Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1995-12-1917� • �J FINAL TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DECEMBER 19, 1995 FRED TOWN OF ITHACA Date :?/- 1� /9 Clerk jo:;' %J& The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, December 19, 1995, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Stephen Smith, Candace Cornell, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning) , George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner) , Attorney Hugh Kent (Sitting in for Attorney for the Town John Barney) . ALSO PRESENT: Nancy Ostman, John Ullberg, Jagat Sharma, Noel Desch, Mark Macera, Winsome Worthen, Virginia Bryant, Fred Noetscher, Charles Brodhead. 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 December 10, 1995, and December 12, 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 14, 1995, Chairperson Smith read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. I AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD. There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM: PRESENTATION OF BUILDING GREENWAYS FOR TOMPKINS COUNTY: AN ACTION PLAN (JULY 1995) BY TOMPKINS COUNTY GREENWAY COALITION. NANCY OSTMAN, CONNIE COOK, AND JOHN ULLBERG FROM THE GREENWAY COALITION WILL BE ATTENDING TO DISCUSS THE GREENWAY REPORT. Nancy Ostman addressed the Board and stated that'she is the current chair of the Tompkins County Greenways Coalition, John Ullberg is one of the co- chairs for next year. The committee has been working on a report about Building Greenways in Tompkins County. There should be a copy of the report in the Planning Department. The committee is a group of volunteers that are concerned with trails, bicycle safety, environmental protection, and preserving.the beauty that Ithaca and Tompkins County have to offer the public. Ms. Ostman stated that people would like better linked access, people feel that they can not get close to the lake I •J ,, Planning Board Minutes 0 2 ADOPTED 3/5/96 December 19, 1995 in very many places. Ms. Ostman showed the Planning Board and the assembled public a slide presentation that outlines the systems that the Coalition proposes for Tompkins County that would connect with the trails, and the greenways and the Town of Ithaca. Ms. Ostman stated that the connections are going to be a critical issue for Ithaca because Ithaca is in the middle of most of the communities within Tompkins County. Ms. Ostman stated that there was a greenways system that would allow for roller blading, strollers, people with some disability, jogging, and just casual use to enjoy the beautiful scenery available in the Ithaca area. Ms. Ostman stated that they propose a system of three kinds of trails, with the kind of uses the people were expressing a need for. The first was a multi -use trail, which can be used for horseback riding, and community connector trails that children can use safely. The second type of trail being proposed are pedestrian trails, such as the Finger Lakes Trail System, which is mostly foot path, narrow, suitable for walking and hiking. The third type of trail being proposed is a biological corridor, which are the wilderness areas of Tompkins County, designed to serve the needs of plants and animals rather than people, some of these areas have trails through them, and some do not. The wilderness areas without trails are for only plants and • animals because they are too fragile to put a trail in, and it would destroy what we are trying to protect. Ms. Ostman stated that there are a variety of possibilities for trails, they do not all have to be the same in order to serve many purposes needed in the community. Ms. Ostman stated some of the paths proposed are on abandoned railroads through the County. There is a problem for access, access for handicapped and strollers. Some of the trails would probably be built by municipalities, ISTEA funding is possible but would require municipal support; some volunteers have built trails, bridges, and stair cases. The Finger Lakes Trail system, which is over 75 miles, was completely built and maintained by volunteers. Ms. Ostman stated that the Finger Lakes Trail system has been in place for 20 to 25 years, and all services are voluntary. Access and parking are some of the issues that need to be addressed to keep the neighbors to the trails content and happy. Ms. Ostman distributed packets of information regarding the Greenway Coalition, trails, and other recreational materials available in Tompkins County, John Ullberg addressed the Board and stated that greenways make a lot of sense, but what they tried to do is coordinate a lot of groups of interest around the County to gather ideas, the next step is to start looking at specifics of how some trails may develop in Ithaca and Tompkins County. Mr. Ullberg stated that they have created a map of ideas, which starts from what already • exists, then look for opportunities to link the existing trails together, and since the County is blessed with many abandoned railroad rights -of -way, as they are a natural for trail systems. r 4' e, Planning Board Minutes 3 December 19, 1995 0 ADOPTED 3/5/96 Mr. Ullberg stated that railroad paths are natural for trails, not only because they are level and available but also because they have not been subdivided into small parcels which would make it more difficult to reacquire. Mr. Ullberg stated that some of the key points on this map is the different types of trails, which they concentrated on. The red trails are pedestrian trails, the green are multi -use trails, the areas of green are biological corridors. There are certain areas that are special use trails, which are finely dashed lines. In the Town of Ithaca there is the South Hill Recreation Way, the East Hill Recreation Way, the Cayuga Trail, the Circle Greenway in the City which goes partially into the Town, and each one of those has opportunities for connection and extension into other systems. Mr. Ullberg stated that there will be connection from Route 13, Ithaca to Cornell land and into Dryden, and eventually have a link to Route 79 via Honness Lane, Board Member Herbert Finch asked what they wanted from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Mr. Ullberg responded, support, and the opportunity to reference a resource to accomplish something to help the communities involved. Mr. Ullberg stated that the Greenway Coalition meets monthly, with a quarterly newsletter, a monthly • guest speaker at the meeting. Mr. Ullberg stated that if the Board members were interested in pursuing greenways and community trails, then come join the coalition. Board Member Candace Cornell stated, as a member of the Coalition, that last month Assistant Town Planner Frantz presented the beginning of the update of the Town's Park and Recreation Plan. Ms. Cornell stated, as that plan gets developed the Coalition is hoping to develop the ideas together with the Town and extend them to other areas. Ms. Cornell stated that pretty soon one would be able to ride a bike all the way from Harford to Ithaca, then possibly all the way to Geneva without leaving the trail. Board Member James Ainslie stated that horses can soil trails, what will be done about that. Assistant Town Planner George Frant can be built next to the paved portion. Board Member Fred Wilcox stated t that delineating paths on maps through areas might result in drawing people to them drawn to, z stated that a cinder path hat he would be concerned environmentally sensitive areas that we may not want Ms. Ostman stated that they tried to avoid the areas where • people should not be in, but it is an issue that needs to be looked into more. r I ,. • Planning Board Minutes 4 ADOPTED 3/5/96 December 19, 1995 Board Member Cornell stated that people may be willing to donate the land to a conservation easement. Director of Planning Kanter stated that another possibility was to consider designation as a unique natural area. Board Member Cornell stated that Ms. Ostman coordinates the natural areas for Cornell University, Mr. Ullberg stated that one of the Coalition's objectives this year was to develop a trail guide. There being no further discussion of this matter, Chairperson Smith closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 40 -3 -9, 3.68± ACRES TOTAL AREA AND LOCATED AT 930 DANBY ROAD INTO 4 LOTS, 0.43 ±, 0.78 ±, 1.23, AND 1.24± ACRES RESPECTIVELY, AND FURTHER, CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN, SAID MODIFICATIONS TO INCLUDE CHANGES IN FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS AND ADDITION OF A BASEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING ON LOT #2, AND • CHANGES IN SITE PARKING, GRADING AND LANDSCAPING. I - INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. ICS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, OWNER; JAGAT P. SHARMA, AGENT. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing for the above - noted matter duly opened at 8:10 p.m, and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearing as posted and published and as noted above. Jagat Sharma of 312 East Seneca Street, addressed the Board and stated that the drawings have been presented to the Board for Final Subdivision with the conditions of the Preliminary Subdivision being met prior to presentation. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Board was to consider two actions tonight, one would be the Final Subdivision Approval and the other is the SEQR and Final Site Plan Approval for the Modified Site Plan. Mr. Kanter asked that Mr. Sharma review the changes for the Board's information. Mr, Sharma stated that the drawings show all the final changes on the modified site plan, they have added a basement to the building on Lot #2 with the parking on the south end of the property, additional landscaping is shown, and the table indicates a 2,500 square foot storage basement, with the building square foot • coverage being 40,000 square feet, which is still within the set threshold in the approved site plan. c � Subdivision Approval for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel�No. 40 Planning Board Minutes 5 December 19, 1995 • ADOPTED 3/5/96 Board Member Cornell asked if there was a screen from the parking lot on lot #2 from Route 96B, Mr. Sharma stated that they have relocated trees to screen the view of the parking lot from the road. Director of Planning Kanter stated that there was a slight discrepancy in what is shown on the final plat and the revised site plan in the front parking area on Lot 2, which was intended to be removed. It was removed from the final site plan, but is still showing on the Final Plat. Mr. Kanter stated that the removal of that parking from the Final Subdivision will need to be added as a condition of approval. Chairperson Smith noted that this is a Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Board Member Gregory Bell asked if the Planning Staff and Town Attorney reviewed the proposed covenants and restrictions for this property. • Director of Planning Kanter stated that there is a condition in the proposed resolution which requires review and approval by the Planning Department and the Town Attorney prior to the signing of the Final Subdivision Plat to be sure that the legal wording is accurate. Mr. Kanter stated that Town Engineer Walker stated that he felt that the drawings looked fine from an engineering perspective as long as he has the opportunity to review the final construction drawings and the paving plan. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Gregory Bell: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval for Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel�No. 40 -3 -9, +/- 3.6 acres total area, into 4 lots consisting of Lot 1, 0.78 acres, Lot 2, 0.43 acres, Lot 3, 1.23 acres and Lot 4, 1.24 acres, Industrial District, ICS Development Partners Inc., Owner; Jagat P. Sharma, Applicant, 2, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 7, 1995, granted Preliminary Subdivision Approval with conditions for the proposed South Hill Complex. 3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca • Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on October 17, 1995, made a negative determination of environmental significance, and • I Planning Board Minutes 6 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 4, The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on December 19, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Final Subdivision plat entitled "South Hill Complex Subdivision Final Plat ", dated September 12, 1995, prepared by T.G. Miller P.C. Engineers and Surveyors and signed by Allen T. Fulkerson, Licensed Land Surveyor, and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Final Plat Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -3 -9, 930 Danby Road, into 4 lots as shown on the above - referenced plat entitled "South Hill Complex Subdivision Final Plat" dated September 12, 1995, prepared by Allen T. Fulkerson, Licensed Land Surveyor, subject to the following conditions: a. Prior to the signing of the final subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair, a declaration of easements and restrictions, shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Planner and the Town Attorney. Such declaration to provide for cross easements for access, utilities, handling of common area expenses, and related matters, and to be in substantially the form submitted to and approved by this Board (As attached). This declaration to be filed with the Tompkins County Clerk at the time of filing the approved subdivision plat. The declaration of covenants and easements required pursuant to these conditions shall, among other matters, require: (i) Easements for entrances, exits, and driveways for: (A) Ingress and egress through the Axiohm property, (B) The entrance from Route 96B through Lots #3 and #4 (15 feet each running east and west between Lots #1 and #2). Planning Board Minutes 7 December 19, 1995 • ADOPTED 3/5/96 (C) The use of the driveway on Lot #4, to access the lower level parking for the building on Lot #11 (D) The driveway running north and south on Lot #3 for the owners of Lots #1, #2, and #4 to access the ingress and egress on the Axiohm property. (ii) Easements for sewage and sanitation lines for: (A) Lot #1 to access the sewer line running through Lot #4. (B) Lot #2 to access the sewer line through Lot #3 and connect to the line on Lot #4. (C) Lot #3 to connect to the sewer line on Lot #4. Easements for utility lines including, but not limited to, water, gas, electric, and phone, to provide access to any of the other lots. • (iv) Easements for storm water drainage for each lot. Storm water drainage shall be in accordance with the approved site plan entitled "South Hill Complex" dated November 8, 1994, which approved the storm water drainage based on one lot. Any deviation from this plan shall be only upon approval by the Town Engineer. (v) The obligation of ICS Development Partners, Inc. for the maintenance of driveways, drainage structures, utility lines, landscaping, and all other shared services, with the exception of the individual parking lots, as long as it has title to any of the four lots. In the event ICS Development partners, Inc. no longer holds title to any of the four lots, there shall be an entity or lot owner designated to be responsible for the maintenance of these shared services and facilities. • C� J • • Planning Board Minutes 8 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 b. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for any buildings on any of the lots other than Lot #1, the entrance road from NYS Route 96B to the proposed development, the parking areas between Lot #1 and Lot #2, and the 24 -foot wide entrance and exit road from Axiohm to Lot #1 rear parking area, shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. C, Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, phasing of all utilities and site work, including, but not limited to, sanitary sewers, water lines, storm sewers, retention devices, electric lines, gas lines, telephone lines, grading and drainage control (hereafter collectively referred to as "utilities" or "utility work ") shall be approved by the Town Engineer. d. Landscaping, shall be installed in accordance with the approved site plan but may be phased on each lot as each building is constructed in a manner approved by the Town Planner. e. Prior to the issuance of any Building Permit, all utility work related to any previous phase or buildings are needed, in the opinion of the Town Engineer, to service such previously constructed buildings or phase, and shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. f. Prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any building, and in addition to any other requirements related to the issuance of such a certificate, all utility work related to such building or needed to service such building shall be substantially completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. g. No individual lot in this subdivision shall be sold separately except that each lot may be mortgaged separately and a transfer of any of the lots resulting from a bonafide default in an obligation to a bonafide mortgagee would be permitted. Once all of the four lots are fully developed in accordance with the approved site plan to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and the Town Planner, this limitation shall terminate. Planning Board Minutes 9 December 19, 1995 • ADOPTED 3/5/96 h. If construction on Lot #2 occurs prior to construction on Lots #3 and #4, there shall be provided parking to meet the parking requirements of the Ordinance for Lot #2 on Lot #3, #4, or Lot #1 (in areas already approved for parking on such lots) rather than in the future reserved parking area on Lot #2. i. Any modification to the previously approved site plan dated November 8, 1994, falling within the thresholds of Section 46(b) of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, shall require the submission of a revised site plan for the Planning Board's approval. Approval for such site plan modification shall be obtained prior to, or simultaneous with, final subdivision approval. j. The basement of the building on Lot #2 shall be used only for storage. k. Compliance with all conditions as noted on the Final Subdivision Checklist (as attached). 1. That the final plat be modified to accurately reflect the proposed building configuration on Lot #2 as shown on the Final Site Plan (revised November 30, 1995), and any other proposed changes as approved on the Final Site Plan. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith asked if there were any comments regarding the Site Plan for this project. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Candace Cornell, 1. This action is the Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed site plan modifications for South Hill Complex. Said modifications to include changes in finished floor elevations, the addition of a basement for the proposed building on Lot #2, and changes in site parking, grading and landscaping located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, 40 -3 -9, 930 Danby Road, Industrial District, ICS Development Partners, Owner; Jagat P. Sharma, Applicant. Planning Board Minutes 10 December 19, 1995 • ADOPTED 3/5/96 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and • 0 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on December 19, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan entitled "South Hill Complex Site Plan" dated November 8, 1994, with revision dates of October 31, 1995 and November 30, 1995, prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect, T.G. Miller P.C. Engineers and Surveyors and by Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan modifications; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above- referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, WHEREAS: seconded by James Ainslie: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed site plan modifications for South Hill Complex. Said modifications to include changes in finished floor elevations, the addition of a basement for the proposed building on Lot #2, and changes in site parking, grading and landscaping located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 40 -3 -9, 930 Danby Road, Industrial District, ICS Development Partners, Owner; Jagat P. Sharma, Applicant. t Planning Board Minutes 11 December 19, 1995 • ADOPTED 3/5/96 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, has, on December 19, 1995, made a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, and • 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on December 19, 1995, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1 submitted by the applicant and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning Department, a site plan entitled "South Hill Complex Site Plan" dated November 8, 1994, with revision dates of October 31, 1995 and November 30, 1995, prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect, T.G. Miller P.C. Engineers and Surveyors and by Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects, and additional application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to the proposed site plan entitled "South Hill Complex Site Plan" dated November 8, 1994, with revision dates of October 31, 1995 and November 30, 1995, prepared by Jagat P. Sharma, Architect, T.G. Miller P.C. Engineers and Surveyors and by Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects, subject to the following conditions: a. All conditions of the Final Site Plan Approval which was granted by the Planning Board on February 7, 1994 still pertain to the modified South Hill Complex Site Plan dated November 8, 1994, revised October 31, 1995 and November 30, 1995. b. Compliance with all conditions as noted on the Final Site Plan Checklist, attached, dated 12/1/951 c. Submission of the original or mylar copy of the Final Site Plan, as modified by this approval, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a • vote. Planning Board Minutes 12 December 19, 1995 • ADOPTED 3/5/96 Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the Final Subdivision Approval and the Final Site Plan Modification Approval for the South Hill Complex to be duly closed. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1995. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Minutes are so far behind because the Recording Secretary has been out ill for quite a long time. Mr. Kanter stated that there is a part -time person working on transcribing the minutes at this time, and we hope to have some drafted by the next Planning Board Meeting. Agenda Item: OTHER BUSINESS. Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that he had drafted a resolution to express appreciation to Chairperson Stephen Smith for his services to the Town of Ithaca and the Planning Board, and • asked that it be approved by the Board. The Board adopted said resolution with a unanimous vote of concurrence. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD REGARDING A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE REZONING THE LANDS IN THE INDIAN CREEK SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT NO. 6, CONSISTING OF 69.83± ACRES, AND DESIGNATED AS TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 24 -1 -23, LOCATED ON TRUMANSBURG ROAD, TO ITS FORMER DESIGNATION AS AG AGRICULTURAL, BRUCE AND DOROTHY BABCOCK, OWNERS. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Director of Planning Kanter distributed a letter received from Mr. Babcock regarding the proposed rezoning of his property. The Board took the time to read over the letter while Mr. Kanter explained that he had received a call from Mr. Babcock, who stated that he had received notification of the proposed rezoning, at which point Mr. Kanter suggested to Mr. Babcock that he submit his concerns in writing. • Mr. Kanter stated that he had discussed the proposed rezoning with Mr. Babcock a couple of months ago, and he had stated that he was trying to sell his property, but had no perspective buyers at Planning Board Minutes 13 December 19, 1995 • ADOPTED 3/5/96 that point. Mr. Kanter stated that Mr. Babcock stated that it might be easier for him to sell, the property as a Special Land Use District, he had no real preference one way or the other. Mr. Kanter stated that at this point, he has a more specific offer and negotiations under way, and does not wish for this to be rezoned at this time. Mr. Kanter stated that Attorney Barney recommended that the Public Hearing be held anyway, and let the Planning Board make the determination, from a planning perspective, of whether or not it is appropriate to be rezoned, and then the Town Board would be responsible to determine whether or not to rezone based on the information provided and the recommendation of this.Board. Mr. Kanter stated that there were several things that needed to be taken into consideration with the Babcock parcel; one is that it was rezoned to a SLUD in 1989, which was almost 7 years ago, before the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. One question would be whether the Town's current thinking is consistent with the SLUD, if not what would be appropriate for that area. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 8:45 p.rn. Board Member James Ainslie stated that Mr. Lucas was • originally going to handle this project, and was going to pay a sizeable percentage of the cost of running water and sewage to get this SLUD. Mr. Ainslie stated that if Mr. Babcock was put back in the Agricultural District, all he would be able to do is sell some lots along Route 96 because there is not water or sewer. Mr. Ainslie stated that if a new developer comes in, the Town is not going to run water and sewer up there for him. Board Member Finch stated that descriptions that applied in the original SLUD may not necessarily apply now. Director of Planning Kanter stated if a new developer came in and did exactly what was outlined in the SLUD, they could submit a final site plan for the Planning Board's approval. Board Member Ainslie stated that there was talk at that time of a connection between the retirement community and Tompkins County Hospital. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the chances of someone meeting the exact requirements of the SLUD are slim. Chairperson Smith stated that Mr. Kanter was saying that since it would have to come back to the Town Board for Modification of the SLUD, so what would be gained by leaving the SLUD in place as • opposed to having the AG district zoning. 0 • • Planning Board Minutes 14 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 Board Member Finch stated that it was his understanding that the reason the rezonings were being considered was because there has been no action regarding the properties. Now that he has an offer, it would be up to him to sell it, and would not be the Town's problem. Board Member Bell asked if the sunset provisions applied to only subdivisions or if they would apply to SLUDs as well. Director of Planning Kanter stated that it did not apply to SLUDs, and unfortunately most of the SLUDs did not include any type of sunset provisions in them, which is one of the reasons this rezoning is being considered now. Chairperson Smith noted that this is a Public Hearing and asked if there were any members of the public that wished to speak regarding this matter. No one spoke. Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Board Member James Ainslie made a MOTION that the consideration of rezoning for the Babcock be tabled until there is further contact with Mr. Babcock, or for six months, which ever comes first, due to the letter received from Mr. Babcock. There being no second to Board Member Ainslie's motion, it was withdrawn. Board Member be made to the Toi Land Use District rezoning within specific request Fred Wilcox made a MOT vn Board that no action No. 6 at this time and 180 days unless the of the Town. ION that the recommendation be taken regarding Special that the Board revisit the owner comes forth with a The MOTION was seconded by Board Member James Ainslie. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has requested that the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee conduct a townwide analysis of undeveloped parcels where current zoning may no longer be appropriate, and 2. The Codes and Ordinances Committee has completed such an analysis, and has recommended that a number of parcels be rezoned in order to be consistent with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and I. Planning Board Minutes 15 December 19, 1995 0 ADOPTED 3/5/96 3. A specific proposal of the Codes and Ordinances Committee is to rezone the lands in the Indian Creek Special Land Use District No. 6, consisting of 69.83 +/- acres, and designated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -1 -23, located on Trumansburg Road, to its former designation as AG Agricultural, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee has referred said proposed rezoning to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on December 19, 1995, has reviewed the Zoning Analysis: Vacant Parcels (MR, SLUD, BUS, IND) for the Babcock - Indian Creek Parcel (Draft 9/25/95) prepared by the Town planning staff, a Full Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II prepared by the Town planning staff, and a draft Local Law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Rezoning Lands in the Indian Creek Special Land Use District on Trumansburg Road to Agricultural, and 6. The Director of Planning received a letter from Bruce Babcock, owner of subject parcel, dated December 18, 1995, indicating that he is currently negotiating with a serious buyer who is I nterested in developing a Retirement Community of approximately the same size as was approved in SLUD #6, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board take no action on the above - described rezoning at this time, and that the proposed rezoning be revisited within 180 days from the date of this resolution, unless the owner comes forward with a specific request to the Town Board at an earlier date. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the rezoning proposal of the Babcock Property (Indian Creek SLUD) to be duly closed at 8:55 p.m. • • • Planning Board Minutes 16 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD REGARDING A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE TOWN OF ITHACA ZONING ORDINANCE REZONING LANDS ON EAST KING ROAD OWNED BY CORNELL UNIVERSITY, CONSISTING OF 4.8± ACRES, AND DESIGNATED AS TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 44- 1- 4.313, FROM MR MULTIPLE RESIDENCE TO RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -30, CORNELL UNIVERSSTY, OWNER. Chairperson Smith declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings and Posted and Published and as noted above. Chairperson Smith asked if everyone had received a copy of the letter from Cornell University in which Cornell stated that they have no objections to the rezoning. Chairperson Smith noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone present that wished to speak on this matter. No one spoke. Chairperson Smith closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca has requested that the Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee conduct a townwide analysis of undeveloped parcels where current zoning may no longer be appropriate, and 2. The Codes and Ordinances Committee has completed such an analysis, and has recommended that a number of parcels be rezoned in order to be consistent with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan recommendations, and 3. A specific proposal of the Codes and Ordinances Committee is to rezone lands on East King Road owned by Cornell University, consisting of 4.8 +/- acres, and designated as Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -1- 4.313, from MR Multiple Residence to Residence District R -30, and 4. The Town of Ithaca Codes and Ordinances Committee has referred said proposed rezoning to the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for their recommendation, and L • Planning Board Minutes 17 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 5, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on December 19, 1995, has reviewed the Zoning Analysis: Vacant Parcels (MR, SLUD BUS, IND) for the Cornell - East King Road Parcel (Draft 9/25/95) prepared by the Town planning staff, a Short Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II prepared by the Town planning staff, and a draft Local Law amending the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance Rezoning Lands on East King Road Owned by Cornell University (Tax Parcel No. 44 -1- 4.313) from Multiple Residence to Residence District R -30, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that: a. There is a need for the proposed zoning change in the proposed location; b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the subject site is located will not be adversely affected; C, The proposed zoning change is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town. 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board approve the proposed rezoning of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 44 -1 -4.313 as described in the attached draft Local Law from MR Multiple Residence to Residence District R -30. Board Member Bell stated that his concern is why the proposed zoning is R -30 when part of the parcel is a Unique Natural Area. Mr. Bell stated that he did not think it should be an R -30 either. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the entire parcel is in the Unique Natural Area, and currently the R -30 and 'the agricultural zone are the least dense zones that the Town has. Mr. Kanter stated that the Town is working on the Six Mile Creek Conservation District as the first of what may become other conservation districts but it is not on the books yet, so the thinking of the Planning Committee and the Codes and Ordinance Committee was to get this to the least dense zone possible under the Town's current zoning. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that this particular parcel was part of a park and open space dedication, so that aspect also protects it. It was part of the Chase Pond or the Butterfield project that pre -dated Chase Pond, and the deal was that was the park and open space dedication and Auble dedicated that open space Planning Board Minutes 18 December 19, 1995 . ADOPTED 3/5/96 to Cornell. Mr. Frantz stated that even though it would be zoned an R -30, essentially the development rights to this property have been removed. Board Member Bell asked if that was the entire parcel. Assistant Town Planner Frantz responded yes. Director of Planning Kanter stated that this particular Cornell property he believes is permanently deed restricted from development. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that he thinks the intent of the Planning Committee is that some day these parcels that Cornell owns as well as other lands on South Hill will be zoned conservation district. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. • The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly closed. AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF ITHACARE CENTER SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (FEIS) 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 NO, 7, ITHACARE CENTER, APPLICANT; MARK MACERA, AGENT, Chairperson Smith stated that the Planning Board had received the cross - section drawing, the tables for cut and fill, the removal and cost estimates associated with that. Board Member Wilcox stated that he had spoken with Board Member Eva Hoffmann prior to the meeting tonight, and she stated that she had some questions to ask but realized that she would not be able to ask them. Chairperson Smith stated that the object of tonight's meeting was to see if the Board felt that the additional information provided by Ithacare was adequate and met their needs to base a decision regarding the acceptance of the FEIS. Planning Board Minutes 19 December 19, 1995 • ADOPTED 3/5/96 Board Member Wilcox asked if the Town Engineer looked at the information provided by the applicants. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Town Engineer did look at the documentation supplied. Mr. Kanter stated that the applicants supplied information that goes above and beyond what the Board asked for in terms of the earth work and the added information on the sewer. Board Member Wilcox asked that an Ithacare representative explain the differences in how the cross - sections have been changed. Fred Noetscher, landscape architect with Kimball Associates, addressed the Board and stated that he measured from the edge of the northeastern corner of the overlook, which gave the correct elevation of the building, but he had measured that the building was 20 feet farther away from the overlook than it actually should have been. Mark Macera, Executive Director of Ithaca, addressed the Board and stated that the second paragraph of the cover letter addresses that difference as well. • Board Member Cornell asked what engineering service was being used for this project. Mr. Macera stated that L. Robert Kimball and Associates, which is a full - service architecture and engineering firm. Director of Planning Kanter stated adopting the proposed resolution, accept Impact Statement with the new amended submitted for filing and circulation to the FEIS process itself. The Planning 30 days within which to approve a Findi that the Board would be, by ing the Final Environmental materials that have been the public. That completes Board, under the SEQRA has ngs Statement. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS, Ithacare Center has requested Site Plan Approval from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed Senior Living Community to consist of a 115,000 +/- square foot building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80 independent living units, 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 No. 7, and • Planning Board Minutes 20 December 19, 1995 . ADOPTED 3/5/96 WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca made a positive declaration of Environmental Significance on December 9, 1994, directing Ithacare Center to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and • 0 WHEREAS, Ithacare Center had a DEIS prepared which has thoroughly examined possible adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Senior Living Community and has proposed mitigating measures to minimize such impacts, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, as Lead Agency, with the assistance of Town Staff, reviewed the DEIS submitted on May 31, 1995, and on June 20, 1995, adopted a resolution finding the DEIS to be satisfactory with respect to its scope, content, and adequacy for the purpose of public review, and comments received WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on July 18, 1995 in order to solicit public comment on the DEIS, and received substantial public comment, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board and Ithacare Center agreed to extend the date for filing of the FEIS in order to allow more time to adequately prepare it, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board as Lead Agency, has responded in the FEIS to all substantive public comments received, and on December 19, 1995, accepted in substance the proposed responses to comments received on the DEIS, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, Town of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, accepts the Final Environmental Im] Center Senior Living Community for the potential adverse environmental measures as required under 6 NYCRR that the Planning Board of the on December 19, 1995, hereby pact Statement for the Ithacare filing, having duly considered impacts and proposed mitigating 617 (the SEQR regulations), and FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca hereby directs the Town of Ithaca Planning Staff to file a Notice of Completion of Final EIS and issue the FEIS as required under 6 NYCRR 617.10 and 617.21, distributing the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and the public. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Smith, Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. t • • Planning Board Minutes 21 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Notice of Completion of the EIS would be circulated to the interested and involved agencies and members of the public on our distribution list. The Board then has, not less than 10 days but no more than 30 days, to approve the Findings Statement, Mr. Kanter stated that the 30 day timeframe would mean that by January 18, 1996, the Board would have to approve the Findings Statement, Mr. Kanter stated that there is a Planning Board Meeting scheduled for January 9, 1996, and then a second meeting scheduled for January 23, 1996, and if we needed two meetings to complete the Findings Statement, it would put it outside the 30 day window. The Board might want to say that the Board will make all reasonable attempts to do this within the timeframe, but if it takes to the January 23, 1996, Planning Board meeting, Ithacare may be willing to authorize that extension tonight. Mr. Kanter stated that the staff would be able to prepare a draft of the Findings Statement prior to the January 91 1996, Planning Board Meeting, but it is likely the Board will want some time to review and discuss the Statement at the January 91 1996 meeting and perhaps give the staff directions for modifications for approval at the meeting on January 23, 1996, Mr. Kanter stated that with that as a possible scenario, if the Board could get agreement with Ithacare that the Board would target those two meetings and try to get it done on January 23, 1996, it would expedite things. Noel Desch, President of the Ithacare Board of Directors, stated, let the record show that Ithacare agrees to the Planning Board's request for the extension of completion date of the Statement of Findings. Director of Planning Kanter stated that it would be good if Ithacare could submit a letter to the Board indicating that was accepted and agreeable to Ithacare. Mr. Kanter stated that the Findings Statement will be the Board's statement of whether the project can be approved having gone through the environmental review process, how it would be approved, in what form the project would be acceptable for the Board to be approved, based on any mitigating measures that are determined to be appropriate to help reduce any environmental impacts. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board will have to come to a decision on the alternative building scenarios that have been laid out in the EIS. Another thing the Findings Statement will have to do is outline any mitigating measures that would go along with that, including the overlook extension. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board will have to make a decision if any of the alternatives presented are approvable, if so, it would be a positive Statement of Findings and it would go on from there. Mr. Kanter stated that this project still has to go through Site Plan approval and once it goes into Site Plan Approval, it needs to get into all the details that the Board has started to talk about; landscaping, lighting, s Planning Board Minutes 22 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 drainage, engineering details, the overlook, etc. The Findings Statement will have to justify and document whatever this decision is going to be. If, on the other hand, the Board decides that none of the alternatives or mitigating measures have sufficiently reduced significant impacts, if impacts are found to be significant, that it would have to be done in the form of a negative statement of findings outlining why the Board would not be able to approve the project. Mr. Kanter indicated that it would be helpful if the Board Members could state their opinions as to whether or not this will be an approvable project, if so which of.the alternatives presented in balancing out all the different environmental aspects, which alternative would the Board feel most comfortable with documenting, mitigating measures that are felt to be necessary, in particular, the overlook extension. Board Member Herbert Finch stated that in the EIS he was not impressed at the extension of the overlook added to the project, and was a significant mitigating measure, it seemed to him that it detracted from the project. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she thinks that the overlook could be a significant measure to improve the project if it was done correctly. Ms. Cornell stated that the overlook needed to be looked into more. Board Member James Ainslie stated that his problem has been the view. Mr. Ainslie stated that the way the property is zoned now, he believes the maximum height allowed is 50 feet and with no laws on the books that determines anything less than that, why shove this whole thing down the hill when you could have a 50 foot structure the way it is zoned, he would go with the least expensive. Assistant Town Planner Frantz asked if staff could assume that this is an approvable project. Board Member Fred Wilcox stated that he believes that this is an approvable project. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he thinks that the zoning does not give reason to approve this project by itself. The viewshed issue is a very clearly established issue in litigation, but not specifically in the Town of Ithaca Law. Mr. Bell stated that today's Ithaca Times has an article regarding this exact issue with the Wal -Mart proposal, and the viewshed issue is discussed by the City of Ithaca Attorney, in which she lays out some legal situation authorizing the City to use view as a major issue in determining the SEQR process for that project, Wal -Mart. The City's Attorney refers to State Law which applies to the Town of 41 Planning Board Minutes 23 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 Ithaca as much as the City of Ithaca, and specifically the SEQR process requires that view be an issue considered. The conclusion of having the visual tools provided by Ithacare shows that the impact is too great, whereas other people may look at it and say that it is not too great, but at least we know what the impact looks like. Mr. Bell stated that he thinks there is clearly legal grounds on which to turn down this project based on the viewshed impact. It would be nice if the Town had previously established procedures for evaluating views, protecting views, and laying out maps and all that, but we [The Planning Board] do not need that for a legal basis, it is not necessary. Mr. Bell stated that this issue has been litigated many times across the State, and for any body concerned about it from that perspective, there is legal strength for that issue. Mr. Bell stated that he is planning on voting for a negative finding. Mr. Bell stated that he has nothing personally against Ithacare at all, he would like for Ithacare to be able to build this type of project without such an impact. Mr. Bell stated that every alternative requested runs into a serious problem or additional impact. Mr. Bell stated that there are only a few great views that are left that are completely publicly accessible. Mr. Bell stated that he thinks this is the best view that is publicly accessible in the entire County. Mr. Bell stated that if we do not protect this view, he thinks the future • generations are going to really condemn the Board Members, and he thinks this project does serious harm to the view to the point of where there are no other alternatives. Attorney Hugh Kent, sitting in for Attorney for the Town, John Barney, stated that he feels comfortable in confirming what Mr. Bell said about the SEQR process going beyond the zoning constraint, which does not limit the views. Board Member Bell stated that he had contacted an attorney in Albany throughout the history of this project, and he had advised Mr. Bell that there is legal basis dealing with the view. Chairperson Smith stated that Mr. Bell is basically saying the view is a legal basis to determine a negative finding. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board will also have to determine what is the significance of the impact on the view, and balance f Q_ possible benefits of the project, so in 41 Planning Board Minutes 23 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 Ithaca as much as the City of Ithaca, and specifically the SEQR process requires that view be an issue considered. The conclusion of having the visual tools provided by Ithacare shows that the impact is too great, whereas other people may look at it and say that it is not too great, but at least we know what the impact looks like. Mr. Bell stated that he thinks there is clearly legal grounds on which to turn down this project based on the viewshed impact. It would be nice if the Town had previously established procedures for evaluating views, protecting views, and laying out maps and all that, but we [The Planning Board] do not need that for a legal basis, it is not necessary. Mr. Bell stated that this issue has been litigated many times across the State, and for any body concerned about it from that perspective, there is legal strength for that issue. Mr. Bell stated that he is planning on voting for a negative finding. Mr. Bell stated that he has nothing personally against Ithacare at all, he would like for Ithacare to be able to build this type of project without such an impact. Mr. Bell stated that every alternative requested runs into a serious problem or additional impact. Mr. Bell stated that there are only a few great views that are left that are completely publicly accessible. Mr. Bell stated that he thinks this is the best view that is publicly accessible in the entire County. Mr. Bell stated that if we do not protect this view, he thinks the future • generations are going to really condemn the Board Members, and he thinks this project does serious harm to the view to the point of where there are no other alternatives. Attorney Hugh Kent, sitting in for Attorney for the Town, John Barney, stated that he feels comfortable in confirming what Mr. Bell said about the SEQR process going beyond the zoning constraint, which does not limit the views. Board Member Bell stated that he had contacted an attorney in Albany throughout the history of this project, and he had advised Mr. Bell that there is legal basis dealing with the view. Chairperson Smith stated that Mr. Bell is basically saying the view is a legal basis to determine a negative finding. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board will also have to determine what is the significance of the impact on the view, and balance that impact with the other possible benefits of the project, so in the Finding, even if there is a determination of impact, there can still be an approvable project if the Board can demonstrate that in balancing all of the environmental, social and economic considerations, and given the mitigating measures, the project comes out on the positive side. • Board Member Fred Wilcox stated, at this point in time, he is in favor of Alternative B.3. He thinks it is a viable way for Ithacare to proceed. Planning Board Minutes 24 December 19, 1995 46 ADOPTED 3/5/96 Board Member Robert Kenerson stated that he thinks that the key is "significance," and he is not seeing anything from all of the lengthy discussion and conversations that make this impact significant. Mr. Kenerson stated that we have been responsible in discussing it at length, and does not feel that the Board has missed anything. Mr. Kenerson stated that he thinks that the significance of the interruption of the view is just not significant. Mr. Kenerson stated that he urges the project to be allowed to move forward. Mr. Kenerson stated that it is his opinion that there is not a significant impact on the view with the way that the proposal is laid out. Board Member Herbert Finch stated that he is in favor of the project. Mr. Finch stated that Alternative B.3 is fine with him since it was researched and found to be the best location. Board Member James Ainslie stated that he prefers L1C [The proposed action in the EIS] and does not want them to have to pump sewage uphill. Mr. Ainslie stated that he is very happy with LiC. Chairperson Smith stated that he is for the project. Board Member Candace Cornell stated that she thinks that the • view will be impacted and that is a serious concern, but when balancing the benefits of this project to the community, the significance of the view is outweighed by the benefits. Ms. Cornell stated that she would go for Alternative B.3, but wished that they did not have to pump sewage uphill. Ms. Cornell stated that it is a balance the Board is striking, and that the view is a problem. Ms. Cornell stated that she would like the extension of the overlook to be looked into. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the overlook could be addressed as a mitigating measure and be worded as a performance guideline; that if the overlook extension were to be implemented, it should be done in a way that would not further block views from the road, that would allow pedestrian amenities to encourage people to walk out and use the viewing area. Mr. Kanter stated that those could be designed into the site plan as well. Board Member Cornell stated that she understood that Ithacare would not want the trail on the property to become another park area, but if the public were allowed to enter the property to use the trails, it would be another benefit. Board Member Cornell stated that she could not speak for Board Member Eva Hoffmann, but she knows that Ms. Hoffmann feels that the views will be hindered severely by this project. • • n Planning Board Minutes 25 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Findings Statement will be drafted as soon as possible for the January 9, 1996, Planning Board Meeting. Board Member Kenerson asked what happens after the Board votes on the Statement of Findings. Mr. Kanter stated if Alternative B.3 is determined to be the best alternative, then this will have to go back to the Town Board so that the SLUD could be modified by the Town Board, Mr. Kanter stated that a more specific site plan would need to be drawn up for review and reference for the Town Board, it would then come back to the Planning Board for site plan review. Mr. Macera addressed % Board and asked if the amendment to •. • n Planning Board Minutes 25 December 19, 1995 ADOPTED 3/5/96 Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Findings Statement will be drafted as soon as possible for the January 9, 1996, Planning Board Meeting. Board Member Kenerson asked what happens after the Board votes on the Statement of Findings. Mr. Kanter stated if Alternative B.3 is determined to be the best alternative, then this will have to go back to the Town Board so that the SLUD could be modified by the Town Board, Mr. Kanter stated that a more specific site plan would need to be drawn up for review and reference for the Town Board, it would then come back to the Planning Board for site plan review. Mr. Macera addressed the Board and asked if the amendment to the SLUD could be done at the same time Town as the Findings Statement, Mr. Kanter stated that we would have to see what happens at the next meeting regarding the Findings Statement. Mr. Macera asked if, when that decision is made, in the same document for the Town Board to consider at the same time. Mr. Kanter stated that the Planning Board's Findings Statement would be referred back to the Town Board, Mr. Macera stated that he did not want people to think that on February 8, 1996, the SLUD expires, can this be done so that Ithacare does not have to start all over again with the Development Review Application and go from there. Mr. Kanter stated that the resolution adopted by the Town Board states that they need only to review the status of the entire proposal and consider whether to consider the zoning of this area as a SLUD. Mr. Kanter stated that it is not a sunset clause, but a chance to revisit the SLUD zoning. Mr. Kanter stated that if the Findings Statement is completed by January 23, 1996, that will be presented to the Town Board, Mr. Kanter stated that he understands that Ithacare has stated that they prefer Alternative 3.3, is that correct. Noel Desch stated that it would be premature for Ithacare to suggest one alternative prior to the decision of the Statement of Findings. Mr. Desch stated that they have indicated in the EIS, but does not mean that they would not be open to one or more of the other suggestions, so he would rather not, at this time, pin down one alternative. 4 ,. I i A Planning Board Minutes 26 ADOPTED 3/5/96 Mr. Kanter stated that in the DEIS was as an accepta some of the best features of increased cost and the,addit the overall configuration of Ithacare's program needs. December 19, 1995 the way Alternative B.3 was presented ble alternative that seemed to combine the DEIS action and did include some ion of pumping some sewage, but given the building it certainly would meet Mr. Macera stated that Alternative B.3 is a viable option, but wishes not to, under the circumstances, pinpoint which one is preferred. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Smith declared the above -noted matter duly closed. ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Smith declared the December 19, 1995, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly closed at 9:45 p.m. I ] DRAFTED 2/25/96.srh • Respectfully submitted, Starr Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board, i ly a M Br nt, Adminis rative Secretary.