HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-11-21•
1]
•
In
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOVEMBER 21, -1995
FILED
,TOWN OF ITHACA
Date
Clerk_
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, November 21, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, .Candace Cornell, Eva
Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert
Kenerson, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter
(Director of Planning), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), George
Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), John Barney (Town
Attorney), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer).
ALSO PRESENT: Virginia Bryant, Julie McLaren, J.A. Cimmino, Tom
Niederkorn, Kristina Bartlett, Noel Desch, John
Barradas, Mark Macera.
Chairperson Smith declared the meeting duly opened at
7:38p.m. and accepted, for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit
of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in
Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 13, 1995, and
November 15, 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 November 16, 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
There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson
Smith closed this segment of the meeting.
Chairman Smith stated that although they were not having a
Public Hearing, if someone from the audience wished to address
the Board on the first item, they would allow a few comments as
long as the subject was something that was not included in the
FEIS.
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF ITHACARE CENTER SENIOR
COMMUNITY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
LIVING
THE PROPOSED
FACILITY TO CONSIST
ADULT CARE UNITS, 20
LIVING UNITS, TO BE
APPROXIMATELY 2,000
ON THAT 28 +/- ACRE
1-1.3 DESIGNATED AS
CENTER, INC., APPLICANT;
OF 115,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH 60
ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80 INDEPENDENT
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY ROAD
FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA COLLEGE
PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0, 39-
SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO, 7, ITHACARE
MARK MACERA, AGENT.
.7
U
r1
U
Planning Board Minutes
K
Chairman Smith opened the discussion
and stated that this would be a discussion
and not a presentation of information.
November 21, 1995
on the above -noted item
between Board Members
Board Member Candace Cornell asked if there was any place in
the Final Environmental Impact Statement that an analysis of the
soil could be found.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz asked Ms. Cornell what
type of analysis she was looking for.
Ms. Cornell responded that she wanted an analysis that
talked about the best uses for the soil and whether it is good
for roads and foundations and other things necessary for this
project.
Town Planner
Jonathan
Kanter stated
that he
thought that had
been provided in
the Draft
Environmental
Impact
Statement,
Board Member
Assistant Town
Planner
Frantz stated that very
early on in
the
process he had
reviewed
the characteristics of the
soils on
the
site to be sure
that there
would be no potential
problems,
and
had note identified
any
potential problems with
it. Mr.
Frantz stated that
this had
been done quite early in
relation to
the
12
original
environmental
Ms.
Hoffmann commented
assessment.
was not a
huge difference,
and
when
it
came to digging
Board Member
Cornell
stated that she
thought that the soil
should have been
described
in more depth
since that was part of
the basis of the
decision
upon which
between
the
the two soils, the
alternatives was based.
Town Planner Kanter explained that there was some
elaboration in Sections III -1 through III -55 of the Impact
Statement, Mr. Kanter also remarked that the FEIS does not
always repeat everything that is in the DEIS. Mr. Kanter stated
that at times one must refer back and forth between the two
documents. Mr. Kanter also referred to the newly corrected pages
4 and 5, which he had distributed to the Board Members in the
draft Final Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Kanter stated
that the elevation levels on the original pages contained
incorrect elevation levels, which were corrected, revised and
distributed.
Board Member
Cornell
stated that the
detail provided was
note enough of an
problem with the
analysis,
alternatives
especially
being
since
investigated.
the excavation is a
Board Member Hoffmann
remarked
that
on
Table 1 in the FEIS,
the
descriptions
of the
differences
between
the two soils, the
ORB
has bedrock
between
at
a depth
of 20
to
40 inches, and in the
LTB
soil it is
between
12
and 20 inches.
Ms.
Hoffmann commented
that
was not a
huge difference,
and
when
it
came to digging
foundations, it
seemed
to
her that
they
would
have to go deeper
• Planning Board Minutes 3 November 21, 1995
than 40 inches. Ms. Hoffmann stated that the 20 inches noted is
the upper limit in one alternative and the lower limit in the
other.
Board Member Cornell stated that her previous comment was
because she had been reviewing comments made from one of the
Board members, which had asked if any other sites had been
explored. Ms. Cornell stated that when she looked at the map
provided, instantly the soils change if you look anywhere other
than in this particular area on the site. Ms. Cornell stated
that it then becomes highly eroded soils. Ms. Cornell stated
that it seemed important to her that this was the one location on
the site where there was not highly erodible soil, within a
matter of feet.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she wondered whether tests
had actually been done outside of the original footprint of the
building, so that there was any actual indication of how deep the
bedrock is.
Noel Desch of Ithacare replied that no tests had been done.
Mark Macera stated, in response
that the original evaluation was done
• action, everything else is a descript
until the equipment is taken down the
that will not be known on those sites
slight overlap.
to Ms. Cornell's comments,
on the originally proposed
ion of over - burden, and
site to drill the holes,
although there is some
Board Member James Ainslie stated that he took exception to
Mr. Yntema's letter, which states "I would certainly like to
avoid a second lawsuit, but unless all members of the Town
Planning Board begin to take their responsibilities seriously,
and consider doing the right thing this time around, if not, they
may end up in court again." Mr. Ainslie stated that he has been
present at these meetings and felt that the Board Members have
all taken this very seriously. Mr. Ainslie stated that he took
exception to Mr. Yntema's inferences that the Board Members has
not taken things seriously.
Board Member Cornell remarked that she was attempting to
ignore those comments, because it is difficult to make a decision
with the knowledge or implication that there might be another
lawsuit down the road. Ms. Cornell stated that she thought that
they all of the Board Members are trying to make a decision based
on the information they have.
Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he thinks that when
someone says that you don't take something seriously, it means
• that you don't agree with them.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that he had a question
U
Planning Board Minutes
H
November 21, 1995
regarding Alternative B3, which places the
first floor two
feet
above
the height
needed for a gravity -flow
sewer system, 558
feet
versus
556 feet.
Mr. Wilcox stated that Modified
Alternative
B3
places
the first
floor one foot below, at
555 feet. Mr. Wilcox
asked
about the
certainty and accuracy of
these measurements,
in
terms
of elevation
in the alternatives, as
to whether two feet
above
would work
and one foot below would
not work.
Noel Desch responded that they felt that the measurements
indicated were pretty accurate.
Town Planner Kanter stated that the building elevations in
the modified alternative had been completed to that same level of
detail as the original footprint, so that they could match up the
two so that they knew that the lowest level of the building in
the proposal was below that height.
Noel Desch stated that Ithacare has a long run to make to
hit that sewer line by gravity, so they were stretching it as far
as they could to still do it with the proper flow in Alternative
B3.
Board Member Cornell asked Mr. Macera that had stated that
the alternatives were are only rough studies, because no actual
• testing has been completed. Ms. Cornell stated that, based on
the fact that they are rough estimations, how certain he could be
about the measurements in Modified Alternative B31
Mr. Macera replied that based on the engineering studies
that have been done to date, and recognizing that the level of
excavation to be done and the site development that is necessary
is not too invasive, Ithacare is very comfortable that they could
plan for those elevations and determine whether one foot or two
foot differences would work in those plans as they are now. Mr.
Macera stated that the problem with the modified alternative B3
was the issue of getting into bedrock and what might be required.
Mr. Macera stated that they currently have no geotechnical work
to be able to give any indication of what they could run into,
and whether dropping it three feet is going to be possible or
not, that we do not know. Mr. Macera stated that the issue of
the current plans, the garden level and the main levels were very
reasonable.
Board Member Cornell replied that she understood his
confidence in the plans that he studied, and asked how confident
he was in his estimation that it was one foot below for the
Alternate B3.
Mr. Macera responded that he was as confident as the
engineers and the surveyors that have lead him to believe. Mr.
Macera stated that they provided those numbers, determined those
elevations, computed the inverts, identified the run distances,
Planning Board Minutes 5 November 21, 1995
the amount of drop, and so forth. Mr. Macera stated that he was
taking these numbers as confident from the professionals who are
involved with this project.
Board Member Cornell stated that the height of the roof line
for Modified Alternate B3 was estimated as being three feet lower
than the roof line for Alternate B.
Mr. Macera replied that was correct.
Board Member Cornell asked how confident Mr. Macera was
about the roof line estimate.
Mr. Macera replied that he was very confident because the
elevation differences in the building architecture was identical.
Mr. Macera stated that the issue was where that lower level was
going be located, and the differences, which are ten feet between
each of the floors, are very predictable.
Mr. Desch stated that they had a pretty accurate topographic
map of the site.
Tom Niederkorn stated that he had asked the architects and
the engineers the same questions. Mr. Neiderkorn stated that
there was no question about it from the plumbing engineer of
where the lowest level could be to have this thing flow by
gravity into the existing sewer. Mr. Niederkorn stated that
because this building is located along a sloping site, they tried
to make a good balance between what they would have to cut out
and what they would have to fill on the other side. Mr.
Niederkorn stated that the plumbing engineer thought that the cut
and fill balance that was established for this project is just
about where it ought to be. Mr. Niederkorn stated that it is not
casual to slide it down the hill fifty feet, the engineer would
have to do another calculation of cut and fill and-that by doing
that establishes a lower grade. Mr. Neiderkorn stated that the
engineers answer satisfied my questions.
Board
Member Cornell asked if
there was
a margin of error
around
the
one
foot difference in
the roof line
estimate.
Mr. Niederkorn stated that did not think so. Mr. Niederkorn
stated, whether there is a margin of error about how deep the
engineer would have to go into the ground or not remained a
question. Mr. Niederkorn stated that in terms of the architect's
approach to this, he wanted to get a balance between what they
had to cut out and what they had to fill on the high side and
that was what he came up with.
• Town Planner Kanter pointed out that these were not
construction engineering drawings and so these were as close an
estimate as there was going to be in a preliminary site plan
•
•
Planning Board Minutes 6
level of detail.
November 21, 1995
Board
Member
Hoffmann
asked what the
rationale
was behind
wanting to
have a
specific
balance between
cut and
fill.
Mr. Niederkorn stated that on this site one would want to
avoid as much cut as possible, otherwise you would run into rock
that can not be dug out with a backhoe. Mr. Neiderkorn stated
that he thought that they would want to reduce the amount of cut
into the site as much as possible. Mr. Neiderkorn stated that if
they have to push the building down into the site, then the cut
that they have to take out would occur on all sides so they might
even have to cut on the uphill side in order to approach that
entrance level properly. Mr. Niederkorn added, to continue to
build it higher on the site, which would mean more fill all the
way around, or certainly on the downhill side would be counter to
the objective of reducing the profile, so how they establish this
balance, he did not exactly know.
Mr. Desch stated that there was also the issue of site
disturbance, the more you had to cut and fill on the site, the
bigger the area of disturbance is to the site and surrounding
area.
Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that it is a standard
engineering practice to always try to balance cut and fill on any
site.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she expected the Modified
Alternative B3 to lower the roof line more. Ms. Hoffmann asked
the Ithacare Representatives why it came out to be three feet
rather than five or six feet, which she had thought it would be
based on seeing the contour lines.
Mr. Niederkorn stated that he did not question the
architect's judgment on this issue. Mr. Niederkorn stated
Ithacare representatives told the architect, "Here is the
scenario, we're going to move it down the hill to where you now
see it in the modified alternative B3, what is the elevation ?"
Mr. Niederkorn stated then the architect went through whatever
calculations he had to make in order to arrive at the proper
siting for the building, and he came up with the figure of three
feet. Mr. Niederkorn felt that this possibly had to do with the
cut and fill and the hope not to dig too deeply into the soils
where the rock is closer to the surface. Mr. Niederkorn stated
that this needed to be designed in a manner in which Ithacare
would have to have a moderate amount of sewage that had to be
pumped, because the farther down you went, the more sewage that
would have to be pumped, and that was another consideration in
the calculations.
•
Planning Board Minutes
7
November 21, 1995
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was somewhat
dissatisfied to hear that this was possibly the reason, and
stated that she would like to hear for certain what the reason
is.
Mr. Macera responded that Mr. Niederkorn's explanation is
the reason and that he could add to that. Mr. Macera stated that
upon examination of the profile of the existing grades and the
proposed grades on the cross - section, you will note that the type
of invasive excavation is going to have to occur, recognizing
that the road cut is basically a proposed action of one foot
difference from the front of the building as opposed to dropping
it several feet. Mr. Macera stated, to create the parking areas
for the building, you would have to cut away that whole front
section of the hillside, and the fractured rock is a relatively
short distance from the surface as it exists now, and clearly
after a few feet they would get into something that's extremely
hard which would require very dramatic excavation.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the distances between the
top of bedrock and the surface of the soil was speculative, based
on records which were typical for that kind of soil. Ms.
Hoffmann stated that there had been no test drillings.
e Mr. Macera responded that they had done s
area that would have to be further excavated.
that if one went back to the DEIS and look at
data of the borings in the specific sites that
excavated, there are very dramatic measurement
hardness and distances for both fractured and
ome testing in the
Mr. Macera stated
the geotechnical
would be further
s in terms of
hardened material.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if those tests were done only in
the space of the original footprint.
Mr. Macera responded that the tests were done in front of
the original footprint, and it would lead to the building. Mr.
Macera stated that if they located the building further to the
west and dropped it, the excavation that existed in the front,
which was only modest, would have to go even deeper.
Board
Member Hoffmann stated that she did
not see that it
would have
to go deeper when she
looked at the
drawings. Ms.
Hoffmann stated
that it looked like
the eastern
-most part of the
building was
aligned with the existing
grade in
all cases, when
looking at
the cross - sections.
Ms. Hoffmann asked
where the
cross- sections
were taken. Ms.
Hoffmann referred
to Figure 9,
and asked
where in the building
were the cross -
sections through
the three different alternatives taken.
• Mr. Macera responded that the cross - sections were taken
through the middle of the building.
Planning Board Minutes 8 November 21, 1995
Board Member Hoffmann asked if the grey area shown in the
cross - sections only covered the center part of the building, and
does not cover any of the winged parts.
Mr. Macera stated that he did not know how to answer the
question. Mr. Macera stated just looking at the measurement and
making a cut through this particular location, the elevations
that had been established with the building and the wings are
relative to that particular section.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that one was not just seeing
just a cross - section, but seeing what is behind and in front of
it.
Town
Planner
Kanter stated that
the drawings were really
building
Kanter stated
elevation
that
drawings combined
they were not true
with cross - sections. Mr.
cross - sections in the sense
that they
did not
represent two specific
points through the
length of
a building.
Board Member Hoffmann asked, by indicating on the map, how
it was that in all three cases the distance down from the
existing grade looked to be more or less the same. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that the building did not appear to be down into the soil
• further, but simply further down the slope.
Mr. Macera responded that it showed relative depth of the
building location in the existing soils. Mr. Macera stated that
it depended on what location or what wings. For example, the
western -most wings were actually going to hang in the air, and
that was going to be the fill portion of the actual building
complex, as opposed to the front end of the building on the
eastern side, the whole area would be excavated out to make a
bench for that portion of the building.
Board Member Cornell stated that it was determined that on
Modified Alternative B3, in Figure 9, the rear part of the
building was the part that had the most fill and excavation,
which would be the wings of the building.
Board Member Hoffmann said that it was difficult to see the
existing grades clearly on all of the drawings, so it was hard to
see whether there is fill or not.
Mr. Niederkorn stated that he thought that in the bottom
drawing on Figure 9 the grade would drop off, which would mean
there would be more fill around that end of the building because
it was quite a bit steeper there, particularly on the
northernmost plain where it gets onto that fifteen percent slope.
• Board Member Hoffmann stated that it would be very useful to
see how it really looked rather than how it would probably look,
•
•
•
Planning Board Minutes
because the Board can not make
Hoffmann asked if the reasons
reasons why the roof line was
Modified Alternative B3.
w
November 21,. 1995
decisions on probabilities. Ms.
given by Mr. Macera were the only
only three feet lower than the
Mr. Macera stated yes, other than creating a bowl situation
in attempting to excavate more into existing rock and lower the
high roof ridge, again maintaining the same relative floor
elevations from the lower level through the first level and
second level of the facility. Mr. Macera asked what else should
be taken into consideration in determining what the elevation of
the building could be.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that upon examination of the
information given to Planning Board Members, it did not look that
different between the three alternatives whether considering the
existing grade level under the building or to the east of the
building where the parking will be. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she
did not understand where Ithacare came up with the different
figures for the amount of excavation.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the reason these
figures, especially.for the front of the building, look so
similar was because it was the proposed location of the parking
and other circulation facilities on the plans. In the individual
plans it really does not change significantly between the plans,
because you still have the parking, the driveway and the entrance
walkways. Mr. Frantz stated that the building is being moved, it
does change between the three alternatives.
Mr. Macera added that those numbers are there and show the
different elevation heights. The differences are actually
reflected in the numbers. The building is the same, virtually
identical, which is the B3 now relocated to a new area of the
site.
Board Member Hoffmann
misunderstood, but that she
bowl that had to be dug out
stated that perhaps she had
thought they were talking about the
for the parking areas.
Mr. Macera stated that there was no doubt that in moving the
building further west, to try to create the infrastructure in
terms of access to parking facilities, that if the building is
moved further down, they would have to cut away more of the front
and the eastern portion of the site, to provide the type of
slopes needed for access and stability.
Board Member Hoffmann remarked that this was the part that
she did not see, based on the drawings.
Mr. Macera replied that if you look at the site plans, you
can notice that there is a redistribution of parking spaces
• Planning Board Minutes 10 November 21, 1995
recognizing the potential impact in the sensitive environmental
areas, such as the steep slopes as well as the wetland area
that's caused the parking areas to be relocated to different
areas.
•
•
Board Member Hoffmann stated that they were not that
different.
Mr. Macera did not know what other information was needed,
that the numbers were accurate, but that if another
re- illustration of the same information in another form that
might indeed be useful, he would be happy to do that. Mr. Macera
stated that this was on the basis of the same information that
was presented in the original information as part of the DEIS and
that they had added the same information now for the modified
building designs that they had provided, and that they had no
reason to believe that this was not adequate to provide any
insight. Mr. Macera added that if there was a need to change
these plans somehow he was sure that it could be executed.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she needed to understand
it herself, and that she needed to have figures that are not just
statistical figures based on other studies, but rather more
specific figures for this particular project, for instance, the
soil.
Mr. Macera asked if she was
Ithacare to go out and contract
of those areas that are relative
siting sites of the building.
implying that she would like
the geotechnical studies in each
to the alternative proposed
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she did not know if that
is what she was saying. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would leave
the specifics of what would be deemed necessary to some more
knowledgeable staff person. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she "did
not feel comfortable with explanations that something is probably
just three feet lower because probably this will happen when they
try to excavate." Ms. Hoffmann stated that it did not seem to be
sufficient information.
Board Member
Gregory Bell
asked if
there
was a
sewer line on
Stone Quarry Road,
and stated
that
there
is a
water
line.
Mr. Frantz responded that there was not a sewer line on
Stone Quarry Road,
Board Member Bell asked if there was any sewer line at a
lower elevation somewhere around there.
Noel Desch stated that there was sewer line within a mile or
so of the site, and that you had to go down below the old
railroad crossing. He defined an invert as the elevation of the
® Planning Board Minutes 11 November 21, 1995
sewer that exists that you're trying to meet in order to have the
sewage flow by gravity, that it was an existing elevation of a
pipe that is there.
Mr. Macera stated that they were already trying to get a
business agreement with Ithaca College that would let them cut
through their property to gain the invert that they now have.
The question was, did they want to travel further down Danby Road
by cutting further across all the property further west basically
northeast, which would be a possibility. Why not go the mile to
get to that invert which is certainly well below what it is now,
wherever that is, it's not accessible or reasonable.
Board Member Hoffmann asked why the excavation costs are so
much greater for the Modified Alternative B3, when it doesn't
look that different from the other proposal.
Mr. Macera stated that when they started to slope downhill,
the question was how does one make up the three feet unless one
establishes an acceptable engineering formula to cut away at that
drop over a distance that would permit the grade that driveways
and parking lots require to exist in harmony with the rest of the
building. Mr. Macera stated that one would have to cut away from
® the eastern section of that site to accomplish that harmony.
Board Member Hoffmann agreed, but stated that it also had to
be done in the other two alternative sites as well, because the
grade is at the same slope. In light of that, Ms. Hoffmann asked
what the difference in the cost and the amount of excavation was
between the three alternatives.
Mr. Macera stated that this information was in the FEIS.
Mr. Niederkorn
stated that his understanding was that there
is no difference in
the amount of material that was going to be
excavated, and that
they anticipate taking out 3,000 cubic yards
no matter where the
building is located in that general area to
achieve the balance
of cut and fill. Mr. Niederkorn stated that
the difficulty with
it moving down a hill arises when you run
into the soils where
the rock is closer to the surface.
Therefore, they assume,
without any geotechnical studies that
they are going to be
excavating in rock to a greater depth and
they are probably going
to have to blast it and would not be able
to use the regular
excavation equipment. Mr. Niederkorn stated
that he stated that
this was an assumption, and that the amount
excavated does not
change, but the cost of doing the work changes
based on the material
being excavated.
• Board Member Bell stated that this information would bring
the discussion back to the soils map and pointed out that things
don't look very much different. Mr. Bell stated that it did not
• Planning Board Minutes 12 November 21, 1995
appear to be that much different in terms of how much ORB you got
versus how much LDV is found because there are alternating layers
of these two things down the hill. Mr. Bell stated that in the
Soil Types Table (III -3) the ends of one range starts at the
other range for bedrock, so the chances are that they are not
extreme.
Mr. Desch stated said that it was fairly well known as to
the location of the rock elevations from the borings, which are
within the footprint of the proposed action.
Mr. Macera stated that information on the borings was
included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
Ms. Hoffmann stated that Ithacare had not done any borings
in the area indicated in blue on Figure 2, except for where it
overlaps.
Mr. Macera stated that the overburden based on their current
information is much shallower in the other areas, and that is
assuming the same depth for the footers for the foundation walls,
then it stands to reason that you would have to go deeper than
into existing shale and hardened rock in those locations where
you have less overburden in order to create the grade. Mr.
• Macera stated that the difference between what the existing grade
is and where the footers are going to be located in the building.
Mr. Macera stated Mr. Bell had mentioned those two ranges now,
and one is less than the other. Mr. Macera stated that it stood
to reason that in the shallower area you would have to go deeper
into existing rock than you would in other areas. Mr. Macera
stated that he wanted to add, for the record, that perhaps an
additional 3,000 cubic yards of material would have to be
removed. Mr. Macera stated that he would check on the accuracy
of that figure.
Mr. Desch stated that the difference was that in Modified B3
the material would be rock as opposed to earth. Mr. Desch stated
that would be the comparison between the issue of blasting versus
standard excavating.
Board Member Cornell
asked that Ithacare tell
the
Board
Members exactly how much
material would
be removed
from
the site.
Mr. Macera stated that the proposed action and the
Alternative B3 are relatively similar cut and fill situations.
Mr. Macera stated that the Modified Alternative B3 would involve
an additional 3,000 cubic yards of rock on top of the other
measurements, which were similar between the three alternatives;
the SLUD, the proposed action and the Alternative B3. Mr.
• Macera stated that he would confirm that amount. Mr. Macera
added that, with regards to the nature of that additional
quantity, it does not consist only of soil, but also of rock
• Planning Board Minutes 13 November 21, 1995
which may not be weathered, and fractured shale, due to the depth
involved. Mr. Macera stated that would be the reason that the
cost could increase, since it is most likely additional material
that could need to be removed.
Board Member Cornell stated that before the Planning Board
went any farther with that document, they needed the information
regarding the additional measurements involved.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that in consultation
with the Town Engineering staff, the cheapest price they came up
with, if it is indeed the weathered type of shale, was about
$25.00 per cubic yard. Mr. Frantz stated that if they got into
blasting the price would be in a range of up to $100.00 per cubic
yard. Mr. Frantz stated that the footprint of the building was
about 40,000 square feet, and for each six inches of bedrock over
that 40,000 square feet would hypothetically be in the range of
• 700 -800 cubic yards of rock, and at $25.00 a yard the price was
in the range of $20,000 for each six inches that would have to be
gone into in the bedrock. Mr. Frantz stated that at $100.00 per
cubic yard it would be $80,000 or more if blasting was necessary.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the estimate on Page 4 is
$60,000 for the 3,000 cubic yards in comparison, and that when
one considered that amount in comparison to the total cost of the
project, it did not seem all that significant.
Mr. Macera stated that he would agree, but asked Ms.
Hoffmann to appreciate the fact that Ithacare was a not -for-
profit agency, and that currently approximately 50% of its
clientele are SSI recipients who can not pay for the service
package they are currently receiving. Mr. Macera stated,
recognizing that in a new facility, that is likely to drop as
more middle and upper- middle income clients are attracted, to
help defray the operating costs. Mr. Macera stated that the fact
that the money, which they do not have and that will involve
payments over long -term and interest, and then push that cost on
to the fraction of the population who could afford it did not do
Ithacare, the project, or the working or retired poor justice.
He stated that their subsidized population consists of 40 -60% of
their clientele who would otherwise be in the streets. Mr.
Macera expressed the hope that Ithacare would attract more middle
• income clients, and charge them a little bit more, to help
subsidize those that can not pay their bills.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that
looking at that figure
and
then
seeing
in Table 1,
that the amount
to be removed is
likely
to be
significant.
Ms.
Hoffmann stated
that she was not
sure
that
it really
was that
significant when
one considered
the whole
size
and scope
and cost
of the project,
neither the amount
or
cost
of
the
excavation.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that in consultation
with the Town Engineering staff, the cheapest price they came up
with, if it is indeed the weathered type of shale, was about
$25.00 per cubic yard. Mr. Frantz stated that if they got into
blasting the price would be in a range of up to $100.00 per cubic
yard. Mr. Frantz stated that the footprint of the building was
about 40,000 square feet, and for each six inches of bedrock over
that 40,000 square feet would hypothetically be in the range of
• 700 -800 cubic yards of rock, and at $25.00 a yard the price was
in the range of $20,000 for each six inches that would have to be
gone into in the bedrock. Mr. Frantz stated that at $100.00 per
cubic yard it would be $80,000 or more if blasting was necessary.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the estimate on Page 4 is
$60,000 for the 3,000 cubic yards in comparison, and that when
one considered that amount in comparison to the total cost of the
project, it did not seem all that significant.
Mr. Macera stated that he would agree, but asked Ms.
Hoffmann to appreciate the fact that Ithacare was a not -for-
profit agency, and that currently approximately 50% of its
clientele are SSI recipients who can not pay for the service
package they are currently receiving. Mr. Macera stated,
recognizing that in a new facility, that is likely to drop as
more middle and upper- middle income clients are attracted, to
help defray the operating costs. Mr. Macera stated that the fact
that the money, which they do not have and that will involve
payments over long -term and interest, and then push that cost on
to the fraction of the population who could afford it did not do
Ithacare, the project, or the working or retired poor justice.
He stated that their subsidized population consists of 40 -60% of
their clientele who would otherwise be in the streets. Mr.
Macera expressed the hope that Ithacare would attract more middle
• income clients, and charge them a little bit more, to help
subsidize those that can not pay their bills.
•
•
•
Planning Board Minutes
Chairperson Stephen
excavation increase was
the sewer.
November 21, 1995
Smith said that the cost of the
minor compared to their annual costs of
Board Member Cornell stated that it was disappointing that
the alternatives that they had asked for did not come back with
better figures. Ms. Cornell stated that she thought it was a
reality, which makes it an expensive alternative,
Board Member Hoffmann stated that in referring to page 5,
with the additional costs associated with the last alternative
between $152,000 - 166,000 spread over a 30 year mortgage it would
add $1,200 per month to the costs. Ms. Hoffmann stated if that
were spread out over 160 units, it would come out to $7.50 per
month, and it is only for 30 years; whereas the building will be
there much longer.
Mr. Macera pointed out that Ms. Hoffmann had mentioned
spreading the cost out over 160 units, and as he had previously
mentioned, approximately half of the current population is
presently unable to cover their costs; they would thus spread it
over a significantly smaller number of individuals. Mr. Macera
stated when you are looking at a senior population, many of which
are on a fixed income and recognizing the range of increases they
are talking about and the additional operating and maintenance
costs associated with the infrastructure, they need to remain
viable and plan accordingly. Mr. Macera stated that it was not
clear to them that they can simply pass these expenses on to
these individuals.
Board
Member Hoffmann
asked how great a proportion
of
Ithacare's
residents
in the
new building would be on
SSI
income.
Mr. Macera said they did not know, but that it would drop as
a proportion of the total. Mr. Macera stated that it would
probably be closer to a half than a quarter but he could not give
any actual numbers.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she had heard a figure
from someone that, in most cases, it was typically 100 of the
population in this kind of living arrangement that were on SSI
I
ncome.
Mr. Macera stated that there was no such thing as normal or
typical population estimates. Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare
currently has a waiting list of individuals that may be a dozen
or more deep of SSI recipients that would like accommodations.
Ithacare can not even rent to some SSI recipients, recognizing
that to do so would entail accepting approximately $753 a month
as opposed to approximately $1,200 -1,400 for a market rate. Mr.
Macera stated that the number of actual individuals, that it was
probably fair to say that every SSI recipient in the County and
•
•
•
Planning Board Minutes 15 November 21, 1995
then beyond would probably love to come into to Ithacare for
about $750 a month for 24 hour -a -day care, three meals a day,
housekeeping, maintenance, utilities, and emergency call. But,
Mr Macera state that will not happen, so there was going to be a
balance between the two, and it would be approximately half of
their population. Ithacare could fill the new building with 100%
SSI recipients but then they would be unable to pay the bills and
it would not be functional.
Board Member Hoffmann
stated that she
understood that, and
that Mr. Macera had stated
from the
beginning that he would like
to see a mix of residents,
which to
her is
much nicer. Ms.
Hoffmann stated that the additional
costs,
some of them anyway,
would just be for a limited
period
of time,
but the view would be
gone for much longer.
Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare was looking at potential
financing that would finance the debt over a minimum of 30 years
and clearly from their estimates it would be a minimum of 30
years and would not be for a shorter period of time. Mr. Macera
stated that when looking at their resources and their attempts to
try to plan for the building they have approximately an 8.5
million dollar project. Mr. Macera stated that Ithacare is
looking to try to attract approximately 15 -17o of that through
fund raising for contributions; Ithacare's capital campaign is
about 1.5 million dollars. Mr. Macera stated that each and every
one of those dollars he hopes will be contributed or donated by a
public who is committed to Ithacare's mission and purpose.
Ithacare does not have hundreds of thousands of dollars sitting
in the bank that is being accumulated for the - purposes of making
this project work, but rather through the generosity of a number
of individuals they would simply have to try to attract more
donations, and then pay the debt through the operating budget of
the facility. Mr. Macera stated that each additional dollar
needed to make this project work, makes it that much more
difficult for them to serve a public population and Ithacare was
founded on that, and not discriminating between that.
Chairperson Smith
asked if there were anv
speak.
noted that this
members of the
was
a
Public
Hearing and
public
that
wished to
Joe Cimmino addressed the Board and stated that he had
previously spoken to the Board at the Public Hearing held in
July. Mr. Cimmino stated, to support what Mr. Macera said, he
has a 90 year old mother -in -law who has lived with him since
1973. A little over a year ago he had to put her in Ithacare
because he was unable to provide her with the care that she
needed. Mr. Cimmino stated that she had practically exhausted
her life savings and that in about a year she would have to go on
SSI. He stated that he has heard assumptions being made about
who can and who can not pay, but the fact of the matter is that
• Planning Board Minutes 16 November 21, 1995
the elder population is running out of their savings and going
into SSI after they become residents of Ithacare. Mr. Cimmino
stated that he was very concerned about this because when he put
his mother -in -law in Ithacare a little over a year ago, he was
looking forward to a ground- breaking on South Hill within a
matter of months, but that over a year later people are still
discussing how much rock there is on the site. Mr. Cimmino
stated that he looks at his own backyard in King Ferry where the
shale in one spot is 18" below the soil, and just 50 feet down
the hill it's 6" below the top of the soil. Mr. Cimmino stated
that he was concerned that these elderly people need this new
facility. He stated that he had written to the Chairperson a
month ago about the fact that in July his elderly mother -in -law
was in the hospital for 11 days, and when he brought her back to
Ithacare on a very hot summer day, all of the residents were
sitting there sweating. After a short while his mother -in -law
had to be taken back to her room; he did not think that she would
live out the day in that heat. Mr. Cimmino stated that the
hospital had abandoned that site many years prior for a modern
facility, and yet these elderly people were being subjected to an
antiquated facility, and that this was a great concern to him.
Mr. Cimmino stated that he would like to see this project move,
and move quickly, due to the obvious need.
Board Member Bell stated that he was concerned about the
vocabulary used in a couple of instances in the DEIS. Mr. Bell
thought that there were some very specific uses of words
throughout the DEIS that were intentionally designed to gloss
over real impacts, particularly the word "interruption" and the
word "affected "; both of these obviously referred to the view,
( "view interruption "), in a number of places including Page 5 and
Figure 4, Mr. Bell stated that the word "interruption" implied
something that was not true, and he thought that it is was wrong
for the Board to allow untrue words in their statement. To
clarify, Mr. Bell brought the dictionary and read the definition
of the word "interruption." Interrupt: To stop or hinder by
breaking in; to break the uniformity or continuity of; break in
upon an action; to break in on comments or remarks when someone
else is speaking." Mr. Bell stated that, basically, what it was
saying was that something exists and that it stops existing for a
certain time period but the assumption, though it does not really
say the rest of it, is that you can go back to wherever you
started with. Mr. Bell stated that there was no assumption that
Director of Planning
Jonathan Kanter stated
that he
thought
that
the discussion about
the significance of the
increased
cost
was
important, but not yet.
Mr. Kanter stated, to
remind
the
Members
of the Board, that
what they needed to do
before
getting
into
the determination of
significance of all of
these issues
was
to basically
decide whether
the information presented
in
the FEIS
was
sufficient to be able
to make that next jump
to those
decisions.
Board Member Bell stated that he was concerned about the
vocabulary used in a couple of instances in the DEIS. Mr. Bell
thought that there were some very specific uses of words
throughout the DEIS that were intentionally designed to gloss
over real impacts, particularly the word "interruption" and the
word "affected "; both of these obviously referred to the view,
( "view interruption "), in a number of places including Page 5 and
Figure 4, Mr. Bell stated that the word "interruption" implied
something that was not true, and he thought that it is was wrong
for the Board to allow untrue words in their statement. To
clarify, Mr. Bell brought the dictionary and read the definition
of the word "interruption." Interrupt: To stop or hinder by
breaking in; to break the uniformity or continuity of; break in
upon an action; to break in on comments or remarks when someone
else is speaking." Mr. Bell stated that, basically, what it was
saying was that something exists and that it stops existing for a
certain time period but the assumption, though it does not really
say the rest of it, is that you can go back to wherever you
started with. Mr. Bell stated that there was no assumption that
Planning Board Minutes 17 November 21, 1995
once you interrupted something that it's gone forever.
Board Member Cornell stated that if you move ten feet, the
view is still there.
The Board discussed the definition of the word
"interruption," and what it meant to the DEIS.
Attorney Barney stated that he felt that "interrupt" was a
very good term. The view is there, it would be interrupted, but
not gone.
Ms. Cornell stated that she found talking about views
extremely difficult to verbalize.
Mr. Bell stated that the other word he was concerned with
was "to affect" the view. He pointed out that on Map IV.H.2.C.
this was used. He quoted: "Under proposed action. Views of the
lake, the City [of Ithaca], and East Hill would not be affected,
but the lower slopes of West Hill on the North Valley would not
be seen." Mr. Bell stated that this was not poor grammar, it is
a specific kind of gussying -up of the impact. Mr. Bell stated
that the impact was that these views were going to be eliminated;
it was not that they were not going to be affected. If you stood
• next to a 1,000 pound gorilla he might not be touching you but
you would feel affected by it. Mr. Bell stated that the above -
mentioned views would not be blocked, but they would be affected.
Mr. Bell cited the issues of personal versus private and public
space when dealing with putting a large building next to a view,
and if you were enjoying nature by itself, you would not feel
that you were infringing on anyone else's space, but there are
many studies about boundaries, and this building on the computer
simulation is a blank facade but in reality it is going to be all
windows with people inside. Mr. Bell stated that if you were a
tourist at the overlook, you would be looking into those windows
and those people in those windows would not be able to see the
view, they'd be looking at you.
Board Member Cornell asked if he had a suggested word
change.
Mr. Bell stated that he thinks the word should be
"destroyed." Mr. Bell stated that the view of the lake would be
affected but would not be destroyed.
Noel Desch pointed out that they had not changed the wording
from what was contained in the draft EIS.
Mr. Macera stated that he thought that Mr. Bell's
• reflected by the documentation from the public, that is
Appendix. Mr. Macera stated that some individuals feel
absolutely no impact on views, while others feel there
comments
in the
there is
are
•
•
•
Planning Board Minutes
In
impacts on the views. Mr. Macera stated that it
Mr. Bell's observation, that he feels that there
and that he thought that people respected that;
that Mr. Bell respect those who felt that it did
impact.
Mr. Bell stated that
this document, it wasn't
filtered in the process,
works, whatever document
Board,
November 21, 1995
appeared, from
was an impact
he then asked
not pose an
this Board was the one who has to pass
what the public comments, they get
but ultimately, by the way the law
gets passed must be passed by this
Board Member James Ainslie made a MOTION that they, as a
Board, vote on whether they want the wording changed from
"affected" to "obstructed." He also stated in another MOTION
that the words be left the way they were written.
Board Member Cornell seconded the MOTION.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she agrees with what Mr.
Bell was saying, that the enjoyment of the view would be
affected. Ms. Hoffmann stated that she did not think that the
Board needed to change the words here, but just put the changes
in an addendum sheet, and know that where ever they appear, they
would be replaced with another word.
Chairperson Smith stated that there was a MOTION to keep the
words as they are written.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith called
for a vote.
Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox.
Nay - Hoffmann, Bell,
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Smith asked if there were any other comments.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that on the first page in the
introduction and again on page 24 of the DEIS, it was mentioned
that the word "principle ", needed to be spelled differently. She
continued by quoting the introduction: "principle issue leading
to the preparation of the DEIS was the potential impact of views
from South Hill, in particular from the overlook on Route 96B. "
Ms. Hoffmann stated that she would like to see that changed to
include "and from Route 96B itself," as well as from the overlook
because she felt that this was equally important, it is a place
where the public sees the view from the road, as well as from the
overlook. Ms. Hoffmann stated that on page 24, in the last line
of the response to comment #2, at the end of that sentence, she
would like to have it say "...and from Route 96B itself." Ms.
• Planning Board Minutes 19 November 21, 1995
Hoffmann proposed that this be changed by the'Board. The
spelling will be checked and changed if necessary.
Chairperson Smith asked if there were any objections, there
were none.
Attorney Barney stated that Route 96B was part of South Hill
itself and that the DEIS says "the potential impact of views of
South Hill, in particular from the overlook on Route 96B."
Attorney Barney stated that he felt that included Route 96B
itself, but that it was the Board's decision.
Board
Member Hoffmann
stated that
she
felt that if you could
add one in
particular, then
you could
add
two.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he did not see that
the Board would gain anything by adding that.
Board Member Wilcox stated that there were some important
issues that needed to discussed and decided upon. Mr. Wilcox
stated that one of those issues is the question of whether the
three feet that they had gotten off the top of the roof was worth
it or not, and the Board is sitting here talking about words
instead of the issues. Mr. Wilcox stated that he would like to
• move on to some of the other topics that needed to be addressed.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that when she saw the red and
white lines in the photos that indicated where the overlook
extension would be and how it would appear, she was quite
startled. These photos are on page 21 and 22, or Figures 10 and
11, of the DEIS. Ms. Hoffmann stated that, in her opinion, if
Ithacare were to build an extension that came up to the height of
that red line it would be totally unacceptable because that would
be too intrusive.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz indicated the view in Figures
10 and 11 would be the views from route 96B that a motorist would
see. Mr. Frantz stated, for the record, that Figure 10 confirmed
the study that he did last year at her request, that this was the
approximate elevation of the overlook extension and as it showed
on Figure 11, it is about the elevation of the existing shrubbery
that's located just to the north of the overlook that is already
there and already blocked, and the overlook extension was not
going to block any more view, and a particular concern was the
view of the lake.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that the point was, at
the time that the overlook extension was discussed by the Board
and added on to the Preliminary Site Plan back in June or July of
• 1994, it was done conceptually on the preliminary plan and the
red line on the photos illustrates what that particular elevation
was. Mr. Kanter stated that his reaction was the same as Ms.
• Planning Board Minutes 1 20 November 21, 1995
Hoffmann's when he saw it on the photograph, and he asked Mr.
Macera and his consultants to add another possibility. Mr.
Macera stated, again, that this was totally up for discussion
before the Board because there was nothing set about the overlook
extension. Mr. Kanter suggested looking at another option that
would -taper the overlook extension down more realistically,
parallel to what the road was doing itself. Mr. Kanter stated
that is why the white line was added to the photos; it was
intended to give a comparison.
Board Member Cornell stated that she thought that extending
the overlook was one of the most important mitigating factors the
Town could do. Ms. Cornell thought that the white lines looked
better than the red one in these figures.
Director of Planning Kanter stated that this would be
something to be discussed when confirming the planning stage, as
to what actually would be approved in the plans. Mr. Kanter
stated that the thing to discuss at this meeting was whether or
not the photograph analysis as given to the Board is sufficient
enough information to begin to make judgements.
Board
camera was
Mr. M<
northbound
a car seat
Member Cornell asked how far up from the pavement the
when the photos were taken.
�Lcera replied that for Figure 10, they were driving
on the lane at a height of about three feet sitting in
looking out the window.
Board Member Cornell thought that ought to be added.
Board Member Bell stated that the overlook extension was
being promoted as the main mitigation measure for this project,
but that he did not recall much analysis of building a totally
alternate overlook instead of an extension of the present one.
Mr. Bell stated that upon examination of some of the maps, he
would suggest another alternative that would not be the big berm
that sticks out parallel to the road, but eliminating the present
overlook and using the driveway or some version of the present
driveway they are proposing and putting another overlook to the
north on the downhill side, but using their same driveway and
maybe berming up behind it between the overlook and the building
sot that the tourists would not necessarily look at the building
that much, but instead gets the view. Mr. Bell stated that this
would eliminate two curb cuts, instead of having three as is
presently proposed. Mr. Bell then asked why this had not been
examined.
Mr. Macera stated that this was a State parking area, and he
• did not think it could be eliminated. Mr. Macera stated that the
other issue was liability and safety associated with making
Ithacare's main entrance an entrance for the public to use for
Planning Board Minutes
21
other than the purposes intended.
Board Member Bell stated that those were
but that they had not been explored. Mr. Bell
could not be further explored, and stated that
that have not been examined. Mr. Bell stated
seeing this alternative mitigation measure and
saying it looks horrible.
November 21, 1995
legal assumptions,
asked why this
there are options
that the Board is
everybody is
Chairperson Smith reiterated that there would have to an
impact statement done on this anyway, and stated that he was not
sure that Mr. Bell's suggestion was appropriate.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that one problem with
having an overlook down at the entrance drive, having been on the
site, was that you are 35 feet lower than the overlook, and if
his recollection was correct, the trees and hedge row to the
north would be blocking the view of the lake.
Chairperson Smith stated that they should look at
alternatives and that it was something the Town needed to address
since it seemed that the overlook is important.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if this information was
needed as part of the FEIS, and did the Board want studies of
alternative overlook sites as part of the FEIS.
Board Member Finch stated that his impression was not that
he wanted more, but that adjusting or changing the overlook was
not an asset in dealing with the whole issue.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated, when it come time for
drafting the Findings Statement, Mr. Finch would not be in favor
of extending the overlook.
Mr. Finch responded, that is correct, based on everything
that is presented before the Board.
Assistant Town Planner asked if Mr. Bell thought that
Ithacare should look at alternative overlook sites.
Board Member Bell stated that he did not want to go that far
yet, but that he wanted to get some feeling from the board as to
whether that direction might be appropriate. Mr. Bell stated
that until he saw that picture the issue had not really struck
him. Mr. Bell stated that he did not think that the overlook
extension would be a very good alternative mitigation.
Board Member Hoffmann asked how much one
see from the elevation indicated by the white
may not be much of a view if one stood at that
Hoffmann stated that was the point of raising
would be able to
line and that it
level. Ms.
it to the level of
• Planning Board Minutes
the red line, so that one
place of the one that was
overlook.
Board Member Cornell
line would be helpful and
asked if Ithacare could p
would be helpful.
22 November 21, 1995
would be able to get a good view in
being lost if looking from the
asked if more information on the white
of interest to the Board. Ms. Cornell
rovide a cone view if the Board felt it
Board
Member
Finch
stated that
this
did not
make a
mitigating
impact
on the
problem in
this
discussion.
Board Member Cornell stated that she felt that it did
mitigate it to some extent.
Board Member Finch stated, given the amount of dirt that
would have to be moved, and putting up of a barrier there, to
obtain a bit of earth that people don't stop on that much anyway
did not seem that important.
Board Member Bell agreed with Mr. Finch and stated that he
thought that there were other ways of approaching this besides
the relocation of the whole thing. Mr. Bell suggested a tower,
something that you could walk into that would get the elevation
• instantly. Mr. Bell stated that there might be other structures
or something else besides the big berm or earth embankment.
Town Planner Kanter pointed out there were more issues that
just the overlook, but also the view from the road and the whole
area. Mr. Kanter stated that a tower would bring up all sorts of
new issues.
Board Member James Ainslie stated that a number of meetings
ago they encountered a gentleman who checked into the DOT. Mr.
Ainslie stated that the NYS DOT has a parking lot in Wilseyville,
one outside of Danby and this one. Mr. Ainslie stated that John
Krout, in one of his letters, stated that they were talking about
having Ithacare be built in close proximity to a parking area,
not a scenic overlook. Mr. Ainslie stated that this areas has
never been labelled a scenic overlook, this was put in by the DOT
as a parking area, and was never designed as a scenic overlook.
Mr. Ainslie stated that he goes by that parking area and that it
resembles the same parking area in the discussion.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if the Board wanted
staff and Ithacare to go back and look at alternative overlook
sites as part of the FEIS.
Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he did not feel that
• was needed. Mr. Finch made a MOTION that the information in the
plan as it's presented is sufficient for the evaluation of the
overlook.
A
Planning Board Minutes
23
The MOTION was seconded by James Ainslie,
November 21, 1995
Board Member Hoffmann suggested that the money that might
have been spent on building the overlook could be spent to try to
lower the whole building instead, which would be a better way of
improving the view.
Board Member Finch stated that he would be more interested
in putting the money into the building in some way than in the
overlook.
Chairperson Smith asked if there were any further comments
regarding the motion before the Board. There being none, he
called for a vote.
Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox.
Nay - Bell.
Abstain - Hoffmann.
Town
Planner
Kanter stated that
for
the December 5th meeting
they
will
have a
draft
resolution
for
the
Board to consider.
Chairperson Smith declared the discussion of the Ithacare
Center Senior Living Community Environmental Impact Statement
® duly closed at 9:10pm.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR PROPOSED
MODIFICATIONS AT LAKESIDE NURSING HOME, 1229 TRUMANSBURG ROAD /NYS
ROUTE 96, SAID MODIFICATIONS TO CONSIST OF THE ADDITION OF +/-
5,000 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR SPACE FOR STORAGE AND LOUNGE AREAS,
INTERIOR RENOVATIONS, NEW BUILDING ENTRANCE COURT AND PEDESTRIAN
FACILITIES, COURTYARDS AND OTHER LANDSCAPING, AND 50 ADDITIONAL
PARKING SPACES, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, DAVID E. BARLOW, OWNER;
JOHN BARRADAS, WILLIAM DOWNING ASSOCIATES, AGENT,
John Barradas, Architect, William Downing Associates, stated
that they were hired to do a master plan for the Lakeside Nursing
Home. Mr. Barradas stated that Lakeside is a 260 existing -bed
facility. He stated that over the years there has been a need
for some renovation. At first there were 80 beds and then in 1974
there was an addition. According to zoning such a facility
should not exist but it is there. Mr. Barradas stated that after
speaking with several planners, they were advised to show the
intent of the master plan when an amendment to the R15 could be
made so at least the Board had their intent. Mr. Barradas stated
that this has not materialized in terms of more than a master
plan due to the Certificate of Need (CON) application made to the
State which is due sometime this December, at which time the
owner, Mr. David Barlow, will be submitting his credentials along
with what he intends to do with it. He explained that in the
beginning it started out as a major renovation but that now they
were facing the reality of what the owners could afford, so the
Planning Board Minutes 24 November 21, 1995
extent of renovation has been scaled down to 5 million dollars,
down from the original 12 million. He stated that there might
be a contradiction on one of the pages where they call for an
addition of 5,000 square feet; this had changed; they would be
keeping pretty much to the original footprint of the building and
renovations would be within the envelope of what is there in
terms of the building. In terms of parking, he stated that this
was tricky because they don't have enough. They are suggesting
an addition of 50 parking spaces. There will also be a covered
walkway at the entryway, but it will not entail additions of
square feet to a liveable heated space.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz pointed out the
existing parking areas on an illustration, and stated that they
were proposing to add parking across the back of the property and
they will reconfigure their existing parking lot.
• Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that nine feet is the
acceptable width for a standard parking space, and that he
believes that the wider ones are for handicapped spaces.
Chairperson Smith asked about the drive - through from the
smaller parking area to get to the larger one, and asked if that
would be wide enough.
Mr.
it would
Mr.
Barradas
stated that it was currently 30 -60 degree
parking,
would
have
and they
were suggesting that 90 degree parking would
utilize
wanted a
valet parking.
residents.
that space
more efficiently. The spacing between aisles
is
a comfortable
60 feet for medium -sized cars, and the stalls
are
nine
feet. Mr.
Barradas stated that handicapped parking would
be
labelled,
and
everything else would be open.
• Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that nine feet is the
acceptable width for a standard parking space, and that he
believes that the wider ones are for handicapped spaces.
Chairperson Smith asked about the drive - through from the
smaller parking area to get to the larger one, and asked if that
would be wide enough.
Mr.
it would
Barradas
be a gentle
stated that yes, they would be
slope. The cut was meant to
re- grading it so
be as much cut
as there
wanted to
would
have
be
an
fill. He stated that when they
entry read like an entry and as
did this they
such they
wanted a
valet parking.
residents.
drop -off,
Beyond
an entry through a courtyard,
it he indicated another courtyard
almost like
for the
Board Member Robert Kenerson asked if they were planning any
upgrading or changes to the landscaping.
Mr. Barradas stated that they wanted to screen some things
and that some trees could be seen in the sketch.
Board Member Cornell stated
the exterior was an excellent id
making these environments homier
e the interior would be great too,
budget. Ms. Cornell stated that
aesthetically.
that she thought that upgrading
ea for residents and visitors by
and anything they could do on
if it could be done on a low -
it was not very nice inside
Planning Board Minutes 25 November 21, 1995
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that one of the things
he discovered in reviewing the Zoning Ordinance was that Lakeside
currently has 92 spaces, but the Town Zoning requires 130 spaces,
so it is actually deficient in parking from the standpoint of the
zoning ordinance. Mr. Frantz stated that they are encountering
problems with parking on lawns already.
Mr. Barradas stated that the owner came to them and said
that they had parking problems with shifts that were ending, and
with Thursdays in particular in that people could not come in
and get their checks. Mr. Barradas and his associates suggested
mailing the checks to banks for pick -up. Apparently they tried
it and it did not work, but it can still be done. The major
issue is that there are 260 beds and there are 280 staff members,
on three different shifts. He stated that most of the staff
members did not reside in the County, but in outlying counties.
Mr. Barradas had suggested car - pooling or public transit, but
this was not feasible given the distances between the counties in
question. Then they discussed the idea of buying land. The
available land was not easily developed in terms of cost and
environment. The embankment to the east is so pronounced that it
would have been even more costly to get the grades to work
properly, even if they were able to buy the land. That left them
with the land to the north. They said that they could paid for
the land if the owner was willing to sell.it, but he was not.
Mr. Barradas stated that they were called because there was a
cafeteria that is not workable and after conversations, they
stated that a master plan was needed and asked if they could
prepare it. Mr. Barradas stated that they did a master plan and
a feasibility study and that led to the C.O.N, proposal that they
have a deadline for. Mr. Barradas stated that these are the
steps that were followed to get him to this point.
Board Member
Bell asked if there was any
way to rent
their
parking space from
the church next door at a
time when it
was not
in use, and then
to walk across a bridge that
would need /to
be
built, to get to
Lakeside.
Mr. Barradas
stated that they had asked
the owner about
building a bridge,
and that there is a right
of way next
to the
land.
Board Member Cornell asked if there was a problem with
building more parking space.
Mr. Barradas stated that it would save money and space not
to have to.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that for them to do any
• less than 130 spaces means they are not in compliance with Town
Zoning, Mr. Frantz stated that if they are proposing 140 spaces,
to be in compliance with the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinances
• Planning Board Minutes 26 November 21, 1995
they need 130 spaces, so it comes down to saving ten spaces.
Chairperson Smith stated that the point was whether they
even were to consider that it needs 130 spaces, because they have
an obvious need.
Board Member Cornell stated that they need spaces and asked
if Mr. Barradas had explored borrowing the church's parking lot.
Mr. Barradas replied that building a bridge would be
costlier than the spaces seen in the illustrations. He stated
that environmentalists would have their time with them because
they would be going over a creek and they would be affecting a
natural stream.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he thought there was
another problem in that Lakeside works seven days a week. The
church uses its parking lot on Saturdays.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he thought the
biggest problem with the idea of utilizing the church parking lot
was human behavior, in that anybody on Thursdays is going to head
to the Lakeside parking lot first, to try to grab that last
parking space.
• Mr. Barradas stated that he has seen people waiting for
spaces, waiting along that road.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that therefore people
would pull into Lakeside, find out it's full, and come back out
making a left hand turn and going back into the church parking
lot.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that it disturbed her that
parking would have to built for people to come in and pick up
their paychecks.
Mr. Barradas replied that they were not building parking for
that reason, that was only an exacerbation of the situation. He
stated that there is staff parking that they are accounting for.
He stated that he could get statistics from Bob Bean, the
Facilities Engineer, who has done surveys. Ignoring the Thursday
problem, just dealing with the daily three shifts is a problem,
with the exception of the 12 -3 am shift, which is the only time
where parking is not a problem. He stated that in the other two
shifts, people will park on the driveway, wait until late at
night when most of the visitors have left, and then staff will
come out during their shifts to move their cars to the open
spaces.
Board Member Cornell stated that there are visitors everyday
who stay for several hours.
Planning Board Minutes
Mr. Barradas stated that
(260) was causing the problem.
27
November 21, 1995
they heard that the number of beds
Chairperson
Smith
asked
if they were planning on phasing the
project or on
building
all
at
once.
Mr. Barradas replied that it was only to be 5 million
dollars worth of work and that there was a lot of work to be done
and that this was only a sketch phase, and that they needed to
calculate the drainage in order to see if they will be required
to have the retention pond for the drainage. He stated that
there were some sewer pipes that were incorrectly drawn in the
T.G. Miller drawing that have since been moved. He stated that if
it becomes so expensive that they are losing money on the
interior renovations, parking will be the first aspect to be
shortened. As necessary as it is, the interior renovations are
more important.
Board Member Wilcox stated a concern about side yard setback
which seemed to be only about 10 feet. Mr. Wilcox stated that he
was also concerned about the width of the driveway through to the
100 spaces, because that would be like a road, not just a pull in
and pull out space.
• Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it should be a
minimum of twenty feet. He then stated that Lakeside exists by
grant of a number of variances and that it was not allowed in the
R -15 district. When it was first proposed in 1964 apparently
two- thirds of the parcel was in the R -30 zoning district.
Sometime since then the boundary line has been moved so it is
entirely within an R15 district. Mr. Frantz referred to his memo
where they discussed how to resolve this issue. He suggested
that perhaps what the Town could do would be to take the
provisions for nursing homes out of the R30 district regulations,
i.e. they are allowed by special approval of the ZBA, and have
the same provisions for R15 zones, that is, allow nursing and
convalescent homes by special approval of the ZBA. Otherwise
Lakeside would have to come in and get yet another variance for
the proposed expansion. He explained that the logic behind
changing Town law was that it was a use that was already deemed
appropriate in the R30 districts and that perhaps it was also an
appropriate use in the R15 districts, and he was referring to any
nursing home, not just Lakeside.
Board Member Cornell asked Mr. Frantz if he was suggesting
that the Board recommend to the Town Board that this use be
allowed in R15.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that if the Board
is thought it was appropriate, they could make that recommendation
to the Town Board.
is Planning Board Minutes 28 November 21, 1995
Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked Mr. Barradas what their
time frame was.
Mr. Barradas stated that some things in the interior were
already being implemented, such as laundry equipment, but that
the general time frame was within the next two years.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was bothered to see so
much parking and so little other land left over, but she
understood why this was the case.
Ms. Cornell stated that the surrounding land to the east was
open for the time being.
Chairperson Smith declared the discussion of the Lakeside
Sketch Plan duly closed.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS.
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Candace Cornell
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby
does adopt the following as its schedule of Regular Meetings for
the Year 1996. Unless otherwise notified, all meetings will be
held on the first and third Tuesday, commencing at 7:30 p.m.
FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH
January 9, 1996
February 6, 1996
March 5, 1996
April 2, 1996
May 7, 1996
June 4, 1996
July 2, 1996
August 6, 1996
September 3, 1996
October 1, 1996
November 5, 1996
SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH
January 23, 1996
February 20, 1996
March 19, 1996
April 16, 1996
May 21, 1996
June 18, 1996
July 16, 1996
August 20, 1996
September 17, 1996
October 15, 1996
November 19, 1996
• December 3, 1996 December 17, 1996
• Planning Board Minutes 29 November 21, 1995
Board Member Bell stated that he was pleased to see that the
Jewish holidays have been avoided in the schedule, and wanted to
express his appreciation for that.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox,
Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 17, 1995.
MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie:
RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Meeting of October 17, 1995, be and hereby are approved as
written.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
o Aye - Smith, Cornell, Finch, Ainslie, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Hoffmann.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter gave an update on Dr. Thompson.
He stated that he had spoken with the architect who designed the
lighting and he had indicated that Dr. Thompson was concerned
about the lighting concerns and would like to do something about
it. The architect suggested that if the Board Members who were
concerned about this would like to go out with him and look at
the lights, there might be some options they could explore, one
of which could be simply reducing the wattage of the bulbs, or
adding some kind of hooded fixtures around the lights to direct
the light where it is needed.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she was not certain that
focussing the light would be helpful, because the issue was the
brightness as it bounces off the walls.
Town Planner Kanter invited Board Members, in particular Mr.
Bell and Ms. Hoffmann to join him some evening with the architect
eat Dr. Thompson's office.
Both Board Members Hoffmann and Bell agreed to go to the
• Planning Board Minutes 30 November 21, 1995
site with Mr. Kanter, and they were to schedule that at a later
time.
Town Planner Jonathan Kanter stated that he needed some
feedback regarding a possible ISTEA grant It would be a joint
City -Town grant application for a bicycle - pedestrian trail that
they have had in their Parks and Open Space Plan for quite some
time. It would be a linkage between Buttermilk Falls State Park
and the new South Hill Recreation Way. It would provide an
important connection. He stated that the deadlines are
approaching and that the City was working on putting it together.
Assistant Town Planner George Frantz indicated the proposed
location on a map showed to the Planning Board Members, Mr.
Frantz stated that the project included a bridge for both
pedestrians and bicycles over Elmira Road and that it would
terminate in Negundo Woods and it would ultimately tap into the
New York State's Black Diamond Trail, Mr. Frantz stated that the
railroad grade is intact up to about 1/3 of the way through the
Emerson Complex as you are coming from the south, and from that
point there are lots of obstructions, including piping and
building foundations. He stated that it was possible to thread
the path through the Emerson Complex, but that it was a matter of
working out some of the design details. Emerson owns from Stone
• Quarry Road to Aurora Street. The Finger Lakes State Park owns
from Stone Quarry all the way down around to the inlet.
Town Planner Kanter explained that the grant was 800
Federal, and that the City's estimate for the above - mentioned
bridge was about $135,000.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Finger Lakes
State Park was providing the right of way. At that point it was
not clear who was going to be doing the construction design.
Board Member Ainslie asked about barriers across roads in
the proposed project.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the plan was that
the State would purchase these barrier lands from NYSEG. He
stated that on this land it was posted as NO TRESPASSING.
Town Planner Kanter stated that estimates for this project
were at $600,000.
Board Member Ainslie asked what the effect was on their tax
rate.
Town Planner Kanter reiterated that 800 of it came from the
• federal government, and the other part was a 200 local match
minimum, split between the City and the Town, and can be done in
services, not just in funds.
• Planning Board Minutes 31 November 21, 1995
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the value of a
donation of an easement or right of way by Emerson can be
included as part of the local match.
Board Member Ainslie suggested that the bike riders pay a
fee to build it.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the Town currently
spends about $50,000 a year in capital improvements. This would
be one year's capital improvements spending by the Town Parks
Department,
Board Member Ainslie asked if anybody had ever done a survey
of the percentage of bike riders as compared to the total
population.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that about 3 -50 of the
users would be bicyclists.
Board Member Cornell stated that those trails were used by
pedestrians.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that on an average day,
he could stand by the South Hill Trail in any ten minute period
and see 20 people walk, jog or bike by.
Town Planner Kanter stated that the Ithaca- Tompkins County
Transportation Council would have to do some kind of a TIP
(Transportation Improvement Program) amendment. This particular
trail is also in the new county trail study that the MPO has
nearly completed, so it has a lot of substantiation in terms of
its priority and need and that is very helpful in terms of the
grant proposal, and also that this is a joint Town and City
application. He stated that part of the high cost of the project
included the bridge, the Emerson part and Mr. Frantz added that
where it will cross Stone Quarry Road, there is a need to rebuild
that 200 feet of Stone Quarry Road where it crosses the old
railroad grade. He stated that the bridge would be twice as wide
as the suspension bridge across the road from Thurston Avenue,
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the path would be
paved, and at a minimum ten feet wide oil and stone paved
surface. The difference between this path and the South Hill
Recreation Way (which is mostly unpaved crushed stone) is that
the latter is used far less than they anticipate the former to be
used. This project is a transportation route.
Town Planner Kanter stated that there was another project
they were considering which was a separate application from the
Town only. Although it was not likely, he stated that they were
looking at the possibility of doing a project in the Eastern
Heights area.
•
Planning Board Minutes
32
November 21, 1995
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that this one also had
been in the Town's planning since at least 1984. It would be
another paved bike path starting at the intersection of Honness
Lane and Pine Tree Road and going behind the homes along Snyder
Hill Road, up behind the homes in the Eastern Heights
neighborhood and would essentially connect Regency Lane and Park
Lane. He stated that they would like to have it go all the way
to Tudor Park where it could then come out on Park Lane. He
indicated that this would be helpful to bicyclists in terms of
avoiding congestion and emerging on Slaterville Road. He stated
that it would include the extension of a walkway from the
intersection of Pine Tree Road and Snyder Hill Road down to the
path on Honness Lane. They are also considering adding bike
lanes and a walkway similar to the one along Mitchell Street to
Honness Lane. He stated that this project ties right into East
Ithaca Recreation Way which already is used extensively by
commuters. He stated that they were also looking at the
possibility of going along the western boundary of Trinity
Lutheran Church's property to have a path to Westview Lane. He
stated that a donated easement by the property owners had been
offered to the Town.
Town Planner Kanter stated that an important element about
these grants is the clear demonstration of public participation,
and if either project goes ahead they will have to hold public
meetings before the application is finalized.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there had been
some discussion with two property owners who control the land
between the Baldwin and Colle property and Tudor Park. They were
amenable to discussing granting the Town an easement. The cost of
this project was estimated at $150,000. If an ISTEA grant is
acquired then the cost would be reduced to $30,000 with the 800
federal fund contribution. He then stated that some people had
concerns about trespassing and that he had already pointed out to
them the things they had done on South Hill, such as fences and
gates. He stated that another advantage to this project was the
potential for correcting some of the storm water problems. He
stated that the stream he indicated on the map carried an
enormous amount of storm water runoff from Eastern Heights and
that this was a problem for the property owners. There was a
possibility of some detention structures along the trail.
MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Candace Cornell:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board endorse the
submission of an ISTEA grant application for the proposed William
and Hannah Pew bikeway and improvements on Maple Avenue, and the
submission of an ISTEA grant application for the proposed
• Buttermilk Gateway Bicycle Path.
0
•
Planning Board Minutes
33
November 21, 1995
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a
vote.
Aye - Smith, Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox,
Bell.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Smith stated that his appointment was up at the
end of this year and he was not going to ask to be reappointed.
In lieu of that he stated that he had asked Mr. Ainslie and Mr.
Finch and Mr. Wilcox to serve on a committee to try and nominate
a new Chairperson. He stated that at the next meeting they would
have to appoint two Planning Board Members to serve on a search
committee with two Town Board Members to fill Mr. Wilcox's
position, because the term expires on December 31, 1995,
Chairperson Smith asked for two members of the Planning Board to
volunteer for the said committee.
Board Member Candace Cornell and Board Member Eva Hoffmann
volunteered to serve on the committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the November 21,
1995, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly closed.
Respectfully submitted,
Starr Hays,
Recording Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
Mary Bryant,
Administrative Secretary,
1/23/96.srh
Transcribed:
Emily J. Harpp
Temporary Employee in absence of
Recording Secretary Starr Hays,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.