HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-12-05The
Tuesday,
Ithaca,
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
DECEMBER 5, 1995
FILED
TOWN ,,OFF�, ,IIT��HACA
bit c::),/24
Clergy 1 S,6
Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
December 5, 1995, in Town Hall, 12G East Seneca Street,
New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, Eva Hoffmann, Candace Cornell,
Fred Wilcox, Herbert Finch, James Ainslie, Robert
Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of
Planning), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner) , Dan
Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney).
ALSO PRESENT: Virginia Bryant, John
Doell, Dan Berkowit
Noetscher, Nino Lama
Dana Batley, Peter Vc
Donald Lucenti, Mark
Ostman
Yntema,
z, Kri:
Kevin
>orkees,
Macera,
Anne Butler, Jennifer
;tina Bartlett, Fred
Harlin, Noel Desch,
Micheal A. Robinson,
J. A. Cimmino, Nancy
Chairperson Smith declared the meeting duly opened at 7:38
p.m. and accepted, for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of
Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town
Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 27, 1995, and November 29,
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 December 1, 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, and declared this
segment of the meeting duly closed.
Chairperson Smith stated that the first agenda item that was
scheduled for tonight's meeting was to be the Ithacare proposal for
further consideration of acceptance of the Statement of Findings,
and the second item was a sketch plan review. Chairperson Smith
stated that the Board would be reviewing the projects in the
reverse order, and that both parties have been notified of this
change. Chairperson Smith stated that the Board would spend
approximately half an hour on the sketch plan review and then look
at the Ithacare FEIS.
e Planning Board Minutes 3 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
asked
if there were comments
on any
of those three factors from the
Board
Members. Chairperson
Smith
asked if there was any concern
about
the Cornell access and
right
of way.
Town Planner Kanter stated that as he understood it, Cornell
apparently is willing to place permanent deed restrictions on the
land that would be given them, and there are currently two rights
of access to the existing Cornell land, one comes in off of Culver
Road by a 50 foot wide access strip, and recently there had been
added on to the eastern end of another piece, a 25 foot wide right
of way over to Hackberry Lane, which was the newer subdivision off
Coy Glen Road, Mr. Kanter stated that the main Cornell piece has
two rights of access; the only problem is that they are not great
means of access to actually get into the upper part of the
property. Mr. Kanter stated, technically from a subdivision
standpoint, as long as the two proposed parcels were to be
consolidated with the existing Cornell parcel, he did not think
that the Board should have a problem with creating those new
parcels, they would not be land - locked parcels per se, but the
question of physical access is another question.
Ms.
Ostman stated that
Cornell does need
access to the gift
property
from John Babcock.
Ms. Ostman stated
that as Mr. Kanter
® pointed out, Cornell does have legal access but as far as taking
classes into the Glen or for researchers to get access to it, this
would not work very well. Ms. Ostman stated that John Babcock has
offered Cornell a right of way across a small road that currently
goes into the property, which could serve as an access. The other
suggested access is at the far western edge of the Babcock
property. Ms. Ostman stated that either of those would be
acceptable to Cornell. Ms. Ostman stated that she had language on
the deed restriction as well, basically what Cornell and John
Babcock have agreed to in principle is that Cornell would be
amiable to a deed provision that the parcel conveyed would remain
a study area for Cornell, permanently protected from development.
Chairperson Smith spoke about park land set -aside and how the
Board would view this dedication with regards to that and
development of the other parcel.
Board Member Candace Cornell stated that it seemed to her that
if there was future development they would not require any more
open space set - aside; however, if there was a highly concentrated
subdivision that went in, it would probably be necessary to supply
a small park. Ms. Cornell asked if there was another park in the
immediate area.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the only parks in
• the vicinity for that area of the Town in the Park and Open Space
Plan are the community type, and they already have the one on
Bostwick Road as part of the Glendale Farms Subdivision across from
• Planning Board Minutes 4 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
the school bus garage, and then one central park to the north of
Glenside.
Board Member Cornell asked if the one on Bostwick was going to
be a very large park.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that it would be 8.5
acres.
Board Member Cornell stated that this
in lieu of a park dedication and she would
kind of gift - giving. Ms. Cornell stated
planned parks in the area, she thought that
both requirements,
would probably suffice
like to encourage this
that since they have
the Board should waive
Board Member Hoffmann stated that this sounded reasonable,
and that there might be some parts of the remaining land that could
be too steep for development and so might have to be excluded, but
from having walked it, this was not very obvious.
Board Member Ainslie asked if they actually maintained the
woodland part like a woodlot or if they just let the trees grow.
•
Mr. Batley stated tY
it was seeded over, and
thinned at one point in
like part of the parcel
years ago,
iat they would be letting the trees go once
that the steeper part of the parcel was
time. Mr. Batley stated that it looked
being deeded has been thinned about 20
Board Member Ainslie asked if, as far as access, they would
actually go in and take timber out.
Mr. Batley answered no; he stated that he had done a timber
thinning on the rest of the wooded property for Mr. Babcock two
years ago, and when that was done they flagged the natural set -
aside area and stayed outside of that parcel, and that part of the
parcel has not been thinned for 25 or 30 years. Mr. Batley stated
that the intent with Cornell was to have it be a forest that they
could use for study and not for management or production. The
trees in that area are about 80 to 90 years old and are not too
deteriorated.
Ms. Cornell asked Mr. Batley if he had a recommendation on an
appropriate place for a right of way.
Mr. Batley stated that if an additional right of way was
required, they would have a contiguous piece all the way through,
and to get to one side you would have to go through the Glen. Mr.
• Batley stated that the most useable access would be a strip taken
from the far western border.
• Planning Board Minutes 2 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED
SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 31 -1 -14, CONSISTING OF
A TOTAL OF 101 + /- ACRES, INTO THREE LOTS, LOCATED AT 230 CULVER
ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30. JOHN BABCOCK, OWNER; DANA BATLEY,
AGENT,
Chairperson
Smith
declared the above -noted
matter duly opened
at 7:40 p.m. and
read
aloud from the agenda as
noted above.
Nancy Ostman of the Cornell Plantations, and Dana Batley from
the Empire State Forestry Service, introduced themselves to the
Planning Board, Town staff, and the members of the public that were
present at this meeting.
Mr. Batley stated that he was the Agent for John Babcock. He
explained that Mr. Babcock owns a parcel of land off Culver Road,
and Cornell owns some surrounding pieces. Mr. Batley stated that
Mr. Babcock would like to subdivide his parcel so that he may deed
that portion of his parcel that consists of a steep slope down to
the creek at the bottom of Coy Glen to Cornell University. Mr.
Batley stated that although they had not surveyed it yet, it is
about 30 acres out of the total, and topography -wise it is a fairly
steep slope going down to the creek bed at the bottom, and is quite
• unique in that it consists of timber that has not been thinned in
a long time. Mr. Batley stated that Mr. Babcock would like to deed
this land to Cornell in order to preserve it and prevent any future
development. Mr. Batley stated that they were therefore looking
for a subdivision for that parcel in order to execute this plan.
Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that a number of
staff, Planning Board and Conservation Board members actually
walked the site with either Ms. Ostman or Mr. Batley and that the
proposed boundary was flagged out on the site so it was clear where
the ridge lines separating the drainage basins occurred and that
they tried to follow, keeping the steeper slopes in the land that
would be donated to Cornell. Mr. Kanter stated that the critical
environmental area was designated pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, Mr. Kanter pointed out how steep
it was and then indicated the overall boundary of the Babcock
parcel around the two proposed parcels to be donated to Cornell.
Mr. Kanter stated that this particular map /illustration had been
done to determine how closely the flagged boundaries at the site
corresponded to the edge of the critical environmental area and in
most cases they came out quite close.
Chairperson Smith stated that in a memo to the Board Members
from Town Planner Kanter, he had outlined three particular items to
be considered (among others) in this project. These are the
• frontage or access on Culver Road of the lot to be given to
Cornell, as well as the park land set -aside and environmental
review action when this comes before the Board. Chairperson Smith
• Planning Board Minutes 5 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
Ms. Ostman stated that Cornell would like an access, but it
would not need to be a road, just something that would allow a
class to walk the property without trespassing or causing problems
in the future.
Mr. Batley stated that you could see the topography on the map
and that where the right of way would go into the gorge it is
nearly flat, and that would probably be the best place to put a
right of way.
Ms. Ostman stated that Plantations has a number of right of
ways that are 25 feet wide and they have found that this is
somewhat too narrow and poses some problems. Ms. Ostman stated
that Cornell is aiming for a right of way that is closer to 50 feet
in width, and that if John Babcock is agreeable to that, this is
the Plantations preference.
Board Member Cornell asked if there was any reason not to have
the normal 60 foot road frontage so it would not be a land locked
piece of property.
Ms. Ostman answered that there was no reason not to but there
was no reason to either, and that 50 feet would be adequate.
Board Member Kenerson asked what the access was to the current
Cornell property, open to the public or just to Cornell.
Ms, Ostman stated that all of Cornell' s natural areas are open
in the sense that they have never turned anyone away from them, but
they don't necessarily encourage a lot of public use either.
Cornell tries to maintain them mostly for educational purposes.
For example, at McLean, they have classes from about 10 -15
different educational institutions in the area using it, including
high and grade schools, but they try to keep them in educational
uses so that there is someone along who is a guide and can
encourage appropriate use.
Board Member Wilcox stated, for the record, that he walked
the property and saw the flagging and he was very happy with the
outline of the boundaries that were chosen.
Town Planner Kanter indicated the pieces to be donated by
Cornell on the map and explained that one piece is near an existing
gravel pit area, which was omitted from the parcel to be given to
Cornell. On the other side he indicated a jog in the property that
follows an existing fence line, and in actuality the critical
environmental area comes more angling across that jog, and that is
one area that they might want to consider modifying that part of
® the boundary. Mr. Kanter stated that at the very northwestern end
the critical environmental area pretty much keeps going straight
across at a point he indicated on the map, and looking at the
® Planning Board Minutes 6 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
topography on that CEA map, this is a fairly gentle slope and is
fairly developable property and why the critical environmental area
was drawn that way was not clear and might need to be looked at
more closely. (Copy of above - mentioned map is hereto attached as
Exhibit #2)
Board Member Cornell stated that even if the remaining parcel
is in the CEA or within the 200 foot boundary, it does not prohibit
development, it merely has to be done under a little extra
scrutiny.
Mr. Batley stated that the red line where they walked was not
set in stone. Mr. Batley stated that he thinks that Mr. Babcock
would like the parcel that he is left with not to have further
restrictions on it. Mr. Batley stated that Mr. Babcock does not
have any particular plans for it, but he would like to have it as
free and clear as possible and not in the CEA.
Board
Member Cornell
stated that some of
that property will be
in the CEA
and most
of it
will be within the
200 foot buffer area,
but there
might be
some
provisions for setbacks away from that
line. Ms.
Cornell
stated
that the Town can
not predict 20 years
from now what other
restrictions might come
up.
Town Planner Kanter stated that the main reason to bring in
the sketch plan was to look at the boundaries.
Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that
as much as they did, the areas with the
ones proposed to be included; areas that
retained by Mr. Babcock and whether they wE
not be as important as the slopes that are
be built upon.
in walking the property
steepest slopes are the
are more level would be
1.re in the CEA or not may
there, and what can not
Board Member Hoffmann asked if they needed to ensure that one
of the access ways is sufficient for emergency access if there is
a possibility of it being available to the public.
Board Member Cornell asked Ms. Ostman how this issue was
handled in Cornell's other preserves that do not have roads leading
into them.
Ms. Ostman answered that so far they have been lucky. She
stated that they have a number of preserves that have access ways
but don't have road access; if you were to go to McLean there is an
access way that you can get into with a four -wheel drive vehicle,
but then you are still only at the edge of the forest and someone
involved in an accident could still be a mile and a half away from
S the road. That is generally true of all of their natural areas.
There is road frontage, but once you are into Ringwood Preserve,
for example, you could be a mile and a half from that road and
® Planning Board Minutes 7 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
there is no way to provide that kind of security that you could
guarantee access and this situation is similar. She stated that
they do have some areas that they don't discourage the general
public from using, for example, Monkey Run Trail; which used to be
a road, but in general they try to keep their areas for classes and
research.
Attorney Barney stated that if it is done as two pieces as
shown, there can not be any further subdivision without coming back
before the Board so that if 100 years from now Cornell decides they
do not want to maintain it as a natural area, and subdivide it,
that would be dealt with at that point in time.
Town Planner Kanter stated that it seemed to him that this
could now go to the point of survey detail and be brought back to
the Board for preliminary and final approval in one meeting.
Chairperson Smith declared the discussion duly closed at 8:10
p.m.
AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF ITHACARE SENIOR
LIVING COMMUNITY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE
PROPOSED FACILITY TO CONSIST OF A 115,000 +/- SQUARE FOOT BUILDING
WITH 60 ADULT CARE UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80
INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DANBY
ROAD APPROXIMATELY 2,000 FEET SOUTH OF THE ENTRANCE TO ITHACA
COLLEGE ON THAT 28 +/- ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO,
39 -1 -1.3 DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT N0.7. ITHACARE
CENTER, INC., APPLICANT; MARK MACERA, AGENT.
Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened
and stated that discussion had last left off regarding the overlook
extension and its possible mitigating impact.
Board Member James Ainslie stated that the Board had made
Ithacare jump through hoops by trying to move them down the hill,
causing them problems with sewer and various other concerns because
of view, and that he did not think that the Town had a law that had
any definition of what a "view" is. Mr. Ainslie stated that he
thought that the idea of the view being the central part of pushing
Ithacare down the hill is inappropriate because there is no law
that is being broken. Mr. Ainslie stated that he did not
understand how, in the first lawsuit, view could be considered one
of the main factors because there is no law on it in the Town of
Ithaca.
Board Member Cornell stated that the SEQR regulations do
encompass many factors and that visual impact is one of them, and
• while the Town may not have a specific law, the State SEQR
regulations include views as a consideration.
• Planning Board Minutes 8 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
Board Member Ainslie asked what these parameters were.
Attorney Barney stated that it was like any other
environmental consideration,.and whether or not it has an impact,
they do not define impact in terms of specifics. Attorney Barney
stated that it would only lead to the discussion of whether some
particular action has an impact on a particular aspect of the
environment that is significant, and if so, how it can be
mitigated. Attorney Barney stated that there is no actual law in
the Town, but when the Town undertakes or approves any action, they
have to consider its impact on the environment and that is what
this process has all been about. Attorney Barney stated that he
tended to agree with Mr. Ainslie regarding the first lawsuit.
Board Member Ainslie stated that he exercises at the County
Hospital
three
times a week, and parks in front of the
Doctor's
Building,
which
is four stories. He stated that it has
to be
there, you
couldn't
take those four stories and spread
them all
over West
Hill
because there are ravines, and you have
to put a
building
there.
Mr. Ainslie stated that it just does
not seem
possible
to make Ithacare pump sewage uphill over the
issue of
three or eight feet.
S Board Member Herbert Finch asked if they wanted to press to
the point of a vote on the existence of the extension of the
overlook as the mitigating factor.
Mr. Kanter suggested that they wait until after the FEIS is
accepted, but that the key for the evening was, for purposes of
accepting the FEIS, is has what's been provided in the draft and
the FEIS adequate to make those decisions. Mr. Kanter stated that
he wanted to reiterate that on Figure 10, the two variations of the
overlook extension, he thought it was clarified at the last meeting
that this photograph was taken on the eastern side of Danby Road
looking straight west across and the red line indicated a somewhat
higher grade of the overlook extension, and the white line
indicated a lower version which parallels the grade of the road
itself. Mr. Kanter thought that the photograph gave a good
representation of the two extremes and that you could work anywhere
within the framework of those elevations. Mr. Kanter stated that
he thought it would be important to identify exactly what grade the
overlook extension would be and the composition of its materials,
and issues such as that, but he did not think it was currently
necessary to know the precise slope and elevation.
Board Member Finch stated that he thought that the information
was adequate for them to make a decision.
• Board Member Hoffmann stated that the question that remained
for her to be answered was whether one in fact could see the view
from the spot which is indicated by the white line or if that is
• Planning Board Minutes 9 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
too low
to see over the trees that are
down the
hill because if
it's too
low it is not effectual as a mitigating
measure; whereas
she has
been convinced that the point
that's indicated by the
orange line
would be high enough so you
could see
the view, but to
her that is unacceptable because the
height is
too great and
obstructs
part of the view. She stated
that it was not clear that
they have the information that they need.
Board Member Finch stated that he was satisfied.
Board Member Cornell asked if they could put this discussion
off until the finding statement and decide at that time. Ms.
Cornell suggested that they move on to other topics.
The Board discussed
what
information
they
had and what
additional information they
felt
they do not
have
yet.
Chairperson Smith stated that it looked as if the majority of
the Board feels that the information that they currently have which
addresses the overlook will suffice to determine findings.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that when she looked at the new
cross - sections that they received, she had more questions. Ms.
® Hoffmann indicated that it appears that the contour line had
changed and that there would be more excavation. Ms. Hoffmann
stated that she wanted to know the reason for this.
Fred Noetscher of Kimball Associates, the Landscape Architect
for the project, addressed the Board and stated what happened
between the earlier drawing and the current one was that he had a
chance to look more carefully at the grading for the Modified
Alternate B3 and found that he had to lower the grades in front of
the building further in order to accommodate the slopes that they
have there, and parking. Mr. Noetscher stated that Mr. Macera had
asked that these roads be maintained at 50 or less so that they can
be used by senior citizens for walking purposes. Also, 5% slope is
steep when you start getting ice. Mr. Noetscher stated that he had
to regrade a little bit more and that was what caused that front
area to go down a little bit farther.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that when looking at the
drawings, the line along which the cross - section was made goes from
the northern end of the overlook and she measured using the scales
she had from the 570 contour line, and on the latest drawing it
looks like the distance is much greater. She indicated all of this
on the drawings available at the meeting as compared to the
drawings the Board had previously received.
• Mr. Noetscher stated that the profile drawing was done with no
vertical exaggeration, in that the horizontal and vertical scales
are the same, which is why there does not appear to be a tremendous
0 Planning Board Minutes 10 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
amount of difference between the drawings. As far as the distance
from the embankment to the building goes, or the 570 contour, it
had been moved periodically as Ithacare tried to adjust the
building. Mr. Noetscher reminded her that she had asked them to
look at moving the building 50 feet and so they did a series of
sketches moving it 50 feet. As far as the amount of cut and fill
goes, Mr. Noetscher stated, generally speaking, that they would
have about the same amount of cut and fill no matter where the
building goes. With the Alternate B3, it is pushing it farther
into the site and their soil borings and reports indicate that rock
is fairly close to the surface. The farther down they go into that
rock the more the chance of it being very consolidated.
Board Member
Hoffmann
the 5o slopes,
asked
that
if,
when Mr. Noetscher said
"down in the site"
he
meant
vertically
or
westward.
Mr. Noetscher replied that he meant vertically.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the drawings do not indicate
that.
Mr. Noetscher stated that i
work your way around the corners
® to see just how much they are a
like the one provided to the
specific point in the building
example, is only along that cut
not going to be sticking out of
f you look at the actual plans and
of the building you would be able
ctually cutting. A cross - section
Board that is only good at one
The existing grade line, for
plane. Obviously the building is
grade as it appears.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that her question still remained
about whether they really need to have the slope in a point as she
indicated on the plan, coming down as steeply as it does at another
point. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it might be possible to do less
excavating, and that the parking could be arranged more like it is
for the Alternate B3, lowering the amount of excavating and the
cost.
Mr. Noetscher stated that the main control there
gradient on the main entrance drive. By adding three more
would have to travel another 100 feet or so in order to
was the
feet, he
maintain
the 5o slopes,
so consequently
they have to move away
from the
building
with the road.
Board Member Hoffmann stated
it was that much further from the
plans.
Mr. Noetscher stated that tr
® the road from the front door out
and that in each of those schemes
that the road did not look like
building in either of those two
Lis is the case when you measure
to the center line of the road,
it is different.
® Planning Board Minutes 11 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
Board Member Ainslie asked which was the design that caused no
pumping of sewage.
Mr. Noetscher stated that currently it was the drawing labeled
L1C.
Board Member Ainslie stated that this seemed a significant
factor to him.
Board
Member Cornell asked what
sort of
water run -off control
structures
were envisioned, such as
holding
ponds.
Mr. Noetscher stated that they had not gotten that far yet,
and that the Town of Ithaca requires no overall increase in cubic
feet per second, but that would be coordinated with the Town. Mr.
Noetscher stated that this site plan process more or less stopped,
and that they had been in the process of dealing with the Town with
water, sewage, and storm water run -off, as well as fire protection
at that time, but they have gone no further. Mr. Noetscher stated
that they have taken the storm water from the site, split it into
two directions, on L1C, and taking some of it north around the
building and dumping it; some of the water to the south is being
dumped out below the outlet of the path and that is where the term
® "no intrusion" came in. Mr. Noetscher stated that they tried to
make all three drawings the same.
Board Member Cornell asked if they were going to channel into
existing streams.
Mr. Noetscher stated that they intended to dump it out in the
main stream channel that runs out of the pond. Mr. Noetscher
stated that when they did the SLUD, one of the requirements was to
not impact the pond in any way. Mr. Noetscher stated that having
a retention pond, or the like, was something that the Town could
suggest they do. Mr, Noetscher stated that they are a long way
away from the Town's ditches in this particular arrangement, but
that it would be something that they could study.
Board Member Cornell stated that since that was a question
that was brought up, the Board has to receive an answer and decide
if that answer if satisfactory.
Mr. Noetscher stated that typically retention ponds are
required when you dump your site water directly into a municipal
ditch; in this case Ithacare will not be doing that.
Chairperson Smith asked that with regards to dealing with
storm water, in addressing the three configurations, does the
handling of the storm water get to be a more difficult problem with
any of them.
® Planning Board Minutes 12 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
Mr. Noetscher stated that the situation would basically be the
same in any of the configurations. Mr. Noetscher added that one
thing that they had discussed in the FEIS is that in the Modified
B3 Alternate, because the building is now lower, the lowest floor
is actually below the pond elevation, which could cause some
groundwater problems.
Board Member Hoffmann asked for a clarification regarding the
amount of excavation between the last two alternatives, B3 and
Modified B3, or was that amount to be the same.
Mr. Noetscher stated that what he meant was, if you can
imagine a slope and imagine putting a building on it, generally you
are going to be cutting out and filling about as much no matter
where you place that building along there. Mr. Noetscher stated
that the problem arises in forcing it down, because we now have to
excavate a lot more out in front of the building between the
building and 96B, a lot more of which will likely be rock, the
excavation of which is much more expensive. Mr. Noetscher stated
that in terms of volume, it is probably about the same in all three
schemes. Mr. Noetscher reiterated that the difference is the type
of material that will be excavated; rock.
® Board Member Hoffmann stated that the new chart on page six
that Board Members received says that there is a lot more
excavation needed for the modified alternative.
Mr. Noetscher stated that if she read the whole thing, it is
actually referring to more excavation between the building and 96B,
than for example in the situation of L1C. Mr. Noetscher explained
that in L1C they tried to balance the cut and fill to minimize the
cut as much as possible so that they would minimize the rock
excavation. Mr. Noetscher stated that in the Modified Alternative
B3 he is professionally speaking forced into a situation that he
would not do; he would not depress that building that way on that
site, knowing the rock excavation that they would be getting into.
Mr. Noetscher stated that they are now excavating three to four
times what they would expect to excavate between the building and
96B.
Board Member Wilcox stated that the amount of cut and fill
under the footprint of the building is essentially the same given
the three alternatives.
Mr. Noetscher stated that he did not agree with Mr. Wilcox's
statement because the volume to be moved under the Alternative B3
I
s more because they are going deeper into the ground.
Mr. Noetscher stated that the average contractor can excavate
a cubic yard of subsoil for about $5, and in rock excavating it can
vary anywhere from $50 -$125 per cubic yard, so the farther down
S Planning Board Minutes 13 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
they go into rock, the more expensive it becomes to the client.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that things were still not
consistent in what she read, and stated that in the last horizontal
column on page 6, under the Modified B3 Alternative it says that
"for building footprints, same excavation volume as Alternative B3,
but deeper in the rock" and the next vertical column it says
"adding a lower level increases the volume of material to be
excavated for Alternative B3 and Modified Alternative B3. Rock is
closer to the surface in LTB soils. Therefore anticipate a greater
volume of rock excavation in the Modified Alternative B3
footprint." But then it says "a lower entrance level for the
modified Alternative B3 will require 13,200 cubic yards additional
excavation to maintain acceptable grades for safe driveways and
parking. It is estimated that 20 -250 of this additional excavation
could be rock, that is approximately 3,000 cubic yards." She
stated that what she wanted to have clarified was whether it was
the same volume of excavation needed for both of the B3
alternatives and at one point she thought that she had heard that
this was so, but here it does not indicate that this is so. She
wondered about the figure of 13,200 cubic yards additional
excavation after having seen these plans because it seems that
there is more excavation indicated than is perhaps necessary.
Mr. Noetscher stated that they were talking about the same
things, but in two different ways. What the text states is that
more of the excavation in the 33 and the Alternate B3 in an even
greater sense, will be rock.
Chairperson Smith asked that when referring to the 13,000 as
additional cubic yards of excavation, if that is offset somewhere
else.
Mr. Noetscher stated that it was additional excavation between
the road and the front of the building because the building has
been forced deeper into the site.
Chairperson Smith asked if that meant that there was
additional excavation under the building and additional excavation
under the driveway and parking lots to get down to that level.
Mr. Noetscher stated that generally speaking, yes.
Chairperson Smith stated that it was definitely not the same
excavation.
Mr. Noetscher replied that it would probably be slightly more.
Board Member Hoffmann asked what "slightly more" meant.
Mr. Noetscher stated that it was 13,000. Mr. Noetscher stated
r,
• Planning Board Minutes 14 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
that if memory served, they were talking about an L1C and about
moving a total of 23- 25,000 cubic yards of earth that would be cut
and fill.
Board Member Cornell stated that she thought that consistency
is a problem, whatever subject they are talking about.
Board Member Bell stated that all he would like to see would
be a couple of sentences that explain what the total amount of rock
is, what the amount is under the footprint, and the amount that is
the difference from the front driveway parking lot, and those three
components are all referred to but are not clear.
Mr. Noetscher asked if basically they were looking for a chart
of calculations.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like it clarified
because she would like to feel that she has a solid foundation for
the figures of additional cost because she feels uncertain about
it.
Mr. Noetscher stated that they did an estimate of earth work
for L1C a long time ago and that had a total earth work of cut and
fill of around 23,000 cubic yards.
Attorney
Barney
stated that
would be like
a baseline,
he
stated that
they were talking
about the
increase
in rock
excavation. There was some clarification
dealing
with a
sentence
that said 112,000
cubic
yards much
of which
will
be
rock ".
Attorney
Barney stated
that it
should say
112,000 yards
of
rock ".
Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if
under comments, "...a lower entrance level
Alternative B3 will require 13,200 cubic
excavation to maintain acceptable grades for
parking." He asked if the sentence should Y
entrance level for the Modified Alternative B3
cubic yards additional excavation in the front
maintain acceptable grades for safe driveways
in the last column
for the Modified
yards additional
safe driveways and
•eally say: "lower
will require 13,200
of the building to
and parking."
Mr. Noetscher answered that this was the case.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that there was no change
in the overall amount of excavation, that it's about 23,000 cubic
yards. Mr. Frantz stated that they were just taking 200 cubic
yards more out from the area in front of the building.
Mr. Noetscher continued that most of which will probably be
® rock.
Town Engineer Daniel Walker asked for a summary of the
® Planning Board M
excavation earth
struck him that
alternative just
inutes 1
ADOPTED
work quantities
there would be
to get the grad(
5 December 5, 1995
2/20/96
for all three alternatives. It
more excavation for the lowest
�s down for the ramp excavation.
Board Member Cornell asked if Mr. Walker was asking for this
to be done in the future.
Chairperson Smith stated that this had already been done or
they would not have been able to come up with the estimates.
Town Engineer Walker asked if the question about the amount of
excavation was of concern enough for the Board to have that
information.
Board Member Cornell stated that the Board has to decide if
this is complete, and it may be complete, but it's too difficult to
follow.
Noel Desch asked if she had read page two of the supplement to
November 29, 1995, and stated that he thought that they probably
should have deviated from the wording of that because it was pretty
clear.
® Board Member Hoffmann stated that she thought that what the
text said was essentially the same that it said in the FEIS, and
again the text seems to say that the 2,000 cubic yards of material
(not rock), some of which was expected to be unconsolidated rock
that was estimated from going to be excavated with conventional
equipment. Ms. Hoffmann assumed that this meant that this would
not require blasting, and the verbal statements are still different
from the written statements. Ms. Hoffmann stated, for example, in
the SLUD #7 on page six, "the estimated excavation of 2,000 cubic
yards, some of which will be rock" should say that it's all rock,
and that is not what the text says either.
Board Member Wilcox stated that it was some rock and at B3
it's more rock and then Modified Alternative B3 is possibly still
more rock.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that the area where the parking
lots are supposed to be is on the soil which contains rock that is
further from the surface so it should be different there.
Town Engineer Walker stated that you are digging down at least
ten feet, so if the rock is 24 to 40 inches below grade, you would
be in a lot of rock.
Board Member Wilcox stated that on the page that Mr. Desch
referred to talks about excavation, the action 2,000 cubic yards,
some rock, Alternative B3, 5,000 cubic yards, maybe more rock,
Modified Alternative B3, 5,000 cubic yards, possibility of even
S Planning Board Minutes 16 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
more rock, which seems
pretty clear. Mr.
Wilcox stated that where
he gets lost is when
they then refer to
this additional
13,200
cubic yards in Modified Alternative B3.
Mr.
Wilcox stated
that he
wants an equivalent number for the Modified
Alternative B3
and the
proposed action that
matches up with
this
13,200. Mr.
Wilcox
stated that the figure
of 13,200 is sitting
with nothing to
relate
it to.
Chairperson Smith stated that he would prefer to see the
information in a table form rather than a narrative because it is
easily understood and compared.
Board Member Bell stated that ultimately, the Board is looking
at impact on the site and dividing' it up into what is under the
building and what is not under the building is not as much of a
distinction to the Board that the total is, especially when
determining the impact on the site.
Attorney Barney asked if 13,200 was additional excavation or
if it was a total.
Mr. Desch stated that he did not know the answer to that.
Michael Robinson addressed the Board and stated that it may
help the Board to consider a more important question than the
volume of this material, and that is what is this material. Mr.
Robinson stated that the term rock is used here. Mr. Robinson
stated that he helped build Route 13, which is basically the same
level as this piece of property is. Mr. Robinson stated that you
are going to find shale on this site that could be removed by a
bulldozer. Mr. Robinson stated that the term rock is misleading if
it is conceived or perceived to be granite or huge slabs of very
sedentary rock underneath. Mr. Robinson stated that it is always
possible that something might crop up, but it has not happened in
this area in recent time, particularly at that depth. Mr. Robinson
stated that there would be three to five feet of top soil and then
after it there would be shale combined with some gravel, and then
after seven or eight feet, there will be shale for another fifteen
or twenty feet.
Chairperson Smith stated that the Board wants to -see a table
showing the breakdowns, including materials and consistent units of
measure, with consistent comparisons so it is easy to make a
determination.
Board Member James Ainslie stated that he did not want to see
Ithacare have to pump sewage uphill.
Board Member Hoffmann asked if Ithacare could look at possible
reconfiguration of the parking for Modified B3 so that there would
not need to be quite as much cut and fill between the building and
® Planning Board Minutes 17 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
Route 96B,
Mr. Noetscher stated that he could look at that again, but
that their attempts were to stay away from the wetland. He then
stated that if the parking was put to the northwest of the
overlook, there would be complaints about that, because it would
infringe on the view even more.
Board Member Hoffmann illustrated her ideas about parking to
Mr. Noetscher,
Mr. Noetscher stated that he could look at that as a
possibility, but that he also needs to be concerned about grades on
the road and the other things that need to be looked at, which lead
up to the location of the parking shown on the current plans.
Board
Member Hoffmann stated
that she
would like
to see a
sketch of
an alternate layout for
parking
as
she
economic impacts as
had
described.
Board Member Finch stated that he was not in favor of the
request by Ms. Hoffmann to provide another sketch plan being
required from Ithacare.
Board Member Hoffmann stated that she did not see how they
could even look at the possibilities for parking without preparing
a sketch. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it would not be a whole sketch
plan, just a reconfiguration to see if less excavation was
possible, which would be in their best interest to investigate.
Town Engineer Walker asked what is the importance of the
excavation according to this Board at this point. Mr. Walker
stated that he did not think that excavation and fill on this
particular site was ever considered as a major environmental
question other then protecting the wetlands. Mr. Walker stated
that it is a financial issue as far as the cost alternatives to the
different buildings.
Chairperson Smith stated that Mr. Walker was correct.
Town
Engineer Walker
stated
that
the Environmental
Impact
Statement
has to take into
account
the
economic impacts as
well.
Attorney Barney stated that the Environmental Impact Statement
measures mitigation or evaluates various alternatives to mitigate
what is perceived to be the significant environmental impact.
Attorney Barney stated that the question Mr. Walker was raising, is
that the Board has a lot of information on all of the alternatives,
does the majority of this Board believe that getting the additional
® information on the amount of fill from one place to the other is
going to
affect the decision
they
may chose
to make
on the
mitigation
measures that have
been
evaluated.
Attorney
Barney
Planning Board Minutes 18 December 5, 1995
0 ADOPTED 2/20/96
stated that if
the answer to that questions is no,
then the
Board
can not make
the applicant go back and prepare
the additional
information.
Attorney Barney stated that if the
answer to
that
question is
yes, then Ithacare would need to
provide
more
information.
Noel Desch stated that if the Board wanted Ithacare to provide
the information so that there is absolutely no question about what
the numbers mean for both quantities and dollars, Ithacare would do
so. Mr. Desch stated that they were comfortable with the Planning
Board delaying this until the next meeting to allow them to provide
this information. Mr. Desch stated that they would like to find
out any additional information that the Board feels is needed.
The Board unanimously agreed that the table was a necessity to
help make a well informed decision regarding this project.
Board Member Wilcox stated that he did feel that the table was
necessary information, but that he did not feel that an additional
site plan to show alternative parking configurations was needed in
order to accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement,
The Board decided that the additional sketch plan to show
alternative parking arrangements was not necessary.
Chairperson Smith asked if there was any other information
requests that the applicants should be made aware of before
considering the FEIS as complete.
Board Member Cornell stated that she had some concerns about
drainage, and asked Mr. Walker if he felt it was necessary to
request additional drainage plans.
Town Engineer Walker stated that he is confident that this
site is large enough that they can, with proper final design of the
final drainage system, control runoff from this site, without
causing problems anywhere else, based on prelminary plans alread
reviewed. Mr. Walker stated that this site is large enough,'there
are no major impediments to provide adequate runoff control, it is
premature to ask for the final design at this stage because we do
not know where the building is going to set. Mr. Walker stated
that there is enough room to design it and the final hydrologic
design be that there be no net increase in discharge from the site
without using the pond on the site.
Board Member Fred Wilcox read from Page 29 of the FEIS, as
follows: "The Tompkins County Health Department has stated that
the stormwater collection and discharge system proposed by Ithacare
of would be satisfactory in terms of wetland protection, but that
additional measures might be needed to prevent erosion at the
discharge points. The use of rip -rap or other techniques due to
• Planning Board Minutes 19 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
storm water velocity will be approved as part of the site plan
approval." Mr. Wilcox stated that statement probably answers Ms.
Cornell's question regarding drainage information at this stage.
Mr. Macera stated that he detected a certain amount of
uneasiness in terms of trying to push an issue to reach a decision
or conclusion this evening. Mr. Macera stated that the final
acceptance of this Impact Statement is the Town's decision and this
is the Town's document. Mr. Macera stated that the draft was
submitted without adequate time to review prior to the meeting on
the 21st. Mr. Macera stated that they did not feel that there was
adequate time for review, or questions that are being asked now.
Mr. Macera stated that this is the first meeting held with enough
time for adequate, review. If the Board is not ready to form an
opinion at this meeting, then tell him what the issues are that
still need to be addressed, they will get the information together
and have prepared for the December 19, 1995 Meeting of the Planning
Board.
Chairperson Smith asked if there were any further comments
regarding the Ithacare proposal. There being none, Chairperson
Smith declared this segment of the meeting to be tabled to be
further discussed and considered at the December 19, 1995, Planning
® Board Meeting.
AGENDA ITEM: DISCUSSION OF SUGGESTED SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
AMENDMENT, ARTICLE V, REGARDING ADDITIONAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR CLUSTERED AND CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISIONS.
Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter addressed the Board and
stated that the Planning Committee referred this revision to Codes
and Ordinance Committee, who requested some direct input from the
Planning Board. The section of the Subdivision Regulations being
discussed is Article S. The proposed amendment deals with the
definition of Buildable Lands. Article 5 started out being a
section of cluster subdivision regulations. The proposed amendment
deals with the location and density of dwelling units on any given
parcel of land. Mr. Kanter stated that the basic idea of this is
to provide the Planning Board with guidance with regard to slopes,
erodible soils, wetlands, stream corridors, and other types of
building constraints. Mr. Kanter stated that there could be some
additional changes later in the process, but would like to get some
overall feed -back from the Board regarding what was provided to the
Board tonight.
Board Member Bell stated that it seemed to him that requiring
an open area of at least 10,000 square feet, which is in Paragraph
2, on the first page, seems very small, it is only a quarter of an
® acre.
Mr. Kanter stated that all of the contents of this section are
I
El
•
Planning Board Minutes 20 1 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
currently in
the Regulations except the parts
that are typed in
Boldface and
Underline.
Mr. Kanter stated
that some of the
comments have
been on those
sections of the subdivision
regulations
that are already law. Mr.
Kanter stated that
the comments were
appropriate,
but would like
them to be directed
at the changes in
question.
Board Member Wilcox stated that he would like to see the open
space requirement be larger than 10,000 square feet because it is
generally not in the Town's best interest to have a lot of little
parcels located all over, it would be better to have two or three
larger parcels than 10 smaller parcels.
Board Member
Hoffmann
stated that the
smaller
sizes
could be
trails or wildlife
corridor
or something like
that
as
well.
Board Member Finch stated that this was not talking about just
open space for parks, but for the need for some open space in a
developed subdivision. Mr. Finch stated that he did not consider
wooded land as open space.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that open space is
defined as land that is in a natural undeveloped state.
Town Planner Kanter stated
require that the open space be
than so many separate spaces.
section, `less than 30 percent',
than 10 percent'l
that there should be something to
contiguous where possible, rather
Mr. Kanter stated that, in that
is a change; it use to read, `more
Town Attorney John Barney stated that the prior generations of
legislatures were more worried about Planning Board's going wild
than they were about developers, so they put an upper limit on how
much the Planning Board could demand. Attorney Barney stated that
times have changed, and they have now put a minimum of what the
Planning Board may require. Attorney Barney stated that he had a
problem with the revision, and that is that the section of the
Subdivision Regulations that this comes from really dealt with
cluster and the requirements that are permitted by State Law which
allow the Planning Board to modify the Zoning Ordinance
requirements on such things as density, lot size, and that sort of
thing. Continuing, Attorney Barney stated, if the Planning Board
requires clustering, there is no similar authorization that allows
Planning Boards to modify the Zoning Ordinance requirements on the
conventional subdivision. Attorney Barney stated that there is a
reference in the proposed amendment that the Planning Board can,
for example, require a developer that has a lot that qualifies
under the Zoning Ordinance to not be able to build on it, and it
should be contained in the Zoning Ordinance and should not be
contained in the Subdivision Regulations. Attorney Barney stated
that he had suggested to Mr. Kanter that it revert back to deal
® Planning Board Minutes 21 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
with just the clustered subdivision in this section, and not try to
deal with conventional subdivisions in the same section, but in the
context of the Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Barney stated that the
Board must consider the areas that would be unbuildable as well,
such as wetlands, steep slopes, etc., as referred to in Paragraph
3 of the proposed amendment.
Attorney Barney stated that the Zoning Ordinance establishes
a standard as to the size of a lot, minimum frontage, and necessary
set backs; this is the standard. Attorney Barney stated that is
what the law requires. Continuing Attorney Barney stated that if
someone comes to the Board and says that they can meet that
standard, the Board does not have the authority to say that the
proposal can not be built, unless the Zoning Ordinance says in
determining whether the standard is met, the applicant must exclude
wetlands, 25 percent slopes or more, this is according to the
Zoning Ordinance standard. The Planning Board has the privilege to
deviate from those standards when one clusters, but that is what
triggers the ability to deviate from the standard.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked Attorney Barney if the
Planning Board has the authority to waive requirements of the
Subdivision Regulations including things like the 30 -foot minimum
• distance between units.
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board can waive
subdivision requirements. Attorney Barney stated that the Planning
Board can not waive Zoning Ordinance requirements except in the
context of approving a cluster subdivision.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the provision that
requires a minimum of 30 feet between buildings in a cluster
subdivision is in the Subdivision Regulations, but is not in the
Zoning Ordinance,
Board Member Bell stated that he did not think that clustered
subdivisions should require a maximum of 6 units connected or
touching, with 30 feet separation. Mr. Bell stated that having all
of the units jammed in together or the units connected to look like
one large building should be allowable without forcing this 30 -foot
requirement, because it would allow for more open space.
Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he thinks they are
allowable provided that the developer can make a good case for it,
by convincing the Planning Board to grant a waiver.
Attorney Barney stated that the 30 foot requirement has
existed in the Regulations for quite a while and the houses that
® may be closer than that are probably as a result of a waiver of the
30 -foot requirement anyway. Attorney Barney stated that he felt
that the reason behind the 30 -foot distance and the fire wall
• Planning Board Minutes 22 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
requirement
is because of
fire safety
requirements which would
allow some
control in case
of fire and
life safety.
Board Member Hoffmann asked, referring to Page 1, Paragraph 3,
of the proposed amendment, which read, "At the time of preliminary
approval it shall be determined whether or not the subdivision is
to be considered to be a cluster design when the subdivider
presents to the Planning Board a traditional subdivision plan....,"
what if a subdivider comes in with a cluster plan already.
Chairperson Smith asked if that segment should be changed to
read, "Prior to preliminary approval...", because if the developer
receives preliminary approval, then why bring in any other plan.
Town Planner Kanter stated that what would happen if a
developer wants to do a cluster right away, usually the Board will
ask him to at least show a conventional lot layout to establish a
count of possible buildable lots. Mr. Kanter stated that should
happen during a sketch plan. Mr. Kanter stated that his theory is
that Zoning gives the developer a maximum development threshold on
a given property, but does not necessarily mean that you can have
exactly that number of lots by dividing the gross acreage by the
lot size.
Attorney Barney stated that the Board can look at the
practicality and say this can be designed as a nice big square grid
but there is a pond in the middle of the site, so take the pond out
and develop around that.
Town Planner Kanter stated that the one thing that the
Planning Board has is the mandatory clustering, and if there are
some real problems with the site the Board can make the developer,
cluster to avoid the areas of the site that the Board thinks should
not be built on and cluster them onto the buildable parts.
Attorney Barney stated that if the Board does not address the same
buildable land issues with the conventional subdivisions, the Board
is, in a sense, providing a penalty to someone who is being forced
to cluster unless they are provided with a significant density
bonus, otherwise the number of units could be significantly
reduced.
There being no further discussion regarding the proposed
amendment to Article V of the Town of Ithaca Subdivision
Regulations, Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the meeting.
Chairperson Smith asked if everyone had received the notice
regarding the Association of Towns meeting that is coming up in
February, and asked if there were any comments.
® Town Planner Kanter stated that if anyone was interested in
attending this meeting to either fill out the form and give it to
U
0
Planning Board Minutes 23 December 5, 1995
ADOPTED 2/20/96
him now, or to turn it in as soon as possible. Mr. Kanter stated
that the deadline for reservations and getting the paperwork
submitted was quickly approaching and needed to get those people
interested to respond quickly.
Chairperson Smith asked if the Planning Board wished to
discuss the nomination of a new Planning Board Chair,
Board Member Finch stated that the nominating committee met
and recommends that Board Member Candace Cornell be recommended to
the Town Board for appointment as Chairperson of the Planning Board
for 1996. Mr. Finch stated that, if the Town Board agrees to Ms.
Cornell as Chair, the nominating committee also suggests that Board
Member Eva Hoffmann be appointed as the Vice - Chairperson to the
Planning Board,
Attorney Barney stated that the Planning Board appoints the
Vice - Chairperson, and that it was not a recommendation to the Town
Board. Attorney Barney suggested that the appointment of Vice -
Chairperson wait until after Ms. Cornell is actually approved by
the Town Board because if the Board chooses not to accept the
nomination the Planning Board could have a Vice - Chairperson without
a Chairperson.
MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby
approves and supports the recommendation to the Town Board from the
nominating committee to appoint Board Member Candace Cornell as the
Planning Board Chairperson for the year of 1996.
There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith called
for a vote.
Aye - Smith, Finch, Ainslie, Wilcox, Bell.
Nay - None.
Abstain - Hoffmann.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
There being no other business to be discussed at this Planning
Board Meeting, Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the
Meeting.
Planning Board Minutes
ADJOURNMENT
24
ADOPTED 2/20/96
December 5, 1995
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the December 5, 1995,
Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned.
Drafted 2 /5 /96.srh.
Respectfully subm' oed,
Starr Hays,
Recording Secreta y, 94-/
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.
Mary S. yant,
Administrative Secretary,