some of the residential communities was of concern. The committee came up with a transportation agreement, which is to try to set up a committee to work on some of the transportation issues. Ms. Harrison stated that the committee also discussed protecting the scenic view one would get across the parcel from Route 366 toward Snyder Hill and Mount Pleasant, Ms. Harrison stated that the • Committee wanted to preserve that view, and felt that there was an important opportunity to preserve some agriculture feel in proximity to the campus. Ms. Harrison stated that after a lot of Planning Board Minutes 23 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 discussions a scenic view protection area has been added. Ms. Harrison stated that building height was addressed by the committee as well. Ms. Harrison stated that someone had noticed that the way the SLUD was originally written, if there was any rear truck ramp that went into a building below grade, the height was going to be calculated from the bottom of that truck grade to the top of the building, which would have restricted building height beyond what seems to really make sense. Ms. Harrison stated that Attorney Barney came up with a creative solution that deals with how much of the building perimeter is below grade, etc. Parking was an additional item that was discussed and the Committee tried to work out a compromise because the Town does not want more parking than what is absolutely necessary, at the same time the Committee wanted to make sure they were not going to create problems in the Town by having people parking on neighborhood streets. Ms. Harrison stated that Town Planner Kanter and Mr. Wendt of Cornell Transportation, spent quite a bit of time trying to figure out how much parking is associated with what kinds of uses on campus currently and have come up with a set of suggested standards, which still allows some flexibility. Ms. Harrison stated that there were minor changes in the allowable commercial uses, and set back distances. Ms. Harrison stated that pretty much summarizes the changes as outlined in her memorandum to the Planning Board. (Ms. Harrison's memo, • dated 9/5/95, is attached hereto as Exhibit #3) Chairperson Smith asked if there were any changes to the setbacks around the natural areas. Ms, Harrison stated that there were no changes to the setbacks around the natural areas, but there were changes to the setbacks between roadways and buildings Town Planner Kanter stated that they also differentiated between the main public roads and internal university roads, which would require different scales of which setbacks would work. Chairperson Smith asked if the setback on internal roads was a flat 60 feet or if it was dependant on the building height. Ms. Harrison responded that the setback is a flat 60 feet. Chairperson Smith asked if the Cascadilla Creek area is going to be restricted only to pedestrian /bicycle usage or if utilities will be constructed as well. Board Member Hoffmann asked under what circumstances might it be necessary to provide utility connections between the SLUD and the East Hill Plaza area. • Planning Board Minutes 24 September 19, 1995 0 APPROVED 10/17/95 Town Engineer Daniel Walker responded that the Town of Ithaca's water transmission main exists between those two entities currently, if the Town needed an additional water main or a larger water main to supply the East Hill and the South Hill areas that would be one of the issues that might be necessary. Town Planner Kanter stated that the real factor leading to something specific on a structure was the purpose of providing pedestrian /bicycle access possibilities for better connection between Precinct 7 and the East Hill Plaza area. Mr. Kanter stated that it was very clear that the Town did not want to include motorized vehicle access. Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. Elmer Phillips addressed the Board and stated that he has lived in Ithaca for 67 years, and wished to describe some of the changes that have taken place in the area. Mr. Phillips stated that when he first came to Ithaca, he came in on Route 96 from Trumansburg, there were four or five other bridges available so that people could cross the inlet. Over a long period of time those bridges have disappeared one by one, until the beautiful • development of the Octopus, which was argued about for 25 years. Mr. Phillips stated that now everything will be changed again. Mr. Phillips stated that he forecasts that the Town is moving the problems at the Octopus to another position which is south on Route 13 where the roads finally come together. Mr. Phillips stated that it will not be as bad because there will be some filtration through at other spots as well. Mr. Phillips stated, as he looks at what he sees on the development and what he has read about the development, he felt that there may be a repeat of the Octopus problems somewhere down the road. Mr. Phillips stated that there are three entities involved in this project and there is only one of them present tonight. Mr. Phillips stated that the Town of Ithaca, Town of Dryden, and the City of Ithaca are all affiliated with this project. Mr. Phillips stated that the proposal is one hell of a poor way to route traffic between Stewart Avenue and Varna, but what other way is there. Mr. Phillips suggested that the County Planning Board should put together one representative, or more, from each of the Planning Boards in the area and try to work out some of these programs which deal with contiguous problems where they are turned down. Mr. Phillips stated that it would be interesting to extend an existing road to the Town of Lansing, or to Route 79, or maybe even over to Coddington Road; because north and south traffic is impossible because one would need to travel through the City of Ithaca or a long way out of your way to get from one side of the Town to the other. Mr. Phillips stated that he would like to see fewer parking lots, less vehicular transportation, and greater public transportation. Mr. Phillips stated that if people do not work together collectively soon, Planning Board Minutes 25 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 concentration on our own problems will hide the problems that really need to be completed. Bruce Brittain of 135 Warren Road, addressed the Board and stated that he was Chair of the Traffic Committee in Forest Home. Mr. Brittain stated that one of the concerns the Forest Home Community has is that the proposal still allows for tremendous development in the Precinct 7 area. Mr. Brittain stated that he is very pleased that there has been a sincere effort to mitigate the impacts of that traffic. Mr. Brittain stated that he had hoped for stronger wording in the proposal about when mitigation efforts would take place and what they would be, but he hopes that what is in the SLUD as it is revised will prove to be sufficient. Mr. Brittain stated that the SLUD looks at the bigger picture, and that Forest Home is only a minor part of the surrounding area, and the traffic problems that Forest Home faces now are the same problems that the rest of the residential areas in the Town, will be facing within a few years. Mr. Brittain stated that he thinks that the SLUD does provide a mechanism for trying to alleviate those traffic problems. Mr. Brittain stated that he hopes that what is in the SLUD could be applied as a control mechanism throughout the rest of the Town of Ithaca. • Ms. Harrison stated that she felt that Mr. Phillips was correct and probably knows that there has been discussion of an East Ithaca Connector road, and that the Metropolitan Planning Organization, which involves all of the municipalities in the County and Cornell University, that has proposed to study the issue of connections Mr. Phillips has mentioned. Chairperson Smith noted that this was 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 discussion. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that regarding parking, on Page 10 of the revised SLUD it talks about in general there should be a minimum amount of parking provided in such a way that 1) there is one parking space for each 1,200 feet of enclosed space, or 2) two spaces per three occupants intended to be assigned to the facility. Ms. Hoffmann stated that on Page 11 it shows a specific schedule for specific uses, like classrooms, offices, library, cafeteria, etc., and there is a difference. Ms. Hoffmann stated that in offices there is supposed to be two spaces for each three occupants assigned to the facility, and then there are some other specific uses where it says there should be one space for each three occupants for uses like, cafeterias, maintenance storage and repair facilities, etc. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she understands • that there has been very detailed discussions to come up with very good reasons for having different standards for different uses; but she is afraid that in this document a situation might be created Planning Board Minutes 26 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 where it is hard for Cornell to increase the number of parking spaces for some of those uses if they felt it necessary to do so. Town Planner Kanter stated that the standards are supposed to reflect minimum numbers that Cornell would be required to provide. Ms. Harrison stated that on Page 10 of the SLUD it states that the amount of parking should be a minimum of....; and that on Page 15, which is a different section that Page 10; is where if Cornell wanted to come in and argue that they did not need as many spaces as are proposed in Page 10 and 11, they could come in a apply for a reduction in parking. But, the Town needed an escape clause so that if less spaces were permitted, and it was discovered that more were needed, the Town would have a clause that allows them to review that. Ms. Harrison stated that she was not sure that the Town could require Cornell to put in more spaces than the number shown in the standards on Pages 10 and 11 of the SLUD. Attorney Barney stated that what is on page 10 is the minimal standards and he did not know if the Planning Board could, under any circumstances, compel Cornell to put in more spaces than are required by the minimum. Attorney Barney stated that Cornell could chose to put in a larger number of spaces. • Board Member Hoffmann stated that it seemed to her that some of the language sounded like Cornell could increase the number of parking spaces, but only up to the minimum number that would have been otherwise required. Attorney Barney stated that Item C on Page 13 is the preface, and everything that follows now, Roman Numerals I through VII, says that you can authorize that the required minimum number may be reduced by the Planning Board, and if that is done, and if within five years it be discovered that the reduction was a mistake, you can require that a plan be submitted to the Planning Board to alleviate the problem. Attorney Barney stated that would only apply to the circumstance where the Planning Board has gone below the minimum standards. Attorney Barney stated that could be made absolutely clear by adding the word "minimum" to "standards ". Board Member Hoffmann stated that she had noticed a couple of typos, the most substantial being on Page 16, Sub -Item D, which is part of something that starts on Page 13 as part of Item 9, Ms. Hoffmann stated that Item 9a starts, "Shall to the extent appropriate..."; 9b says, "Shall to the extent appropriate..."; 9c says, "May authorize..."; and 9d says, "Notwithstanding the provisions...". Ms. Hoffmann stated that she felt that 9d should say, "Shall, notwithstanding the provisions...". • Planning Board Minutes 27 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Attorney Barney stated that it should begin with something, but that he felt that it should read, "May, notwithstanding the provisions...". The Board concurred with the changes suggested by Ms, Hoffmann and Attorney Barney. Board Member Herbert Finch stated that the Board has had project come before the Board where it seemed to be appropriate to define "view areas", in this case, a geographic definition has been presented and asked if there was criteria that might be useful to define the Town of Ithaca view areas. Ms. Harrison stated that the area in the SLUD has some real physical reality to it, meaning when one travels across Route 366 going to the east, you crest a rise and suddenly the view appears across the parcel, which is where the view area was started. Ms. Harrison stated that there was some natural boundary as well, McGowan Wood forming a natural edge for the natural area. Ms. Harrison stated that she was not sure that criteria to define a view area was specifically determined, that could easily apply elsewhere. ® Town Planner Kanter stated, based on travel and looking at the viewshed, primarily from the roadway, of that particular area, made this a site specific view area. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he thought that the implication that is pretty obvious given the fact that in a few minutes after this discussion, the Board will be having another discussion for another site that have view as the main issue. Mr. Bell asked if there was any intent as to policy on views? Ms, Harrison stated that one would have to recognize that this proposal has not been approved by the Town Board, this represents a committee, which had three Board members on it. Ms. Harrison stated that the committee members clearly felt that it was in the Town's interest to protect the scenic view, and that was something that the committee had, not only the right but the responsibility to consider in this rezoning. Attorney Barney stated that there is a very strong distinction between this proposal and the upcoming discussion, and that is that Cornell also was willing to do it. This is not something that is being forced onto Cornell as something they must do. Attorney Barney stated that there have been meetings and came to a consensus with Cornell that it was a not a bad idea for the landowner involved to have the ordinance constructed in such a way as to • permit this view area. Planning Board Minutes 28 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 Ms. Harrison stated that it is an open question of what would have happened if the committee had not been able to reach consensus on the issue of the view area. Town Planner Kanter stated that the Town Board had adopted the Supplemental Statement of Findings at their meeting on September 11, 1995. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Smith asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends to the Town of Ithaca Town Board the adoption of the proposed rezoning of 271 +/- acres, owned by Cornell University, comprising those portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 63 -1 -10, 63 -1 -11, 64 -1 -1, and 64 -1 -2, bounded by NYS Route 366 on the north, Game Farm Road on the east, Cascadilla Creek on the south, and Judd Falls Road on the west, as shown on a map entitled "Site Plan - Cornell University Precinct No, 7, Town of Ithaca Special Land Use District No. 9," and as described in the revised "A Local Law to Amend the Zoning Ordinance to Provide a Special Land Use District (Limited Mixed Use) for the Cornell University Precinct 7" (Submitted at this meeting, 9/19/95), from Residence District R -30 to Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 9; AND FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board supports the establishment of a Transportation Committee to study and make recommendations regarding existing and future traffic in the Precinct 7 area and its impact on surrounding neighborhoods, transportation alternatives such as park- and -ride lots and improved transit, and traffic connectivity and pedestrian safety related issues, as well as other transportation issues, as outlined in the draft "Agreement Regarding Transportation- related Issues Between Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca" (Revised 5/12/95, Further Revised 9/12/95), Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he wanted to ask Ms. Harrison about the intent on timing of the transportation committee. Mr. Bell stated that transportation is obviously a major issue and has been through the whole process, and stated that he was concerned that the comparison to the Octopus may be true, and asked if Ms. Harrison could give the Board any sense of whether something will ever come of this. Ms. Harrison stated that with the Metropolitan Planning Organization, more opportunities for some serious cooperation and So looking at transportation issues exist. Ms. Harrison stated that she is not sure that the answer lies in building more roads. Planning Board Minutes 29 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the matter of the Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning of Cornell University's Precinct 7 to be duly closed at 9:52 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF ITHACARE CENTER SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, AND IN PARTICULAR, "MODIFIED ALTERNATIVE B-3, " ON A PARCEL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2, 000 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA COLLEGE ON THAT 20 + ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 39 -1 -1.3 DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO, 7, ITHACARE CENTER, INC., APPLICANT; MARK MACERA, AGENT, Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 9:53 p.m. and read aloud from the Planning Board Agenda. • Mark Macera, Executive Director at Ithacare, addressed the Board and stated that he was here this evening to discuss IthacareIs progress in conducting an analysis into the implications of moving the building, per Eva Hoffmann's suggestion made at the Public Hearing on July 18, 1995, to move the building to the west approximately the width of the building. Mr. Macera stated that it should be pointed out that the implications of moving the building west of the proposed action was addressed in Section VII.B.1 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The DEIS was accepted and deemed to be complete. These additional investigations result from Ms. Hoffmann's request for analysis of consequences of moving the building west to a new and specific location, and are marked on the site plans submitted to the Board, which will be reviewed in a moment. (Said site plans, designated as L1C, L1L, and L1N, are attached hereto as Exhibits , & .) Mr. Macera stated that the site plans cross sections were prepared and explained what each drawing was. Mr. Macera stated that drawing L1C is actually the original proposed plan; drawing L1L represents the first study; and drawing L1N represents the second study, which is following suit on the Planning Board's request. Mr. Macera stated that these would be versions of preliminary evaluations of our analysis to move the complex to the west as requested. An initial explanation of the study reveals that movement of the building to the west, certainly west of the ® original proposal, and west of the proposed site that was identified as Alternative B -3 in the DEIS, we have found will produce both negative as well as positive consequences with respect Planning Board Minutes 30 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 to several items. Mr. Macera stated that he would like to list those items for the record, and then go back to individual issues to try to get a better understanding and to comprehend what is actually in those drawings. Mr. Macera stated that he would like to list it by elements that he think have been raised over time as issues of concern. Mr. Macera stated that the foremost concern has been identified as the issue of the height of the complex and the objective of moving the building to the west. Mr.,Macera stated that L1C is moot because it is the original plan, so therefore there is not consequence of that particular plan, it remains the same. L1L moves the building and reduces the high roof ridge approximately 8 feet from the existing proposed plan. L1N reduces the high roof ridge approximately 3 feet from the existing proposed plan. Mr. Macera continued with the following comparisons between drawings L1C, L1L, and L1N: With respect to the issue of a Sewage Ejector System: Drawing L1C does not require system Drawing L1L would require system to be installed Drawing L1N would require system to be installed Mr. Macera stated that the estimated cost of a Sewage Ejector System would be ±$100,000, which excludes operating maintenance and other concerns. Mr. Macera stated that they were investigating that now, and that this information is preliminary for the purposes of tonight's discussion only. With respect to the principal Parking Lot location: Drawing L1C - located to the south away from the vista Drawing L1L - essentially the same as L1C Drawing L1N - moved to the north and somewhat below the overlook and brings the parking lot into the foreground of the view from that overlook With respect to intrus Drawing L1C - No Drawing L1L - Sign on the wall (s Drawing L1N - No ion on the wetlands area: intrusion ificant intrusion with consequential effects ecosystem, and would have to add retaining associated with that. intrusion Mr. Macera stated that L1L and L1N may damage the rock structure causing possible drainage of the pond. Mr. Macera stated that there would be the added cost of retaining wall(s). With respect to the grades: Drawing L1C - Acceptable to meet program requirements and ingress /egress for the facility. Drawing L1L - Not acceptable • Drawing L1N - Acceptable to meet program requirements and ingress /egress for the facility. Planning Board Minutes 31 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Mr. Macera stated that both L1L and L1N require more pavement, with its consequential effects on the environment as well as adding to the cost of the project. With respect to Site Disturbance: Drawing L1C - approximately 8 acres being disturbed Drawing L1L - approximately 14 acres being disturbed Drawing L1N - approximately 8.5 acres being disturbed Mr. Macera stated that clearly the cost and the environmental disturbances would be modest to significant based on the two alternatives. Mr. Macera stated that L1L and L1N require to meet acceptable engineering practices grade onto the Ithaca College property and certainly raises new questions to be addressed and resolved. With respect to Resident Use: Drawing L1C - acceptable Drawing L1L - The roads would be too steep Drawing L1N - have been able to mitigate that and find that the road structures are acceptable Mr. Macera stated that clearly steeper and greater slopes would • make the site less attractive to potential residents given their concerns regarding mobility and ambulation. Mr. Macera stated that it creates difficulties for residents to use the property, in Ithacare's judgement, for both passive and recreational purposes. With respect to Emergency Access: Drawing L1C - acceptable Drawing L1L - acceptable Drawing L1N - at the present time, is unacceptable because it creates poor access and unacceptable risks primarily associated with life safety. With respect to Rock Excavation: Drawing L1C - a matter of record Drawing L1L - approximately five t compared to the L1C ac Drawing L1N - approximately three rock when compared to imes the amount of rock when tion to four times the amount of the L1C action Mr. Macera stated that it is difficult to estimate the cost, at this point in time, without considering the qualities of that rock and without the appropriate geotechnical studies. Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare is estimating the cost for excavation of the rock -to be approximately $60,000 to $100,000. Mr. Macera stated that they have not addressed the consequences of environmental • aspects of that excavation process. Planning Board Minutes 32 September 19, 1995 0 APPROVED 10/17/95 Attorney Barney asked if the dollar estimate was applicable for both alternatives L1L and L1N. Mr. Macera stated that Carl Guy may be best able to answer Mr. Barney's question. Mr. Guy stated that the estimate was reasonably within the range when considering both alternatives L1L and L1N. Attorney Barney stated that there was not a lot of difference between the two alternatives themselves. Mr. Guy stated that, as far as additional rock excavation, there is not a lot of difference. With respect to Utilities: Drawing L1C - being the standard Drawing L1L - would need an additional 50 to 60 feet for connection Drawing L1N - would need an additional 50 to 60 feet for connection Mr. Macera stated that there would be additional cost to be considered, but that he had not quantified that, because it is not significant relative to some of these other costs for the alternatives. With respect to the pond outlet: Drawing L1C - not adversely impacted Drawing L1L - would need to be relocated Drawing L1N - would need.to be relocated Mr.Macera stated that there was needed consideration for environmental consequences and additional costs incurred. With respect to the overlook: Drawing L1C - no change Drawing L1L - no change from L1C proposal Drawing L1N - would require a modest re- design to the overlook due to the building and parking layout Mr. Macera stated that due to building and parking layout, L1N would cause a very steep slope to occur directly below the overlook, and that there were safety concerns as well. With respect to Geotechnical Studies: Drawing L1C - none Drawing L1L - $4,000 approximately Drawing L1N - $4,000 approximately • Planning Board Minutes 33 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Mr.Macera stated that in looking at the relocation of the building, and clearly moving into areas that the Scoping instrument had originally, strongly suggested be avoided, including steep slopes and wetland areas. With respect to mature tree stands: Drawing L1C - 0.1 acres would be impacted Drawing L1L - + 2 acres would be destroyed Drawing L1N - 0.5 acres that would be impacted With respect to Program implications, the ability to provide housing as well as support services: Drawing L1C - acceptable and workable Drawing L1L - not acceptable, extreme difficulties in meeting the residents programmatic needs Drawing L1N - not acceptable due to no possible emergency access With respect to Environmental Aesthetics: Drawing L1C - Good Drawing L1L - Poor environmentally aesthetic characteristics Drawing L1N - Poor environmentally aesthetic characteristics • Mr. Macera stated that L1L and L1N would disturb more site than "necessary" and will cause the building to appear to be deeply embedded into the hill. Mr. Macera stated, in conclusion, it should be noted that these are preliminary findings related to this one issue only. Town of Ithaca and Ithacare representatives are scheduled to meet tomorrow (9/20/95) for the first time to begin a discussion of the specific issues, the questions, and the information that will be required by the DEIS, at least to be responded to resulting from the DEIS and the Public Hearing. Mr. Macera stated that the information gained from this meeting will be used by the Town to prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement, Mr. Macera stated that as a general overview of Ithacare's approach, drawings L1L specifically represents a literal interpretation of Ms. Hoffmann's suggestion that was made of moving the building due west. Mr. Macera stated that from that, the parking areas that would be servicing the western wing of the building are located between the pond and the westerly wing. However, because of the encroachment upon the ponds to maintain the pond, to meet Town criteria, we had to redevelop the infrastructure and roadways to permit access for both service and emergency vehicles to the north side of the property, creating a significant additional invasion of the land as well as potential impacts associated with encroachment on Ithaca College property. Mr. • Macera stated when Ithacare looked at the ramifications of that, and looked at the cost, the issue of steep slopes, grades exceeding Planning Board Minutes 34 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 ADA requirements, back slopes, and the fact that the lower living levels would be 10 to 15 feet below the pond and recognizing that rock excavation would impact the pond, which makes it an unacceptable alternative. Mr. Macera stated that the issue of L1N, however, attempts to mitigate those issues by not necessarily taking Ms. Hoffmann's suggestion literally, but by moving the facility, not only west approximately 30 to 50 feet, but by turning the building clockwise and moving the building approximately 10 feet to the north, to permit the building to be resituated to provide appropriate parking and access. However, there are problems with access and with increased costs, and clearly the issue of having to pump all sewage presents some capital problems and some long term maintenance and operational problems. Board Member Hoffmann but would like more details like to have documentation drawings. Ms. Hoffmann stat up with alternative ways of building, stated that about the of the int ed that she looking at she has a lot of questions things discussed, and would rusions pointed out in the was glad that Ithacare came different locations for the Mr. Macera stated that if there are questions regarding the issues he has shared with the Board, Ithacare's architect, Fred • Noetscher would be able to answer most questions as he is most versed in the issues. Mr. Macera stated that if there were questions about construction, rock excavation and what they may potentially encounter on the site, questions could be directed by Carl Guy, Ithacare's construction manager from Court Street Companies. Mr. Macera stated that there was also a drawing referring to elevation and heights relative to both the original proposed action and Drawing L1N because it is the most viable of the two options. Board Member Hoffmann asked staff if this was a good time to ask the Ithacare people to show the Board more details, or if it would be better to wait until after the meeting between Ithacare representatives and Town staff that is scheduled for tomorrow. Board Member Kenerson asked where the Town stood on the 45 day deadline for working on the FEIS and responded to that specifically. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that on behalf of the Board, staff had requested an extension for preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement with no definite end period to that extension request. Mr. Kanter stated that SEQR regulations do not require a specific time limit on, the extension. Mr. Kanter stated that hopefully the responses in the FEIS would be put • together fairly quickly at this point and then be brought back to the Board. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board is able to set a time limit if they chose to. Planning Board Minutes 35 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Mr. Macera stated, just to get a feel of the time schedule, on September 1, 1995, would have been the end of that 45 day period that SEQR suggests that a response be prepared. Mr. Macera stated that the Town did request an extension and Ithacare granted the Town's request. Board Member Kenerson stated that his problem is that he felt that the Board should be addressing the DEIS as presented to us and accept it or reject it. Attorney Barney stated that as part of the environmental review, comments are brought forward, and as part of the preparation of the Final EIS the Board needs to respond to those comments. Attorney Barney stated that, in this particular instance, the comment happened to be made by one of the Board members but they need to be addressed. Attorney Barney stated that the question is in what depth of detail does the Board want them addressed. Attorney Barney stated that the Town would need to rely on Ithacare's experts and consultants to develop the information from which the FEIS would be prepared by this Board. Attorney Barney stated that the Board can not just ignore the comment. Attorney Barney stated that the object is to find those areas where mitigation is possible consistent with what the project sponsor can accomplish. Attorney Barney stated that the whole purpose tonight was to get a sense of whether or not the Board feel that with this type of analysis brought back with more detail would be sufficient for this Board to use to prepare its FEIS for this project. Mr. Macera stated that Drawing L1L would reduce the high roof ridge by eight feet, and that Drawing L1N would reduce the high roof ridge by three feet. Chairperson Smith indicated that the actual total increase in cost would be helpful in determining ability to afford alternatives. Mr. Macera stated that the cost is estimated at $250,000 at the front end. Mr. Macera stated that the environmental consequences are extremely significant. Board member Ainslie stated that the reason the building was positioned at the proposed location was to avoid the wetlands and to avoid encroachment upon existing standing timber and steep • slopes. Board Member James Ainslie stated that the alternative seems like a tremendous expense to the applicant, to change a few feet of view. Mr. Ainslie stated that the objection was the view and as he looks at it one of the alternatives would reduce the height by eight feet and one would reduce the height by three feet. Mr. Macera stated that Drawing L1L would reduce the high roof ridge by eight feet, and that Drawing L1N would reduce the high roof ridge by three feet. Chairperson Smith indicated that the actual total increase in cost would be helpful in determining ability to afford alternatives. Mr. Macera stated that the cost is estimated at $250,000 at the front end. Mr. Macera stated that the environmental consequences are extremely significant. Board member Ainslie stated that the reason the building was positioned at the proposed location was to avoid the wetlands and to avoid encroachment upon existing standing timber and steep • slopes. Planning Board Minutes 36 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 Board Member Kenerson stated that the original proposal was to provide a facility that will function according to what their needs are. Chairperson Smith stated that this is the first time the Board has had some alternatives with costs associated with them so that there can be a better understanding of that aspect of the project. Board Member Ainslie asked if there was a trade -off with the impact of the wetlands for the three to eight feet of view. Board Member Hoffmann responded, of course, the Board needs to have more details aboi presentation. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she can drawings, which are being seen for the first t hearing the summarized presentation for the first make a judgement, but Lt N not ime time that was why [r. Macera's look at the tonight, and tonight, and Mr. Macera stated that the differences in roof ridge height do not change from L1C to the Modified Alternative B3, because the modifications from the proposed action to the modified B3 include reducing the size of the building, turning the building clockwise to move it away from the pond, and inversion of the left wing of the residents from the wetland to the north. Mr. Macera stated that the footprint for Modified Alternative B3 is essentially in the same location as the proposed action, with modest adjustments between the two proposals. Mr. Macera stated that Drawings L1L and L1N reflect movement of the building between 30 and 50 feet to the west, or that distance plus a few feet to the north to try to accommodate the criteria that Ithacare has been asked to address regarding environmental issues. Mr. Frantz asked Mr. Macera how high the building was from the edge of the eves to the peak of the roof. Mr. Macera stated that the measurement from the top of the top plate, which is under that overhang, to the top of the roof ridge is 11 feet 3 inches. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that the Board would get additional information from the Ithacare representatives. Mr. Kanter stated that his desire was not to have the Board make hasty judgements based on a brief presentation, but instead to get the information that went into this analysis, take a look at it, and then make a rational decision about the alternatives. Barbara Blanchard of Planning /Environmental Research Consultants (PERC) addressed the Board and stated that one of the things that she and Tom Neiderkorn are working on is taking the footprint of L1N and superimposing it on that composite environmental drawing that had the steep slopes, poor soils, and Planning Board Minutes 37 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 the wetlands on it. Ms. Blanchard stated that PERC is working on a view cone drawing that was presented for the action as well as the Modified Alternative B3, Ms. Blanchard stated that there were a couple of other items being prepared that address the visual aspects of this project using a paste over footprint for Drawing L1N and the profile rather than generating the entire computer layout as was done for the original proposal. Ms. Blanchard stated that it would be helpful to know if the information discussed would meet the Planning Board's needs. Chairperson Smith stated that Mr. Macera had stated that some of the slopes were unacceptable for the residents and asked if it would be possible to identify those slopes in one of the plans. Mr. Macera responded by stating that Drawing L1N was somewhat acceptable with the exception of access by emergency vehicles to the building. The road ends at the front of the building and access to the rear of the building is not possible at the present time or would under different sets of circumstances be extremely difficult. Mr. Macera stated that Drawing L1L is completely unacceptable because the issue of backslopes, grades exceeding ADA, issues of retaining walls and guard rails that would be required to accommodate that would essentially develop an encampment, where • residents would have to be forbidden from walking in certain areas, including those with dimentia and other concerns. If the residents were to use the grounds for passive recreation, it would be at extreme risk for injury. Mr. Macera stated, referring back to Drawing L1L, the issue is access to the building recognizing the available land grades and so forth to the northern property line. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she does not see the indication for the emergency access on the drawings, and the location of the other restraints should be located on the drawings. Assistant Town Planner Frantz discussed the differences between the three drawings regarding access to the back of the building. Mr. Frantz stated that on L1C there appears to be a level platform, on L1L and L1N that does not appear possible because there is no level area behind the proposed building, so an emergency vehicle could not drive around the building. Mr. Frantz stated that there is also a steep drop off at the ends and behind the alternative building proposals. Mr. Macera stated that on Drawings L1L and L1N slopes exceed six percent on the first part, which is unacceptable. Board Member Gregory Bell asked if the access for emergency vehicles was referring to fire trucks or ambulances or some other • type of emergency vehicles. Planning Board Minutes 38 September 19, 1995 • APPROVED 10/17/95 Mr. Macera responded that they were referring to all types of emergency vehicles that could be necessary in any type of emergency. Board Member Bell stated that on Drawing L1N, there is a parking lot in the back of the wing that Mr. Macera had stated they could not access. Mr. Macera stated that there was nothing for access for over 500 feet of the back side of the building where all of the residential units, both those at grade as well as two levels above grade. Ms. Blanchard stated that the Fire Chief insists on having access. Noel Desch stated that there was also an accessible pedestrian pathway that the Board asked Ithacare to provide, which would be too steep. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the area on L1C which is flat was created, so why could not the same thing be done with Drawing L1L and L1N. Board Member Kenerson responded, because the slope is different. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the slope does not appear to be that different. Mr. Desch stated that there would be incremental cost to provide that flat surface, because there would be the need for a lot more fill material. Mr. Desch asked if the Board felt that it was a reasonable request. Mr. Guy stated that the proposed action was a balanced site, which means that the material on the site allows you to create a bench without having to bring in additional fill. Mr. Guy stated that under L1L and L1N, by moving it down the hill, he did not believe that there was going to be enough fill on site to create the bench area as on the proposed action. Mr. Guy stated that there would be an increased cost, which has not been analyzed yet. Board Member Ainslie stated that he did not feel that the Planning Board should put this applicant or anyone else through all of the extra expenditures of having to pump sewage, digging into rock, and things like that at such a tremendous cost. • Board Member Bell stated that this Board put Cornell University through extreme cost with hundreds of thousands of dollars of cost for planning consultants. Planning Board Minutes • Attorney Barney voluntarily. Attorney Cornell to do the GEI.c they would like to do 39 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 stated that Cornell started the process Barney stated that this Board did not compel Cornell came to the Town and stated that the GEIS. Board Member Bell stated that the process got greatly expanded by this Board responding to endless requests from the public. Mr. Macera addressed Mr. Bell and stated that if Ithacare had the resources that Cornell has, the Board would not have to ask, Ithacare would probably entertain them; but to compare Ithacare with Cornell really does Ithacare an injustice. Board Member Bell stated that he did not think that it does. Mr. Bell stated that he did not think that Ithacare should go through what Cornell University went through. Mr. Bell stated that they went through five years and hundreds of thousands of dollars for their process. Chairperson Smith stated that what the Board needs to do at this meeting is look at what has been presented, look at the alternatives and try to determine if there is any other information that the Board feels would be needed. • Mr. Guy, addressing Mr. Bell's concern, stated that Cornell's project is a planned, long term development that requires the type of long range land use development that the Board discussed. Mr. Guy stated that Ithacare is talking about a one time deal which is a single project. Mr. Guy stated that Cornell is trying to plan long range, whereas Ithacare is looking at a one time development. Board Member Ainslie stated that Cornell University's Precinct 7 was a 50 -year proposal. Board Member Bell stated that it is a valid comparison. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that with Cornell the proposal was for 4,000,000 square feet; Ithacare is 115,000 square feet. Town Planner Kanter stated that from what he has heard from the information that has been generated, hopefully the Board will have a chance to see the detailed documents. Mr. Kanter stated that he thinks it sounds like it would give the Board some additional information beyond what the Town currently has. Mr. Kanter stated from what Ms. Blanchard had described about the additional work being done by PERC, it is exactly the type of information that will help the Board make some good decisions. Mr. • Kanter stated that there would be a meeting with Ithacare representatives and planning staff representatives to discuss the issues related to putting the Final EIS together, looking at all of • • • Planning Board Minutes 40 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 the comments made at the Public Hearing and comments received separately from that. Mr. Kanter stated that the determination of who is going to prepare what types of responses will be made, so hopefully that will be settled at the meeting schedule for tomorrow morning (9/20/95), start getting the FEIS assembled and bring it back to the Board as soon as possible. Mr. Kanter stated that included in the packets for the Planning Board members were the individual comments received from Town Board members regarding the DEIS. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town Board adopted a resolution on 9/11/95 formally acknowledging that the Planning Board is and should be Lead Agency in this process. Mr. Kanter stated that those comments would be considered as well. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith closed the discussion regarding the proposed Ithacare Draft Environmental Impact Statement at 10:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: SEPTEMBER 5, 1995. Motion by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Eva Hoffmann: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of September 5, 1995, be and hereby are approved as written. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Bell Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Town Planner Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and stated that the Fee in Lieu of Parkland Local Law was approved by the Town Board at their September 11, 1995, meeting. A copy of the resolution was distributed to the Planning Board members at this meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that the Local Law is in place and should be kept in mind as the Planning Board reviews future subdivisions. Mr. Kanter stated that there was a memorandum from the Tompkins County Board of Representatives on Agricultural District review, and there is a public comment period. Mr. Kanter stated that this involves the perodic review of Ag. District No. 1, encompassing the east part of Tompkins County. Mr. Kanter stated that there was a map that went along with the memo and was available for anyone to review if they wish to see it. Mr. Kanter stated that the part that is in the Town of Ithaca is along Coddington Road and the southeast corner of the Town. Mr. Kanter stated that the comment period allows for comments from the public as well as municipalities to recommend changes to the County. Board Member Hoffmann asked if Board Members were permitted to attend the meeting with the Ithacare and Town representatives. • U • Planning Board Minutes 41 September 19, 1995 APPROVED 10/17/95 Town Planner Kanter responded, yes, as long as no more than 4 members attended. Mr. Kanter stated that the meeting was to be held on 9/20/95 at 9:30 a.m. in Town Hall. ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the September 19, 1995, meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board to be duly adjourned at 10:59 p.m. 10/2/95. Respectfully submitted, aup Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary.