Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1996-02-06TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD C(DPY 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, February 6, 1996 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard. 7:35 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of that portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -3 -26.2 located on the south side of Park Lane and comprising +/- 1.36 acres, into two lots, +/- 0.76 acres and +/- 0.60 acres in size respectively, located on Park Lane approximately 160 feet north of its intersection with NYS Route 79 /Slaterville Road, Residence District R -151 Barbara P. Quick, Owner; Robert C. Quick, Agent, 7:55 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for proposed interior renovations of +/- 4,000 square feet of rentable office space previously used by the Southeast Asia Program and the Nuclear Studies space, now referred to as Suite 201, located at East Hill Plaza on Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road. Renovations to include 7 new offices, a conference room, a kitchenette, a vestibule and a reception area. An existing exit will be reconfigured to serve as a common corridor for two separate tenants. Exterior renovations to include 21 feet of new window space, the removal of an existing window and repair of the masonry wall, and a new entrance door with canopy. Subject site is located on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2- 1.121, consisting of +/- 9.16 acres, Business District "C ". Cornell University, Owner; Bonnie J. VanAmburg, Agent, 8:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community (Alternative B.3), proposed to consist of a +/- 115,000 square foot building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80 independent living units, located on the west side of Danby Road 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, Inc., Applicant; Mark Macera, Agent. 5. Consideration of approval of a resolution to revoke Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42 -1 -9.14, 1.43 +/- acres in size, into two parcels, approximately 0.70 +/- acres and 0.64 +/- acres in size respectively, located at 346 Coddington Road, Residence District R- 15. Estate of Stephen J. Raponi, Owner; Frank J. Raponi, Applicant. 6. Approval of Minutes: November 7, 1995, November 21, 1995, December 5, 1995, January 23, 1996. 7, Other Business. 8, Adjournment. Jonathan Director 273 -1747 Kanter, AICP of Planning NOTE: IF ANY KUSER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY PLANNING BOARD SECRETARY STARR HAYS AT 273 -1747. 16 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) File Name: c: \Starr \Agendas \02- 06- 96.Agd • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FEBRUARY 6, 1996 FILED TOWN Of ITHACA 'Date .2Z) 4� Clerk 1-21'I i The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, February 6, 1996, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Candace Cornell, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Herbert Finch, Robert Kenerson, Fred Wilcox, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), George Frantz (Assistant Town Planner), JoAnn Cornish (Planner), Daniel Walker (Town Engineer), John Barney (Town Attorney). ALSO PRESENT: R.C. Quick, Kristina Bartlett, E & D Blanpied, Mark Macera, Fred Noetscher, John Yntema, J. A. Cimmino, C. Feiszli, N. Desch, B. VanAmburg, Michael A. Robinson, Ruth Newhall, Virginia Bryant, Charles Brodhead, Chairperson Cornell declared the p.m. and accepted, for the record, the Posting and Publication of the Notice Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 1996, said Notice was served upon the as appropriate, on February 2, 1996, Chairperson Cornell read the Fire assembled, as required by the New York Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD meeting duly opened at 7:38 Secretary's Affidavit of of Public Hearings in Town 29, 1996, and January 31, applicants and /or agents, Exit Regulations to those State Department of State, There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Cornell closed this segment of the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF THAT PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 56 -3 -26.2, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PARK LANE AND COMPRISING ±1.36 ACRES, INTO TWO LOTS, ±0.76 ACRES AND ±0.60 ACRES IN SIZE RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED ON PARK LANE APPROXIMATELY 160 FEET NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH NYS ROUTE 79 /SLATERVILLE ROAD, RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, BARBARA P. QUICK, OWNER; RAYMOND C. QUICK, AGENT. Chairperson Cornell declared opened and read aloud from the Not posted and published and as noted Assistant Town Planner George made an error in the Notices regar agent's name is Raymond C. Quick, the above -noted matter duly ice as Public Hearings as above. Frantz stated that staff had ding this Subdivision, the • Planning Board Minutes 2 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Raymond Quick of 191 Landon Road, Brooktondale, New York, addressed the Board and stated that he was requesting the two -lot subdivision approval so that he may be able to sell those lots. Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any environmental concerns regarding this proposal from anyone in the public or from the members of the Planning Board. There being no comments or concerns, Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion regarding the environmental significance of this proposal. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of that portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -3 -26.2 located on the south side of Park Lane and comprising +/- 1.36 acres, into two lots, +/- 0.76 and +/- 0.60 acre in size respectively, located on Park Lane approximately 160 ft, north of its intersection with NYS Rte, 79 /Slaterville Road, Residence District R -15. Barbara P. Quick, Owner; Raymond C. Quick, Agent. • 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 Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on February 6, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Pt. I submitted by the applicant the Town Planning Department, a and a Part plat entitled II prepared by "Subdivision Plat -- R.C. Quick Subdivision" Quick, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins R. James Stockwin, P.L.S. dated application materials, and of the County, August lands New 10, 1995, of Barbara P. York prepared by and other 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed subdivision; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. • There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. • Planning Board Minutes 3 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to.be carried unanimously. Chairperson Cornell declared the Public Hearing for the proposed two -lot subdivision for the Quick Property duly opened, and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Board Member Fred Wilcox asked, referring to the Subdivision Map, what a Slope Maintenance Easement meant. Director of Engineering Daniel Walker stated that when Park Lane was built there was significant cut there, to minimize the impact on the Quick's property the Town did not take the right of way to the top of the slope which is what would normally be done. Instead the Town maintained trying to minimize the amount of right of way that was being taken, the Town did want to make sure that the slope could be maintained if it became unstable. Mr. Walker stated that is why the Town has a easement to maintain that slope. If in the process of constructing a home that slope • is cut so that it is reduced so that there is less impact, then the Town would consider reducing the amount of easement needed to minimize the encroachment on the property. Chairperson Cornell asked Mr. Walker if that meant that the easement was a floating easement. Director of Engineering Walker responded, no, but that the Town would be open to changing that easement if the slope were regraded as part of a construction project, such as building a house. Chairperson Cornell asked how the slope was maintained. Director of Engineering Walker stated that it has been seeded down to grass. Board Member Wilcox stated that there was a error on the Subdivision Map regarding the square footage of Lot B, which reads 263,000 square feet. Assistant Town Planner George Frantz stated that there was some gas related fixtures that belong to NYSEG located on the property, which are not shown on the survey. Neither he nor Mr. Quick knew what the fixtures were used for, nor whether or not • they were within an easement or right -of -way. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the stage • Planning Board Minutes 4 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 regulator could be relocated if that was a problem. Mr. Walker stated that it should be showed on the subdivision plat. Mr. Walker stated that the easement lines for NYSEG use should be made clear on the subdivision plat. Mr Walker stated that the square footage of Lot B should be 26,036 square feet, which should also be corrected by the surveyor on the map. Mr. Walker stated that the sewer easement and the manhole on the top of Lot A is not physically there at this point, and asked that the plat be revised to read "Proposed Manhole ". MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by Gregory Bell: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of that portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -3 -26.2 located on the south side of Park Lane and comprising +/- 1.36 acres, into two lots, +/- 0.76 and +/- 0.60 acre in size respectively, located on Park Lane approximately 160 ft, north of its intersection with NYS Rte. 79 /Slaterville Road, Residence District R -15. Barbara P. Quick, Owner; Raymond C. Quick, Agent. • 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has, on February 6, 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 6, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a plat entitled "Subdivision Plat -- R.C. Quick Subdivision" of the lands of Barbara P. Quick, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York prepared by R. James Stockwin, P.L.S. dated August 10, 1995, and other application materials, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies • enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and • Planning Board Minutes 5 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of that portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 56 -3 -26.2 located on the south side of Park Lane and comprising +/- 1.36 acres, into two lots, +/- 0.76 and +/- 0.60 acre in size respectively, as shown on the plat entitled "Subdivision Plat -- R.C. Quick Subdivision" of the lands of Barbara P. Quick, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York prepared by R. James Stockwin, P.L.S. dated August 10, 1995, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a. revision of the plat to show natural gas line fixtures located in the southwesterly corner of Lot B, and any easements associated with said fixtures, and to correct the figure for the square footage of Lot B. b, revision of the plat to show manhole along northerly property boundary as being proposed. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. • Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Cornell duly closed the matter of the two -lot subdivision of Barbara P. Quick duly closed at 7:53 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED INTERIOR RENOVATIONS OF ±4,000 SQUARE FEET OF RENTABLE OFFICE SPACE PREVIOUSLY USED BY THE SOUTHEAST ASIA PROGRAM AND THE NUCLEAR STUDIES SPACE, NOW REFERRED TO AS SUITE 210, LOCATED AT EAST HILL PLAZA ON JUDD FALLS ROAD AND ELLIS HOLLOW ROAD. RENOVATIONS TO INCLUDE 7 NEW OFFICES, A CONFERENCE ROOM, A KITCHENETTE, A VESTIBULE, AND A RECEPTION AREA. AN EXISTING EXIT WILL BE RECONFIGURED TO SERVE AS A COMMON CORRIDOR FOR TWO SEPARATE TENANTS. EXTERIOR RENOVATIONS TO INCLUDE 21 FEET OF NEW WINDOW SPACE, THE REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING WINDOW AND REPAIR OF THE MASONRY WALL, AND A NEW ENTRANCE DOOR WITH CANOPY, SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 62- 2- 1.121, CONSISTING OF ±9.16 ACRES, BUSINESS DISTRICT "C ". CORNELL UNIVERSITY, OWNER; BONNIE J. VANAMBURG, AGENT. Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly • opened and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. • Planning Board Minutes 6 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Bonnie VanAmburg addressed the Board and stated that she was going to let the architect speak for the project Chuck Feiszli of Resource Associates in Cortland, New York, addressed the Board and stated that he had prepared the plan that was presented to the Planning Board, and that he was currently preparing the construction drawings for the site in anticipation of receiving approval from this Board. Mr. Feiszli stated that the project consists of a 4,000 square foot open space, that they will be cutting a new entrance into for an aluminum glass door. Mr. Feiszli stated that there would be a 21 -foot long window placed in the front, and 7 new offices and a conference room will be constructed within the space. Mr. Feiszli stated that two of the offices will be for the comptrollers and the remaining will be for rental space to an unknown tenant, although the tenant will be a department of Cornell University. Mr. Feiszli stated that the walls will be finished, new lighting and new ceilings throughout, but that the flooring will remain unfinished so that the tenants can select their own carpeting or whatever they want in their own space. Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any comments regarding the possible environmental significance of this • project. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any questions from any member of the Planning Board regarding the environmental significance of this project. Board Member Wilcox stated that question number 6 was not answered on the Short Environmental Assessment Form, which asked how much land would be effected by this project. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that the amount of land that would be effected by this project would be 4,000 square feet, or ±.10 acres. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that the description of the windows were not very detailed, and asked for a more detailed description. Mr. Feiszli stated that the windows would be thermal pane, aluminum store front type similar to what is existing in the Purchasing Department next door to this site, which was put in last year. Mr. Feiszli stated that the windows would be 21 feet long. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the windows would be one continuous space. Mr. Feiszli stated that it would be one continuous space, 21 • Planning Board Minutes 7 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 feet long, approximately 4 feet high. Town Attorney John Barney asked how far above the floor level the windows would be located. Mr. Feiszli stated that the windows would be approximately three feet. Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion regarding the environmental significance of this project. MOTION by Gregory Bell, seconded by Robert Kenerson: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed interior renovations to 41000 +/- square feet of rentable office space previously used by the Southeast Asia Program and Nuclear Studies, now known as Suite 210, located at East Hill Plaza corner of Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.121, Business District C, Cornell University, Owner; Bonnie J. VanAmburg, Agent. • 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on February 6, 1996, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Planning staff, a floor plan entitled "Proposed Floor Plan, Suite 210," date stamped January 10, 1996, prepared by Resource Associates, and additional application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff have recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed site plan, as proposed; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. • There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. • Planning Board Minutes 8 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Cornell declared the public Hearing in the matter of Preliminary Site Plan approval for Suite 210 at East Hill Plaza to be duly opened, and asked if there were any member of the public that wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Board Member Hoffmann stated, from the drawing submitted for tonight's meeting, the internal corridor looked like it was only for access to offices within the building, not as an entrance or exit. Mr. Feiszli stated that the corridor that is shown is an existing corridor that serves the rear of the offices that are there, but that there was an exit at the east side of the Suite as shown in the drawing. Board Member Hoffmann stated that meant that there was only one door that exists to the north of the building. Mr. Feiszli stated that was correct, and that it was a 44- inch wide door. Planner JoAnn Cornish stated that she had compiled some figures regarding parking and traffic flow and distributed them to each of the Board Members, Ms. Cornish stated that there was not a significant increase in the demand for parking taking the worse -case scenario for general office space. Ms. Cornish stated that traffic could be impacted somewhat if there were a more intensive use in that space, but she did not think it is extremely significant. Ms. Cornish stated that parking at East Hill Plaza seems to be adequate for most uses that are there, the rear lot is, according to the square footage of this space, almost filled to capacity, but is adequate. Chairperson Cornell stated that she was not sure that it is appropriate for the Planning Board to be reviewing projects dealing with interior design. Chairperson Cornell stated that the parking issue is probably the reason why the Board is seeing this. Chairperson Cornell stated that the thresholds that mandate Planning Board review should be reviewed and possibly updated. Chairperson Cornell stated that she also feels that signs could be reviewed by a different Board or by staff as well, • and that these were issues that should be considered. Board Member Hoffmann stated that one of her concerns, when • • • Planning Board Minutes 9 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 considering traffic, is that from the back of the building, there are a number of driveways right next to one another. Ms. Hoffmann stated that it is hard to turn south because of the speed of traffic coming north, and to increase the number of cars using these access points could cause problems. Planner Cornish stated that she did not feel that this specific project would cause such an increase in traffic that problems would be generated from this change. Board Member Wilcox asked if there were any deficiencies, in terms of actions this Board has approved that have not been completed yet, on this property. Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that P &C is proposing to expand, which will be on an upcoming agenda, and the landscaping and parking improvements that were approved awhile ago were never completed, but will be addressed when they return to the Board with a proposed action. Planner Cornish stated that Cornell University has submitted to the Town, a letter of commitment for those landscape and parking lot improvements, as part of the P &C Expansion project. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated, in response to Ms. Hoffmann's concerns about traffic, that one aspect of this proposal is that users of this area have two ways of getting to and from the Plaza, from Judd Falls Road, or around East Hill Plaza to the Ellis Hollow Road entrance. Mr. Frantz stated that the use is a fairly low traffic generator and there are two points of access. Board Member Wilcox stated, for the record, that he was at Andree's gas station at East Hill Plaza and was using the most northern pump and it was wide enough for two lanes of cars, and there were cars going in and out of the gas station as a shortcut, and it was a mess. Chairperson Cornell stated that she had been going by the same gas station and stated that would be addressed when the P &C Expansion project comes before the Board. Chairperson Cornell asked if there were any further comments regarding Suite 210 at East Hill Plaza. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion regarding approval of the proposed site plan. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Herbert Finch: WHEREAS: • Planning Board Minutes 10 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 1. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed interior modifications to 4,000 +/- square feet of rentable office space previously used by the Southeast Asia Program and Nuclear Studies, now known as Suite 210, located at East Hill Plaza corner of Judd Falls Road and Ellis Hollow Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62- 2- 1.121, Business District C, Cornell University, Owner; Bonnie J. VanAmburg, Agent. 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on February 61 1996, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form part I, prepared by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Publ has reviewed and accepted as "Proposed Floor Plan - Suite 1996, prepared by Resource As 10, 1996, and additional appl • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: is Hearing on February 6, 1996 adequate a floor plan entitled 210," and dated January 15, sociates, date stamped January ication materials. 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 for the proposed interior modifications entitled "Floor Plan - Suite 210 ", and dated January 15, 1996, prepared by Resource Associates, subject to the following condition: a. Submission of an original and two copies of the final floor plan, revised to include the conditions shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklist attached, for approval by the Town Engineer and Town Planner. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. is Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. • Planning Board Minutes 11 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. The Board noticed that there was a reference throughout the various documentation to both Suite 201 and Suite 210, and asked Mr. Feiszli which number was correct. Mr. Feiszli indicated Suite 210 was the correct number. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell declared the matter of Site Plan Approval for Suite 210 at East Hill Plaza duly closed at 8:15 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 23, 1996. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board Meeting of January 23, 1996, by and hereby are approved with the following changes: That on Page 12, Paragraph 3, Last Sentence, which read: "Ms. Hoffmann stated that if the traffic is moving from inner • campus to other areas of the Town, it is a concern, and maybe there would be increased traffic in other areas of the Town." This was changed to read: "Ms. Hoffmann stated that if the traffic is moving from inner campus to other areas of the Town, it is a concern, and maybe there would be increased traffic in residential areas of the Town." That on Page 17, Fifth Paragraph, which read: "In the Full Environemtnal Assessment Form mentioned by Ithacare to the Planning Board and the Town Board...." This was changed to read: "In the Full Environemtnal Assessment Form presented by Ithacare to the Planning Board and the Town Board...." That on Page 19, First Paragraph under Other Business, which read: "Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that while she was at East Hill Plaza, she saw a half a dozen vehicles cut through the gas station to avoid having to sit through the intersection." This was changed to read: " "Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated taht while she was at the East Hill Plaza gas station, she saw a half a dozen vehicles use the gas station as a short cut while exiting East Hill Plaza itself." There being no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell called for a vote. • Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell Nay - None. 0 Planning Board Minutes 12 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED ITHACARE CENTER SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY (ALTERNATIVE B /3), PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF A +115,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH 60 ADULT CARE UNITS, 20 ASSISTED LIVING UNITS, AND 80 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS, LOCATED ON TEH 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 N0, 39 -1 -1.3 DESIGNATED AS SPECIAL LAND USE DISTRICT N0, 7. ITHACARE CENTER, INC., APPLICANT; MARK MACERA, AGENT, Chairperson Cornell declared the above -noted matter duly opened at 8:20 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of Public Hearings and posted and published and as noted above. Mark Macera, representative for Ithacare Center, addressed the Board and stated Ithacare had put together materials consistent with the Planning Board's checklists of required items for Preliminary Site Plan review and approval. Mr. Macera stated that all of the required documents were submitted and the material that was submitted includes additional details that in • his estimation goes beyond the requirements for Preliminary Site Plan review. Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that the Adopted Statement of Findings fulfills the SEQR requirements for this Site Plan. ' Chairperson Cornell stated that this was a Public Hearing and asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. John Yntema of 993 Danby Road, addressed the Board and stated that if he were associated with Ithacare, the Board would not care where he lived. Mr. Yntema stated that no one else has to give their street address except people from the public. Mr. Yntema read from a statement he had prepared. (Mr. Yntema's written comments are hereto attached as Exhibit #2) Mr. Yntema added to his statement that the fireworks display at Ithaca College should be considered as well, because it is very loud and would probably bother the elderly residents of Ithacare. Mr. Yntema stated that it seems to be out of order that the Planning Board is considering a Site Plan Approval when the applicant still has to go to the Town Board to get approval to • use this site. Mr. Yntema asked the Attorney Barney if that was the correct procedure or if it did not matter which came first. • r1 L Planning Board Minutes 13 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Attorney Barney responded that it could be handled either way, and the decision was made to determine whether this site plan would be approved by this Board and then taken to the Town Board to determine whether they will amend the Special Land Use District to permit this site plan. Attorney Barney stated that the original SLUD laid out a specific variation for the building, which was somewhat closer to the road than this site plan. Attorney Barney stated that without knowing whether the Planning Board would approve this site plan, the Town Board would be acting somewhat in a vacuum. Attorney Barney stated it was a question of which should be done first, and the recommendation of staff was to do the preliminary site plan review prior to the Town Board amending the SLUD. Chairperson Cornell stated that it was her understanding that there would not be any additional building beyond the proposed project on this property. Chairperson Cornell stated that the free - standing condos were taken out of the project. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that they were taken out of the project very early on primarily because the Town had indicated to Ithacare that there were major environmental concerns regarding the development of the lower end of the property. Chairperson Cornell asked anywhere that this is the only location. if there was a limitation stated building that will occur at this Attorney Barney stated that this is the only building that could occur because the SLUD indicates that this is the only authorized building in the previous footprint, and if modified, then this building in this location will be the only construction to occur within the SLUD. Attorney Barney stated even if there was an absolute prohibition placed in the record now, saying there shall be no building other than this building, a future Board could amend that provision of the law. Chairperson Cornell stated that there should be some language that ensures the continued use of the overlook for the members of the public. Chairperson Cornell asked if it had been decided who would maintain the overlook. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated, as of now, the State does not maintain the overlook. Mr. Frantz stated that he had spoken with a member of their staff in Cortland, which has jurisdiction over the overlook, who stated that Ithaca College maintains the overlook at this time. Michael Robinson of 248 Floral Avenue, addressed the Board and read from a prepared statement as follows: • Planning Board Minutes 14 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 "About 500 years ago, when the proud Cayuga Nation tracked from its winter quarters near Lansing to its upland summer home near Upper Buttermilk, the land that they called The Place of the Tall Trees, the people could gaze from the very top of South Hill and see the big waters, the lake that bears their name. For several decades in this century motorists have marvelled as they approach the crest of the hill just south of Ithaca College on Route 96B and gaze at the incredible panorama the Cayugas beheld with awe. Now, this evening, you are being asked to sully this natural treasure by allowing Ithacare to obstruct that view. Ithacare says it has to be that way, any other way is too expensive, but that's not so. They raised the money to build what they want to build, and had they cared at all about the people of this area and the people of the state of New York and the others that have enjoyed that beautiful site, they would have raised the money to site the building properly. But you see, it's money we are talking about, we are not talking about the elderly, we're talking about money, and they don't care to spend the money to preserve our environmental treasures. If any other type of business, and yes Ithacare is a business, tried such a thing the outrage would be universal. But Ithacare provides facilities for the elderly and therefore is considered special. If it is special, it's not special because it's going to sully a • site, it's special because it provides a needed service. It comes out and talks about all the time, well we're not really a business, we're a not - for - profit business, and that implies that they are some kind of charity, well they are not a charity, they are not non - profit, they are not for profit, and there is a major difference which I think you would all do well to have John Barney explain to you. But the wealthiest corporation today in the State of California is Fair Lawn Cemetery, which happens to be a not - for - profit business. Had they raised the money to move further down the hill and make some adjustments, they would not have to really worry about pumping sewage uphill because that's what this is all about. They could have just continued their sewage lines down over until they hit Stone Quarry Road and tied in there and everything could have operated on a gravity flow system. But that meant getting easements and right of ways and a lot of other work and that is something no one wanted to encumber because they wanted to build the edifice in the most expedient way possible. In the Environmental Impact study there was no inventory or survey of wildlife and potentially endangered species. Maybe some people don't think that's very important, but it is the law, it is required, and it has not been included. You know, I've travelled all over the world and I've seen some beautiful sites, I've seen Angel Falls in South America, I've seen the great planes of Africa, and I've seen the falls at Yellow Stone and none of those sites is any more spectacular or • more beautiful than the site we're talking about impinging upon right now, and it should not be allowed. Killing out environment piece by piece is just an exercise that leads to killing it all, • Planning Board Minutes 15 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 and this is an environmental treasure we're talking about. This is an environmental treasure. That view is something our grand children aren't going to get to see, not the way it exists today. Oh, they will get a corner of it here and a corner of it there, and that will probably disappear, because in the name of progress or profit, in five years time there will be somebody back here saying well we have to go up another 30 feet because there are all of these elderly people that really don't have no place to go right now, and it is incumbent upon you, not to use your heads but to use your hearts, and just deprive everybody else that's ever going to drive by there of the opportunity to view what's left. If you give an inch, the mile is gone. Recently, the City of Ithaca Planning Board had to consider whether or not to benefit to the tune of $500,000 a year in new taxes from a Wal Mart store and have a couple of hundred jobs come in with it, and whether I agreed with them or not does not matter, because they said no. And the first thing they listed when they said no, was the protection of the viewshed from the property entirely in the Town of Ithaca It would seem to me, this Board could sort out fact from fiction, and tell the applicants to go back and do it the right way. I don't want to cause them a lot of problems, I think they do a great job in doing what they do. It's just that they don't care about the people being hurt in this process. The property owners in that area, a lot of the value of their homes is based on the view from their homes up there and you know what, I've talked to several of those property owners and not one person from Ithacare has shown up and said, hey we realize we're going to cut the value of your property in half, you're going to have to go down and ask for a reassessment of your house and we would like to do the right thing to see that you are compensated for that because there is not sense of equity coming from the proponents here. The only sense of equity is coming from the opponents who say, hey listen, the facility is great but move it down the hill and site it in such a way that is not going to cause a problem. Part of the, if we move it down the hill we'll mess up the wetlands, is a smoke screen to stop from going down the hill because the property can be sited there, it has been studied by several people. If we tear apart our environment and this environmental treasure piece by piece by piece, you'll have to accept the responsibility of doing exactly what our great nation did in Vietnam when we tried killing for peace. That didn't work and this isn't going to work because in the long run everyone will be hurt. If passed, they'll come back and it will go on and on and on, and Ithacare should not be in a position to dictate to future generations that will benefit from that glorious site. And if you pass this, and I beg you not to, if you pass this, you will all be able to say I have met the enemy and we are it. Thank you." • Ruth Newhall, resident of Ithacare and Vice - President of the resident council, addressed the Board and stated, "as an elected • Planning Board Minutes 16 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 representative of the 80 residents and their many family members, I encourage the Planning Board to grant Ithacare Preliminary Site Plan approval. The environmental impact statement has addressed all of the significant issues and has made two very important findings. They include confirming the need for and benefits to Ithacare's senior living community, and determining ,that building Ithacare on the South Hill Site will not have a significant adverse impact on any aspect of the environment. Please help up us to move forward in a timely manner and avoid unnecessary delays which deny the elderly the housing and the supportive services they require. Thank you for your consideration. Joseph A. Cimmino,,addressed the Board and read from a prepared statement. (Mr. Cimmino's statement is attached hereto as Exhibit #4) Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Cimmino was referencing the comments she had made at the last meeting, and she simply compared the figures that were given in the original Environmental Assessment Form with the numbers that are in the Alternative B3, and there was a big difference between them. Mr. Cimmino asked if Alternative B3 was higher than the • original proposal. Director of Planning Kanter stated that he thought, from his own recollection, the original Short Environmental Assessment Form, meaning not the one associated with this Environmental Impact Statement, but the ones that were completed previous to site plan, in many ways should not even be considered because the numbers only can confuse the current process. Mr. Kanter stated that he did not think it was appropriate to include that reference in Ms. Hoffmann's statement regarding the current Findings Statement, Board Member Hoffmann stated that her comments were based on the documents approved by the Planning Board and passed on to the Town Board at the time the SLUD was being considered, and that is why she made that comment. Mr. Cimmino stated that it was confusing to-him because he understood that there were three alternatives for consideration. Mr. Cimmino stated that Ms. Hoffmann's figures were from documents that were not part of this SEQR process. Mr. Cimmino asked if Alternative B3 is taller than the three alternatives considered in the SEQR process. Board Member Hoffmann stated that Mr. Cimmino would have to • look at those figures himself. Chairperson Cornell asked if there was any validity that • Planning Board Minutes 17 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Alternative B3 was higher than the original action. Attorney Barney stated that he remembered there being confusion of what datum was being used, which showed some discrepancy in the figures used. Mark Macera addressed the Board and stated that in October 1993 a development review application, which included an environmental assessment form before any significant studies that were done on the site and any architectural designs done, we supplied information that was accurate and complete information at the time that indicated that there were approximate numbers regarding the building design. Mr. Macera stated that it indicated, as Ms. Hoffmann had identified in her comments, that the building height would be approximately 591 feet, if he remembers correctly. Mr. Macera stated that the issue became, that the zoning for this property was not going to accommodate this project, so the zoning needed to be amended to provide a Special Land Use District, Mr. Macera stated that at the same time, it was required of Ithacare to put together more detailed information of what the building was going to look like. The submission that was made in December of 1993 included L. Robert Kimball designs dated December 10, 1993, it included high roof • ridges of 601 feet and all the details associated with the building, which was in the environmental impact statement, which identified the original action as 601 feet. Mr. Macera stated that everything since then has gone down hill, to 597 feet since the documentation, that was part of the application for amendment of the SLUD. Mr. Macera stated that the EAF, which was considered as part of the environmental assessment, is being used and stated as being the definitive figure, it was never submitted as such, was never interpreted as such, but has been used to suggest that the building height has gone from 591 to 597, which is not an accurate account of what has occurred. Mr. Macera stated that the reduction from the original plan of 601 feet, has gone down four feet to 597 feet. Mr. Cimmino thanked the Board for the clarification, their time and their attention. Chairperson Cornell noted that this was a Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone else present that wished to speak. No one spoke. Chairperson Cornell closed the Public Hearing and brought the matter back to the Board for discussion. Chairperson Cornell stated that she feels very strongly that this should be the only building on this lot. Chairperson Cornell stated that she understood that it could be changed in . the future, but if the Planning Board agreed that this should be the only building and that future buildings should not be allowed, and that is made a condition in the decision, at least Planning Board Minutes 18 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 it would be in the record for future Planning Boards and Town Boards in the event that they do come to the Town with another proposal. Board Member Gregory Bell stated that he did not see the necessity for doing that because the SLUD specifies only one building be placed on that lot anyway. Board Member James Ainslie stated that the biggest problem with this proposal has been the view and if anything further was built on this lot, it would be down back of the proposed building which would absolutely have nothing to do with the view. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there would still be the restraints that the Board has been given as reasons why this building could not be moved, which is because of the cost of excavation because of the steep slopes, the amount of rock in the ground, erodible soils, and the proximity to the wetland. Board Member Ainslie stated that smaller buildings would not need the foundation of the large proposed building. Attorney Barney stated that he • Planning Board should prejudge this the future. Attorney Barney stated the issues as they are presented to other project or property, does not feel that the parcel because we do not know that the Board should judge them, just as they would any Mark Macera stated that when Ithacare came to the Town, discussing the long term plans, the issue became what was included in this continuum of care. Mr. Macera stated that the possibility of a skilled nursing facility, cottages or separate units was discussed, but at that time it was made clear to Ithacare representatives that without very definitive plans, that those issues could not be considered as part of the SLUD as well as part of the Preliminary Site Plan approval. Mr. Macera stated that there are no detailed plans and therefore it had to be withdrawn. Mr. Macera stated that the plans exist, if and when that time comes, the issues will be addressed at the time that the proposal is made to the Town. Mr. Macera stated that he would encourage the Board not to preclude Ithacare from approaching the Board. Board Member Ainslie asked if he had heard one of the members of the public stated that Ithacare had threatened the Planning Board, Mr. Ainslie stated that he does not like that kind of statement. Mr. Ainslie stated that he has not been threatened, and he felt that statement should be stricken. • Board Member Herbert Finch asked for clarification to be sure that he understands the procedure. Mr. Finch stated that ® Planning Board Minutes 19 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 the Planning Board is considering Preliminary Site Plan tonight with the recommendation that goes to the Town Board, Attorney Barney stated that if the Planning Board finds this plan approvable, then any approval has to be conditional on the Town Board amending the SLUD to allow this particular site plan to be the final plan. Attorney Barney stated if approved by the Town Board and the SLUD modified, then Ithacare will appear before the Planning Board for Final Site Plan approval. Board Member Finch asked if a Public Hearing would be involved with the Final Site Plan approval. Attorney Barney stated that Final Site Plan does not require a Public Hearing, the Board may or may not hold a Public Hearing. Board Member Finch asked if the Town Board decision would have a Public Hearing, Attorney Barney stated that the Town Board decision will be subject to a Public Hearing, Board Member Fred Wilcox asked what the difference was between a trail and a path, because they were identified differently on the trails plan (Drawing L5) provided by Ithacare. Mr. Macera stated that the trails as indicated on that drawing to the left of the building itself are the nature trails. Mr. Macera stated that the "path" referenced on the drawing is to allow the residents to walk all the way around the building. Mr. Macera stated that it would not be concrete or asphalt. Fred Noetscher, Architect from L. Robert Kimball & Associates, stated that the path around the building could be a crushed stone walk. Mr. Macera stated that the concept is to permit residents to move completely around the building unobstructed, a path. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated, for the purpose of this plan, the path will then be more developed in terms of its surface. Mr. Frantz stated that the detailed drawings regarding the trails and path state that they would be made of the same material, which is indicated as "Granular trail and path ". Mr. Noetscher addressed the Board and stated that he has been involved with this project for the last two and one half ® years. Mr. Noetscher stated that the path Ithacare is trying to describe would be, as requested by Mr. Macera, a path at five percent grade or less and would connect hard surfaces, such as • Planning Board Minutes 20 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 walkways, which would be to the east of the building with the back of the building so that their clients could walk around the entire facility. Mr. Noetscher stated that the trail itself, which is the nature trail was calculated at a half mile in length, which would run west of the building and through the meadow and wooded areas and be open for public use. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she felt that the drawings they received were hard to look at because they were so small, and asked for a presentation by Mr. Noetscher. Mr. Noetscher stated that he assumed that everyone knew why the building is in its current location because of all of the work that has been done in the SEQR review. Why the building is in its current configuration, once again, as a mitigating factor for the SEQR review. Mr. Noetscher stated, referring to Map SK- L1J, shows the configuration of the building. Mr. Noetscher stated, in order to reduce the overall width of the building a garden level apartment has been added that would run along the west face of the building. Grading is such that there is a five percent slope down to the western area, which is not only for client /patient use, but also for possibly emergency vehicles. Mr. Noetscher asked that everyone bare in mind that when this • particular project went through its problems a year ago, Ithacare and Kimball were in contact with the Town Engineers, the Fire Department, and was negotiating different things in order to move the project forward. Because of the legal problems, those negotiations were stopped, so the Fire Department has been contacted, but he has not received official approval on Fire hydrant placement, the water loop, or access to the west of the building at this point. Mr. Noetscher stated that the parking arrangements are basically the same as was shown on the original proposed action. The parking has been changed between the building and the pond trying to add a little more parking and to allow deliveries from semi - tractor trailers to be more convenient. Mr. Noetscher stated that the sewage is shown with connection off -site, an easement or right -of -way will be received from Ithaca College for that connection. Mr. Noetscher stated that discussions have been stopped with the utilities as well. Mr. Noetscher stated that Ithacare would be getting gas and power connections off Route 96B to the Building. The storm drainage system is set up as shown on the proposed action, A storm system run around the building to the south, and empties out below the outlet of the pond. There is a smaller storm system that will empty out on grade along the north end of the property. Mr. Noetscher stated that this will also be designed to handle any mitigating circumstances for no increase in runoff in that area. • Mr. Noetscher stated, referring to Drawing L4, which is the Planting Plan, stated that Ithacare had contacted Bob Wesley and John Confer, who suggested plant materials that would be added to • Planning Board Minutes 21 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 the site and would attract birds and small animals, and placed along the western side of the building and along the embankment. Mr. Noetscher stated that there would be more formal plantings along the front of the building, there would be lawn, and smaller flowering trees and shrubs. Mr. Noetscher stated, referring to Drawing L5, which shows the trail system that is being proposed. Mr. Noetscher stated that in the Findings Statement the Town said that they would like to see parking in the northern parking lot for access to the trail system, and through out this process, Ithacare has proposed parking in the southern -most parking lot in direct connection to that trail at that point. Mr. Noetscher stated that the trail comes out at the northern parking lot, but because of the proximity to the building, Ithacare assumes their clients will be parking in the northern parking lot, with overflow parking, visitor parking, and employee parking will occur in the southern parking lot, therefore, it would be a logical place to assign a specific number of spaces for people that may wish to use the trail system. Mr. Noetscher stated, referring to Drawing A6R, that in the process of developing this building Ithacare has limited funds • and before developing the building, he would need to know what type of action that would be approvable by this Planning Board, so what was submitted was one front elevation drawing, which should be considered typical of all other views of the building. Mr. Noetscher stated, that he means typical from the standpoint of materials, finishes and textures. Mr. Noetscher stated that there are panels of brick interrupted by panels of siding, which will be the overall character of the building from basically any viewpoint. Board Member Gregory Bell asked if the section of the elevation drawing was just the front wing. Mr. Noetscher stated that it was the entire front of the building. Board Member Bell stated that it does not represent the actual view of what one would look at if standing there because there are wings that reach out on both sides and would be visible from the point at which the drawing was taken from. Mr. Noetscher stated that this was an orthographic projection of the front of the building, it is not a perspective, it is not intended to show things behind it or on the side of it. Board Member Bell stated that he understood that and wanted to be sure that the Board understood that. Mr. Bell stated that the building would, in fact, be 50 percent longer than shown in • Planning Board Minutes 22 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Drawing A6R. Mr. Noetscher stated that how much longer it appeared would depend on how much closer one was to the building. i Board Member Hoffmann asked what would be seen from the northern -most corner of the overlook. I Mr. Macera stated that was shown in the computer generated images submitted in the EIS, on Page IV.H.2.b. Mr. Noetscher stated that in satisfying the requirements for Preliminary Site Plan approval there was no requirement for a perspective of the building showing any information, I but simply elevations of the building which is shown on this drawing. Board Member Bell stated that if the Board does not understand the distinction, this could be misleading. Mr. Noetscher asked if the trying to misrepresent anything form, textures, and materials of Board understood that he was not to them, other than to show the the building with this image. • Assistant Town Planner showed the Board what amount of the wings would be visible to someone standing on the northern end of the overlook by placing a file folder on that spot on the overlook, which showed that the amount of the northeast wing that would be visible would be very little. Mr. Frantz stated, doing the same thing with the west wing, which showed that none of the west wing should be visible from the midwest point of the parking area to the 590 mark on the drawing. Mr. Frantz stated, from the southern end of the overlook, from the number 600 mark on the drawing, you would see from the edge of the lower roof line, you would see approximately half of that wing, using the higher roof line, you would see most of the wing. Chairperson Cornell asked if the materials that were submitted were enough for the Board to be considering Preliminary Site Plan Approval. Director of Planning Kanter responded that his opinion is that the items that have been submitted were more than adequate for what we would normally want to see for Preliminary Site Plan review. Mr. Kanter added, referring to the building elevations, additional building elevations that the Town would like to see submitted as part of Final Site Plan Approval that would include elevations through each of the wings from all angels, as mentioned in the draft resolution provided to the Planning Board • at this meeting. Mr. Kanter stated that the Board could ask for some kind of a bird'seye perspective view of the building as viewed from the overlook: • Planning Board Minutes 23 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Chairperson Cornell stated that if the Board felt strongly about that it could be asked for. Mr. Noetscher bird'seye view or a asked if Mr. perspective Kanter was view from referring to a the overlook as one would actually view the building from that area. location. Chairperson Cornell asked if people would be looking out at the cars located on the south - westerly parking area. Mr. Macera stated that the parking lot will be located well above this level, and it would be graded in such a way that the residents would be seeing an embankment that would be properly landscaped so that the view would not be of vehicles. Board Member Bell stated, referring to the elevation drawings, on each of the unit drawings shown in A6R, it appears that each one has a large expanse of something, is that a patio, sliding glass door. Mr. Noetscher stated that they will probably be sliding glass doors, at grade, they would be all around the building in any unit that is at grade. Board Member Bell asked if there would be a patio in front of those doors. Mr. Noetscher stated that they would probably provide a small concrete pad. Board Member Bell asked if they open into living rooms in the units. Mr. Noetscher stated that the doors would open into the living space of each unit. Mr. Macera stated that any living units at grade would have patios, living units on second level would have balcony or porch of some sort. Mr. Macera stated that the reason that is not shown on the front of the building is because the highest level of care is located directly over the top of the common area to reduce travel distances between high level need,and the support area to meet the needs of that population. Board Member Bell stated that it would seem to him that having this huge expanses of glass would be an invasion of privacy, and he would be surprised that people that live there would want something like that. Mr. Macera stated that the elderly seniors are no different than the rest of us in regard to wanting as much open area and • Planning Board Minutes 24 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 lighted window spaces as possible. Mr. Macera stated that in open session groups, it was determined that they prefer as many windows and wide open space as possible. Planner Cornish asked if there was security on the grounds of Ithacare. Mr. Macera stated that they would incorporate the necessary apparatus that will meet the needs for seniors, the issue of emergency call systems will be located in all critical common areas as well as individual units so there can be emergency response 24 hours a day. Beyond that, the potential for "security" with regard to personnel, other than the staff that is there 24 hours per day. Mr. Macera stated that there will be no formal security apparatus. Ithaca College may have their security drive through the property several times a day as part of the relationship with the college. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it sounds to her as though this is all very fluid because the sliding glass doors were described as sliding glass doors with a possible small concrete pad in front of it, so it sounds as if there may not be sliding glass doors. • Mr. Macera stated that Ms. Hoffmann was correct, there could be atrium doors, french doors; the question of which type of doors will be there is unknown, but there will be some sort of large doors. Assistant Town Planner Frantz stated that in the half dozen retirement /elderly communities that he has been to in the last five years, this type of door seems to be very common. Mr. Frantz stated that just having an area for the elderly to have an individual area where they can take care of plants or what ever they prefer to do as a personal activity is considered good therapy. Mr. Noetscher stated that the trails will start at the southern parking lot and wrap around to the west. Mr. Noetscher stated that this is being designed to the ADA requirements of five percent grade or less. As a side note, Mr. Noetscher stated that this will make an excellent cross - country skiing trail. There also will be placed along the trails to take advantage of site features with rest stops. Mr. Noetscher stated that it would come back to the parking lot on the south end of the building. Mr. Noetscher stated that the surface would be a layer compacted crushed stone with literally stone dust sprinkled on top of it. It becomes a very durable surface, it is still a granular surface, it will drain well and last for a long time. It creates a very sturdy surface to walk on. Mr. Noetscher stated that the pathway will run along the west side of the • Planning Board Minutes 25 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 building allowing the clients to walk completely around the building unobstructed. Mr. Macera requested that the issue of the northern parking area not be included for visitor parking due to the proximity of the back side of the building and living spaces, as it could infringe upon their privacy and rights. Board Member James Ainslie asked if the path that goes around the building would be able to have snow removal done with a small plow. Mr. Noetscher stated that the surface would be very durable and one could run a small tractor over it or a snow blower over it without any problems. Mr. Macera stated that in their prior experiences, the likelihood of someone using the path in bad weather is probably unlikely. Paths outside of the entrances and exits, and emergency exits are left untreated during the winter because they are not used. Board Member Hoffmann asked what the surface of the pathways • would be. Mr. Noetscher stated that, at this point in time, it is planned to be the same as on the trails. Director of Planning Kanter stated that he would have no problem recommending changing condition 2.a.4 in the drafted resolution regarding the northern parking area as long as the Board receives a clear indication of the number and location of spaces in the southern lot for visitors. Mr. Kanter stated that there should be an indication of how many spaces are being proposed. Board Member Bell stated there is a drawing of the sign that will be built in front of the building, which says Ithacare Center, Danby Road. Mr. Bell asked if the road number would be shown on the sign. Mr. Macera stated that the sign is not accurate, only for visual review purposes. Mr. Noetscher stated th sign conforming to Town of I bigger of smaller than what stated that Ithacare has not • phrasing, or logo. Mr. Macera stated that at the sign being shown is a legal thaca Sign Ordinance. It is not is allowed by law. Mr. Noetscher determined the exact terminology, the location of the sign has been Planning Board Minutes 26 February 6, 1996 • ADOPTED 2/20/96 determined and is shown on the site plan. Board Member Bell suggested that the road number be included on the sign. Virginia Bryant of Community Relations, stated that Ithacare had spoken with Ed Gatch, who is the head of the post office, and he stated that the Town establishes the numbers and after that was done they would set up for delivery with Ithacare. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she felt it would be interesting to know the eventual height of some of the trees that would be planted. Ms. Hoffmann asked which were the tall growing trees and how high do they get. Mr. Noetscher stated that the maples and the oaks do get fairly large; for final site plan review, he could include the average mature height of the trees on the planting schedule or drawing. Mr. Noetscher stated that he tried to move the largest trees on the site to be used as a buffer for the parking areas that are there. Chairperson Cornell stated that the Board wants more detail • on the plantings and the heights that may reach for final site plan review. There appearing to be no further discussion, Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Robert Kenerson, seconded by Herbert Finch: WHEREAS, this action is the consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community, proposed to consist of a ±115,000 sq, ft. building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80 independent living units, 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 for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval on March 1, 1994, Special Land Use District No. 7, Ithacare Center, Inc., and WHEREAS, this is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in environmental review, as directed by the Supreme Court of the State of New York, did make a positive declaration of Environmental Significance on December 9, 1994, and directed Ithacare Center to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), and • WHEREAS, Ithacare Center had a DEIS prepared which has thoroughly examined possible adverse environmental impacts of the Planning Board Minutes 27 February 6, 1996 • ADOPTED 2/20/96 proposed Senior Living Community and has proposed mitigating measures to minimize such impacts, and WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca 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 of the Town of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, after substantial public comment on the DEIS, on December 19, 1995, accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithacare Center Senior Living Community incorporating, among other information, revisions to the DEIS, substantive public comments received regarding the proposed action, and responses to said substantive comments, for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR 167 (the SEQR Regulations), and • WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has filed a Notice of Completion of Final EIS, issued the FEIS as required under 6 NYCRR 617.10 and 617.21, and distributed the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and to the public, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, on January 23, 1996, did adopt the Statement of Findings for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community Site Plan, and as part of that Statement of Findings, as indicated that the site plan identified as Alternative B.3 is the alternative which minimizes the adverse environmental effects of the proposed project to the maximum extent practicable, and WHEREAS, 61 1996, has Preliminary 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 WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca 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 of the Town of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, after substantial public comment on the DEIS, on December 19, 1995, accepted a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithacare Center Senior Living Community incorporating, among other information, revisions to the DEIS, substantive public comments received regarding the proposed action, and responses to said substantive comments, for filing, having duly considered the potential adverse environmental impacts and proposed mitigating measures as required under 6 NYCRR 167 (the SEQR Regulations), and • WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca has filed a Notice of Completion of Final EIS, issued the FEIS as required under 6 NYCRR 617.10 and 617.21, and distributed the FEIS to involved and interested agencies and to the public, and WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca, as Lead Agency, on January 23, 1996, did adopt the Statement of Findings for the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community Site Plan, and as part of that Statement of Findings, as indicated that the site plan identified as Alternative B.3 is the alternative which minimizes the adverse environmental effects of the proposed project to the maximum extent practicable, and WHEREAS, 61 1996, has Preliminary the Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on February reviewed and accepted as adequate for purposes of Site Plan Approval a submission entitled "Preliminary Site Plan, Ithacare Community," (Preliminary Materials Plan), Center, Ithaca, New consisting of a series of Site Plan - Alternative L -5 (Trail Plan), L -6 York, drawings B.3), L -4 and L -7 Senior Living numbered SK -L1J (Planting & (Details), and A- 6R (Elevations), prepared by L. Robert Kimball & Associates, and dated January 30, 1996, and other application materials. • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: Planning Board Minutes 28 February 6, 1996 • ADOPTED 2/20/96 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby finds that the proposed reduction in the number of parking spaces from the required minimum of 107 to 86 spaces will not adversely affect the traffic circulation on the project site, will result in an adequate amount of parking for all the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the project, and at this time will not adversely affect the general welfare of the community, and accordingly, subject to the conditions set forth in Section 38 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby permits a reduction in the number of required parking spaces from 107 to 86 spaces. 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval to the proposed Ithacare Center Senior Living Community, proposed to consist of a ±115,00 sq. ft. building with 60 adult care units, 20 assisted living units, and 80 independent living units, 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 for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board granted Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval on March 1, 1994, Special Land Use District No, 7, Ithacare Center, Inc., and further • described in additional application materials, subject to the following conditions: a, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, revision of the preliminary site plan to: 1) more clearly show the location of all proposed parking spaces; 2) to identify any spaces to be reserved for handicap parking; 3) to identify the area or areas to be reserved for future parking if conditions warrant, as per provisions of Section 38 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance; and 4) to clearly designate the number and location of visitor parking spaces including those to be available for trail users, in the southern parking area; b, submission of building elevations for the proposed structure as viewed from the southeast (toward Main Entrance), from the northwest, from Danby Road at approximately the entrance to the site, and from the southerly property line, said elevations to show the locations of architectural features such as windows, doors, gables, and chimneys, and types, color, and texture of proposed exterior cladding, as well as submission of an eye -level perspective view of teh proposed building as viewed from the overlook as part of the Final Site Plan; • c, submission to the Planning Board of a completed landscaping plan and planting schedule for • Planning Board Minutes 29 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 consideration as part of the Final Site Plan Approval, said landscaping to be designed to soften the effect of the proposed building upon maturity without further blocking views from the overlook, Danby Road or the surrounding area, said planting schedule to include typical average heights of proposed plantings; d, submission to the Planning Board information on the size, location, design, and construction materials of all proposed signs and lighting fixtures for consideration as part of Final Site Plan Approval, said fixtures to be designed in a manner that avoids adverse visual effects on surrounding properties by incorporating appropriate heights, wattage, and orientation; e. revision, where deemed necessary upon further site investigation, of the design and location of the proposed internal pathways, walkways, rest areas, and other facilities that shall be available for public use, together with a declaration committing the use of such facilities to the public use in a form approved by the Town Planner, Town Engineer, and Attorney for the • Town, prior to the granting of Final Site Plan Approval; f* submission to and approval by the Town Engineer of a stormwater management plan to ensure that there shall be no net increase in the rate of stormwater runoff in comparing existing and post development conditions, and to include specifications for the use of riprap or other techniques to reduce stormwater velocity where appropriate, prior to Final Site Plan Approval; g1 submission to the Planning Board of a detailed sedimentation and erosion control plan as part of Final Site Plan Approval, to ensure that impacts to the pond, wetlands, and stream are minimized and to prevent downstream flooding; h, submission of construction details of all proposed structures, roads, water /sewage facilities, and other improvements, including a loop connection under Danby Road to connect the existing 6 inch and 8 inch water mains, and approval by the Town Board of all required infrastructure improvements, prior to Final Site Plan Approval; i. receipt from the Town of Ithaca Town Board of any required approvals related to the modifications to the original Preliminary Site Plan (Drawing LS -2) made by • Planning Board Minutes 30 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Kimball Associates, dated October 4, 1993, which was submitted to and approved by the Town Board in conjunction with the approval of Special Land Use District (SLUD) No. 7, that have resulted from the completion of the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements for the project, and subsequent Findings adopted by the Planning Board on January 23, 1996, prior to further consideration of a Final Site Plan by the Planning Board; j. obtaining, if necessary, a temporary construction easement from Ithaca College to allow encroachment on its property to the north during site grading operations prior to Final Site Plan Approval; k, submission of a site map of the entire Ithacare property showing the location of the proposed structure, driveways, parking lots, streams, and other natural features of the site; 1. submission of an instrument guaranteeing continued public access and use of the existing overlook and ensuring ongoing maintenance of said overlook, subject • to review and approval of the Attorney for the Town and the Director of Planning, prior to Final Site Plan Approval. AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, THAT: 1) The Planning Board has made a finding that Alternative B.3 is the alternative which minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the extent practicable, and hereby recommends that the Town Board of the Town of Ithaca modify the provisions of SLUD No. 7 to permit the Final Site Plan to incorporate the building footprint and configuration of Alternative B.3 as described in the EIS, and as shown in the Preliminary Site Plan submission of January 30, 1996, and the necessary site improvements to implement that alternative, to be subject to Final Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board, subject to the conditions specified above, and any other conditions which the Planning Board may determine to be appropriate during the Final Site Plan review process; and 2) The Planning Board hereby finds that the provisions of SLUD No. 7 are still appropriate for the subject site, if modified as recommended above, and that the general provisions of SLUD No. 7 are still consistent with the • recommendations of the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (September 1993), which designate the site as a combination of "Urban Residential" and "Suburban Residential," which are Planning Board Minutes 31 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 anticipated to accommodate the higher residential densities in the Town and generally have the necessary services to support those uses. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox. Nay - Hoffmann, Bell. The MOTION was declared to be carried. Director of Planning Kanter suggested the following changes to the draft resolution: That condition 2.a. - change "northern" to "southern" in that condition, and add clearly designate number and location of visitor parking spaces. That in Part B - ask for a perspective of the view of the building from the overlook. Part 2.c. - add planting schedule to include typical average heights of plantings. Attorney Barney stated the he would like to add, in the • Second Line of the Second WHEREAS statement the words "as directed.by.the Supreme Court of the State of New York ", The Planning Board concurred with the suggested revisions to the proposed resolution, which have been incorporated into the Final Adopted Resolution as shown above. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Cornell, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox. Nay - Hoffmann, Bell. The MOTION was declared to be carried. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION REVOKE PRELIMINARY OF APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION TO SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO, 42 ACRES IN SIZE, INTO TWO PARCELS, APPROXIMATELY 0.64± ACRES IN SIZE RESPECTIVELY, LOCATED AT 346 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15, ESTATE OF STEPHEN J. FRANK J. RAPONI, APPLICANT. -1 -9.14, 1/43± 0.70+ ACRES AND CODDINGTON ROAD, RAPONI, OWNER; Board Member Herbert Finch asked if there was any response from Mr. Raponi from Mr. Kanter's letter advising that the preliminary subdivision approval would be revoked. 0 Planning Board Minutes 32 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Director of Planning Kanter stated that there had been no response to date. There being no discussion, Chairperson Cornell asked if anyone were prepared to offer a motion. MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Gregory Bell: WHEREAS: 1. This action is the consideration of Revocation of Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42 -1 -9.14, 1.43 +/- acres, into two parcels, approximately 0.70' + /- acres and 0.64 +/- acres in size respectively, located at 346 Coddington Road, Residence District R -15. Estate of Stephen J. Raponi, Owner; Frank J: Raponi, Applicant; and 2. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 2, 1994, has review and accepted as adequate the Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a subdivision plat entitled "Survey Map, No 346 Coddington • Road, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. Engineers and Surveyors, and dated June 2, 1994, and other application materials; and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on August 2, 1994, did grant, with conditions, Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the above - referenced subdivision, and at a meeting held on August 16, 1994, did re -adopt the resolution for Preliminary Subdivision Approval of the above - referenced subdivision; and 4. Section 276 (5)(h) of the Town Law states that ... "within six months of the approval of the preliminary plat the owner must submit the plat in final form. If the final plat is not submitted within six months, approval of the preliminary plat may be revoked by the planning board. "; and 5. The Planning Board has not received a final plat for the above - referenced subdivision; and 6. The Director of Planning sent a letter, dated October 30, 1995, to Frank Raponi, indicating that if the Town did not hear from Mr. Raponi by November 30, 1995, the Town would assume that Mr. Raponi was not interested in pursuing the subdivision; and • 7. No response to the October 30, 1995, letter was received from Mr. Raponi; • Planning Board Minutes 33 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby revokes the Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 42 -1 -9.14, 1.43 +/- acres, into two parcels, approximately 0.70 +/- acres and 0.64 +/- acres in size respectively, located at 346 Coddington Road, Residence District R -15. Estate of Stephen J. Raponi, Owner; Frank J. Raponi, Applicant. There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 21, 1995. MOTION by James Ainslie, seconded by Robert Kenerson: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the November 21, 1995 Meeting is of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved with the following corrections: That on Page bedrock between a between 12 and 20 This was cha depth of 20 to 40 and 20 inches." 2, Last Paragraph, which read: "...the ORB has depth of 20 to 40 inches, and the LTB soil is inches." nged to read: "...the ORB has bedrock between a inches, and in the LTB soil it is between 12 That on Page 11,'Second Paragraph, which read: "Board Member Hoffmann asked why the excavation costs are so much greater for that alternative,..." This was changed to read: "Board Member Hoffmann asked why the excavation costs are so much greater for the Modified Alternative B3,1.111 . That on Page 18, Last Paragraph, which read: "...as well as from the overlook because she felt that this was equally important, it is a place where the public sees the road, as well as the overlook." This was changed to read: "...as well as from the overlook because she felt that this was equally important, it is a place where the public sees the view from the road, as well as from the overlook. ® There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. • Planning Board Minutes 34 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann,'Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - NOVEMBER 7, 1995. MOTION by Herbert Finch, seconded by James Ainslie: RESOLVED, that the Minutes of the November 7, 1995 Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board be and hereby are approved with the following corrections: That on Page 18, Second Paragraph, Second Sentence, which read: "Mr. Macera stated that he had met with the representatives of Ithacare on October 16th,..." This was changed to read: "Mr. Kanter stated that he had met with the representatives of Ithacare on October 16th,..." That on Page 29, the following was added to the end of the Fourth Paragraph: "Ms. Hoffmann stated that there was a dental office at Community Corners, Dr. Patrick's office, and that office was not lit up like Dr. Thompson's office is." • There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote. Aye - Cornell, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Finch, Kenerson, Wilcox, Bell. Nay - None. The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS. Chairperson Cornell stated that in the packets copies of the revised changes to the SEQR regulations. Ms. Cornell stated that the Planning Federation is organization which is going to be held on March 20, and March 21, 1996 in the evening, which will be to discuss these changes. Ms. Cornell will forward additional information when it gets closer to that date. Director of Planning Kanter stated that staff had also distributed an outline prepared by Attorney Barney of how and why the Town is changing the SEQR and Public Hearing procedures, and asked that the Board Members review that when they can. Mr. Kanter stated that the Buttermilk Valley DEIS will be on 40 the Agenda for February 20, 1996 agenda. The Board has 30 days from the receipt of the DEIS to determine whether it is complete for review of the Public. • Planning Board Minutes 35 February 6, 1996 ADOPTED 2/20/96 Mr. Kanter stated that Andrew Frost, Building Inspector, Zoning Officer for the Town of Ithaca had mentioned that Cayuga Medical Center on Trumansburg Road is setting up a large sign, and the Town has not jurisdiction over that sign. Mr. Kanter stated that the hospital would be willing to display a cut out of what the sign would look like and would be willing to set it up tomorrow if the Town advised them of what time they would be viewing that sign, if interested. ADJOURNMENT Upon MOTION, Chairperson Cornell declared the February 6, 1996, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:48 p.m. DRAFTED: 2/15/96.srh C7 Respectfully submitted, a Hays, Recording Secretary, Town of Ithaca Planning Board. Z12 Mary nt, Administrative Secretary, F I NA L COPY . Ithaca Town Planning Board Meeting 02/06/96 page 1 /3 Testimony of John Yntema Re: Ithacare - Preliminary Site Plan Hearing 1. Although the Planning Board used a very strict interpretation of the SEQR regulations paragraph 617.14(f)(5), about what alternative sites Ithacare should be required to consider in their preparation of the EIS, those regulations say (emphasis mine): "The range of alternatives must include the no- action alternative..... [and] ..... for private applicants .... site alternatives may be limited to parcels owned by, or under option to, a private applicant." A. With respect to the no- action alternative: I have not attended all the Planning Board meetings about the Ithacare project, but I do not recall any at which the "no action" alternative was discussed by the Planning Board. However, I do recall a few instances in which Ithacare seemed to be indirectly threatening the Planning Board with rather dire consequences if it did not accede to Ithacare's wishes to construct on the 9 acre portion of the 28t acre site being considered for their current project. This is hardly an admirable approach. One example appears on the bottom of page VII -1 of the DEIS. • B. At one of the Ithacare hearings, one of their representatives said they would supply information on the "Site Analysis Study Report" prepared for them in 1990 by Planning/ Environmental Research Consultants. What appeared in the DEIS were only the first six pages of the 22 page report. A comment on page 6, with respect to the chosen site, is interesting: "A serious concern with S -1 is the possible loss of the best view in Ithaca." The Planning Board apparently was not afforded the chance to examine the details of the other 16 pages, which give some details about each site in the study. Now that the Planning Board has gone through the SEQR process, this might be a good time to revisit the "Alternate sites" possibility. Depending on how one interprets "ties scores ", the site Ithacare chose was #5 or #6 on the list. Is this still the best site for this project? 2. 1 have some trouble believing the FEIS speculation that the selected site would have been #1, if the College's Gerontology Program had been in place in 1990, and I wonder who wrote that speculation. One reason for my concern about this is that the Director of the Gerontology Institute, in a letter included in the FEIS states, " ... the proximity of Ithacare to Ithaca College is crucial ... [it] will allow students to walk to the facility and Ithacare residents walk to the campus.,..". This same proximity /walking argument was set forth by another Ithaca College official in a hearing many months ago. IF CIE VIE • FEB 6 1996 By ¢.� 4 4 3 u " Ithaca Town Planning Board Meeting 02/06/96 page 2/3 16 Testimony of John Yntema Re.- Ithacare - Preliminary Site Plan Hearing This assertion about walking to and from the campus by the elderly is ridiculous. I ..challenge all members of the Planning Board and the Board of Ithacare to make that trek, both ways. It would be instructive for all concerned to walk along 96B, with its 50 mph speed limit, particularly in winter weather when the snow is piled high on the highway shoulders. Let me know how many people finish that round trip. 3. Of serious concern is what will happen to the remaining 19± acres, on a 28 ± acre parcel of land ALL of which was originally zoned to accommodate this building which would occupy only the easternmost 9 acres. As the Planning Board must remember vividly, there were repeated references to Ithacare's inability to build farther to the west because of the "steep slopes, wetland(s), and stream corridors ". I cannot help but note that it has never been made clear why the stream corridors are not part of the wetlands. Be that as it may, one can only wonder why Ithacare, in its original plans outlined to the public at NCR in the fall of 1992, subsequently at a presentation to business people at Ithaca College, and in both its EAF and DEIS, and again in the FEIS, mentions free- standing condominiums and a skilled nursing facility, first as plans, then as possibilities it • will investigate, and in the FEIS as "complementary to the currently proposed project." Ithacare seems to be maintaining the position that, although the steep slopes, wetlands, and stream corridors prevent their building on the western 19± acres AT THE PRESENT TIME, they expect that the Planning Board, the Planning Department, and the Town Board will allow them to build there in the future. It would seem appropriate for the Planning Board to establish NOW what the parameters are for future use of the western 19± acres of this parcel; this would seem to be an important part of the final site plan Ithacare intends to submit. 4. At one time in its considerations, the Planning Board done about requiring open spaces designation, either in larger 66t acre parcel of which the 28± acre parcel was the Planning Board indicate to Ithacare just what it expei open spaces question. Will the so -far unspecified "trails" be? was contemplating what should be the 28± acre parcel itself, or in the a part. I would like to suggest that its the applicant to do about this be sufficient? If not, what would* 5. Although one Ithacare supporter has repeatedly insisted that the overlook is not an "overlook ", it has been so identified on most of the Planning Board's and Ithacare's documents. What it is called is not so important as what it provides to the New York • taxpayers who paid for it. Of some particular concern is that the parking spaces on the s'} Ithaca Town Planning Board Meeting 02/06/96 page 3/; Testimony of John Yntema Re: Ithacare = PreliminarV Site Plan Hearing overlook are actually part of the Ithacare parcel, not part of the "overlook" proper. What are Ithacare's plans for these parking spaces or the entire overlook? In the FEIS, page 19, is the statement that: "Ithacare's plans call for no changes to the.existing public use of the overlook." Having "plans that calf for no changes" is not the same as "plans that provide absolute assurance that there will be no changes" to the present uses of the overlook and the parking spaces. I urge the Panning Baord to consider this. 6. It has always been an interesting feature of the proposed location of this building that is is so close to the overlook. In an exchange of correspondence with Ithacare's Executive Director, he wrote to me that the proposed building would not be visible from the north end of the overlook. How could this be possible? Did the Executor Director expect me to believe this statement, or was he just misinformed? It seems unrealistic that a building over 50 feet tall and which was then over 500 feet long 'could not be seen from a distance.of about 280 feet. In fact the building would be so'visible ` that anyone at the overlook would be looking into numerous bedrooms. Is this a desirable feature for elderly residents ? S L U zc t IIIL STATEMENT BEFORE THE TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARDC PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ITHACARE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FEBRUARY 6, 1996 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Madam Chair - Members of the Town of Ithaca Planning Beard : My name is Joseph A. Cimmino. Thank you for allowing public coaement in your consideration of the preliminary site plan for the Ithacare Center Senior Living Community. Firstly, I would like to commend the Board for having approved the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Ithacare facility in a lengthy, but obviously fair and democratic process. I now urge the Board to grant Ithacare a preliminary site plan approval . While I personally support the original building site plan, the alternative before you appears to be a reasonable compromise, based on the SEUR, and should be accepted. Since appearing before you last July, I have discussed the Ithacare issue with many individuals that I interact with in the larger Ithaca area. The great majority support the Ithacare project, fully recognizing that it would have some impact on the view shed , as would any building. A number expressed grave concerns about the process, pointing out that the Ithacare Center is a far more favorable use of the land than its original Master Plan zoning as heavy industrial . Unfortunately, the new Ithacare Center will now be too late for my needs. My 91 year old mother-in-law is noir a resident of the flak Hill Manor Nursing Horne. Following hospitalization over the holidays, she could no longer meet the requirements of inde- pendent living at the present Ithacare. The psychological impact of another major change in her life style has led to serious depression. Had we had the new Ithacare facility, she could have simply been moved to another part of the same building . She would have maintained the same familiarity with her surroundings, her same friends, and the same caring and compassionate staff. On behalf of the many friends that I have made at Ithacare, and the many community minded residents and activists that I have discussed this issue with, I urge you to move quickly forward. In closing, I have a question. During the January 23rd meeting , I heard figures indicating that the design Alterna- tive 8.3 would present a higher building profile that the original design. I do not understand how the building could grow taller by being moved down hill . Could someone please clarify this issue for mel I again thank you for your time and your kind attention. It }- C J 6