HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2002-01-08January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved - Approve
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD FILE
DATE
TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 2002
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, January 8, 2002, in Town Hall, 215
North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod
Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney,
Attorney for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning;
Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra- Lehman, Planner.
EXCUSED: George Conneman, Tracy Mitrano
ALSO PRESENT: Ron Rapp, Greene, New York; Maria Andrews, 95 Brown Rd; John Yntema, 993 Danby
Rd; Steve Beyeus, 1328 Slaterville Rd, Tye Wolf, Ithaca Times; Lauren Bishop, Ithaca Journal; Bruce Layton
1022 Danby Rd; Pauline Layton, 1 029 Danby Rd; Vincent Sano, 255 Spring St, Sayre, PA; Susie Gutierrez, 210
Park Place; Herman Sieberding, 315 Columbia St; Dave Herrick, T.G. Miller Engineers, 203 N. Aurora St;
Vincent DeCofer, QPK, 450 S. Salina St, Syracuse; Brian Macrey, 390 Edgar Hall, Ithaca College; Richard
Hautaniemi, 213 Townline RD, Groton; Tim Ciaschi; David Richards, 1058 Danby Rd; Joel Harlen, Dryden;
Phil Francheski, Integrated Acquisition & Development, 15 Thomwood Dr.
Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State
Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before we begin, let me just state that, although there is no hearing scheduled tonight for
the review of the Phase II and Phase III modifications to the College Circle Apartments, it is my intent to run a
public discussion at that time. Having said that, it's up to you. You can speak now, or you can speak at that
time.
John Yntema, 993 Danby Rd — Some of you Board Members might know me, I'm on the Conservation Board
and a member of the Environmental Review Committee. My house is about half way, it's on Danby Road and
96B, about half way between the entrance of College Circle and Ithaca College on 96B. We've had some heavy
rains in the last couple of years. My back yard has been flooded, my neighbors yard has been flooded and their
flooding comes into my yard. So I get double flooding, it comes from both Ithaca College and College Circle. 1
would like to request that you consider some way to control this flooding when you get to the appropriate stage
to consider this for the College Circle Development.
I have some pictures, which I brought along. The point which I particularly want to make is that for the first
time in about thirty years when my garage was built, I've only been living there for twelve, it flooded.
Everything on the floor got wet and covered with a thin layer of mud and that's never happened. I think this is
1
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
probably because of the College Circle Apartment additions. Here are the pictures that I brought. Thank you
very much.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do we have anyone else who would like to address the Planning Board this evening.
With no further persons present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:39
p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign
variance to allow one internally illuminated entrance sign approximately +/ -3.5 feet in height and +/- 2.75 feet
in width, mounted on a 4 foot pole and resulting in an overall height of +/- 7.S feet. The sign is proposed to be
placed in the grass island at the beginning of the entrance drive to the Best Western University Inn at East Hill
Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 -13.7, Business District "C", Cornell University, Property Owner;
Best Western University Inn, Applicant; Patrick Doyle, Rapp Signs, Inc., Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — I will ask you to speak into the microphone so that we can record you and we'll let you
sit down if you want. If you would, briefly describe what is being proposed.
Ron Rapp, Rapp Signs, Inc, Greene, NY 13778 — There is going to be a change from what you've described as
well. The overall height is changing, we're only going to be putting it on a two foot high pole. So whatever the
height of the sign is, which is 3 foot 6, will be added by 2, so there will be an overall height of 5 foot 61
Chairperson Wilcox — The purpose of the sign is?
Mr. Rapp -It's an interest and informational sign. What we're concerned about is in the evenings, which is the
time when most hotel patrons are checking in, it's rather difficult to find the place to check in at the hotel. The
sign, as it is, falls within all the criteria of the standard permit. The only difference we have the variance for is
to widen it up. Since most of our clientele is going to be in the evenings, we thought that it would be much
better to have it light.
To give you a brief description of the sign itself, it's not a very bright sign. Most of the area that is described as
gray area is very low light, as a matter of fact the gray area is an opaque surface, which is all the way around the
perimeter. The only thing that will be white is the word "entrance ". It's on a white sub screen surface and then it
has another color applied so that it winds up cutting the light down considerably. You can tell it's illuminated,
but it's not like a white background type sign that's going to give off great amounts of light. So it shouldn't be a
hindrance.
Chairperson Wilcox — The overall color scheme is similar to the logo that Best Western uses?
Mr. Rapp -Yes, it is.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions?
Board Member Hoffmann — When you were talking about the colors and so on, you're referring to this drawing
that we received and where it says "blue" you're saying it's going to be "gray "?
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. Rapp- No, where it says "blue" it's going to be blue. What I was trying to describe is on the outside of the
blue, all around the perimeter, that will be gray.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sorry, I'm still not following.
Mr. Rapp- This area here is all blue.
Board Member Hoffmann — And which part is going to be white?
Mr. Rapp -This part behind. It will be the back lighting.
Board Member Hoffmann — There is some signage already at the East Hill Plaza, that's backlit, which is very
bright. What is the intensity of the light?
Mr. Rapp -It will be standard fluorescent. It says that four 30 -inch lamps are going to be inside it. The last time I
looked at 30 -inch lamps, they were about 60 watts apiece. There will be four of them.
Board Member Talty — It says three in the schematic.
Board Member Hoffmann — I read it as three also.
Chairperson Wilcox — What do l see right here? I see three 30, but I also see this.
Board Member Hoffmann — So that's three, plus two, for a total of five lamps.
Mr. Rapp- Yes, there would be a total of five lamps.
Board Member Hoffmann — Each are 60 watts?
Mr. Rapp- They're 60 to 70, ]'in not exactly sure. l think they're around 60, 64, 65,
Board Member Talty — They're fluorescent tubing right?
Mr. Rapp- Yes, fluorescent.
Board Member Thayer — Most of them are 30 watts.
Mr. Rapp- I don't see the lamp specifications on there, as far as the wattage goes. I was trying to be a little bit
high, rather than low.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would feel more comfortable if I knew exactly what it was going to be.
Mr. Rapp- Okay
Board Member Hoffmann — You are the lighting contractor, 1 understand?
3
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. Rapp — I am not actually going to be making this. We are going to be installing this. The sign is made by a
national company.
Board Member Hoffmann — l see. But you are the contractor who is going to be doing that and you are also the
spokesperson for Best Western for this project.
Mr. Rapp — Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — So I'm a little disappointed that you don't know the exact specs. We've had a lot of
problems with lights and lights that get too bright. That's the background for my feelings.
Chairperson Wilcox —1 stepped away for a second and l was talking to Mr. Barney and l came back and they're
talking about fluorescent lights.
Board Member Talty — It said lamps and I wasn't sure those were actually fluorescent or incandescent.
Chairperson Wilcox — When Best Western was here before for a new sign, that was a fluorescent sign. A much
larger one.
Ms. Balestra- Lehman — Much larger.
Mr. Kanter — I think it was termed a string of lights. l believe, if I'm remembering correctly, it was actually
even a different type of lighting and it was quite a large surface.
Board Member Hoffmann — Outlining the sign.
Ms. Balestra- Lehman — Right. They were proposing the fiber optic lighting. The fiber optic tube lighting, that's
what they were proposing. But that wasn't particularly for the sign, that was for.., they had another architectural
detail for the building and that was going to outline that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Board's wish. One, we are only making recommendations right now. Two, I'm prepared
to accept it as it is. l don't want to send them back to Greene and then back to this Board and then back to the
Zoning Board.
Board Member Thayer — I think that the fluorescents behind the opaques would not be objectionable.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not able to sit here and say that three sixty watt bulbs is too much and three thirty
watt are okay.
Board Member Hoffmann — No. But what about the two up on top, what exactly are their function?
Mr. Rapp — The two on the top are basically to give you even light. If we don't get the lights at a certain pattern
and fill up all the areas, it shows up as a dark spot inside the sign. It doesn't give you even lighting across the
whole base.
n
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, one of the things that I was thinking of that I was a little concerned; if, in
fact, the light that comes out of the bottom, where it says entrance is going to be very strong and bright. If it sits
at a height, first two feet above the ground and then a little more, adding the sign. Is that going to be something
that catches the drivers' eye and obstructs rather than helps? That's my concern. If it's not a very strong
wattage, that doesn't have to happen, but if there's a lot of wattage there, could that happen?
Mr. Rapp- I would have to say that because there is such a small area, what happens is that it shows just in the
letters themselves and the stroke of the letters isn't any more than an inch in width. When I say stroke, I mean
what the letter is seen as. The stroke of the letter seen is only about an inch in width and it is on the white
diffuser. When l say diffuser, it's meant to spread the light because if we put these light bulbs too close
together or too far apart, we get hot and cold spots in the lighting. So the white is used as a diffuser to spread the
light. It's not going to be like a directional light. The diffuser is used to spread the light out.
Board Member Hoffmann — This diffuser is inside the sign?
Mr. Rapp — Well, that's actually what the white is used for. The white plastic, the white sub screen that all this
is put on. It is made out of white and that white is a diffuser, it works as a diffuser as well as something that's
clear so the light's not going to be allowed to come out.
Board Member Hoffmann — And the only part that's white are the letters that make up the word "entrance" ?
The part that those letters sit in, what color is that?
Mr. Rapp — I believe it's blue. It will be in one of the pictures here.
(Speaking away from microphone)
Chairperson Wilcox — The question is certainly not with the appearance of the sign, it's the brilliance of the
lighting. We could provide recommendations.
Attorney Barney — l think actually they'd be recommended conditions, since I think the actual ZBA makes up
the conditions.
Chairperson Wilcox - The condition that I'm thinking of, I don't know actually how to word it, is that we
haven't seen enough information in regard to the luminance of it. So the sense that I'm going to pass to the
Board is that we might be able to muster votes to make the recommendation with the condition that we ask that
the Zoning Board have detailed information on the luminance of that.
How does that sound, does that work?
This is a public hearing, so I would like to ask any members of the audience who wish to address the Planning
Board this evening on this particular agenda item, please come to your microphone, give your name and address
and we'd be very interested in what you have to say this evening.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — So let me try it this way; I'll move that the proposed resolution with the recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals subject to the following condition: that the Planning Board recommends that
the Zoning Board take into consideration the luminance of the sign in their decision making process.
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved - Approved - Approved
Attorney Barney — Add a little more than that. You have to provide sufficient information to the Board of
Zoning and Appeals so that may determine the luminance of the sign.
Chairperson Wilcox — We have one change to the resolution in the first "whereas ", third line it says "mounted
on a four foot pole ",1 believe the applicant stated that that would be a two -foot pole? Change that to two feet.
Attorney Barney - l think that the second "whereas" where we say that it's reviewed and accepted is adequate,
except they set forth below.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion this evening?
Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to make sure that the applicants understand.
Mr. Rapp — We will provide the information regarding the illumination.
Board Member Hoffmann — And also make sure that the sign will not cause a glare problem.
Vincent Sano , 255 Spring St, Sayre, PA — The sign, the way it will be facing, it will be facing perpendicular to
the way the traffic pattern is. There will be no glare. The sign will rotate 90 degrees.
Board Member Hoffmann -- Let's go over this again. The way it's shown on the drawing. The drawing doesn't
show how it's facing.
Vincent Sano — This one, here, is facing the back instead of the front.
Board Member Hoffmann — So your material is not correct. The material you have provided.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is the location shown the proper location? Actually, l think the problem is that you're
trying to show a three dimensional situation.
Attorney Barney — I'm sorry, now I'm lost. The sign is going to be not as shown on this drawing. It's going to
be rotated 90 degrees?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, if you look at the picture of the location of the sign, the sign will be rotated 90
degrees. The sign will not be facing you as you view it.
Attorney Barney — The edge of the sign will be facing you? Now how's it going to tell somebody where the
entrance drive is?
Mr. Sano — People entering the mall, we're seeing more and more people entering from the Burger King side
and that's where they're not being able to see the roof sign.
Board Member Hoffmann — That makes sense because one does actually see the sign on the roof from the other
direction.
C:
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. Sano — That's correct. If you come from the other side, it's right in front of you, but if you come from the
Burger King side, there's actually no illumination, it's dark brown building. It just sits right there and gets lost
at night.
Attorney Barney — So this is going to be oriented so it's going to be visible by the drive as you come in from the
Trust Company?
Mr. Sano — Yes sir.
Attorney Barney — Both sides of it?
Mr. Sano — No, one side at a time. Actually, the only thing it will illuminate is the walkway there, that's it.
Attorney Barney — Is there a reason why the sign is placed on the west side, instead of the other side next to the
East Hill Plaza? Wouldn't that give people a better idea where to turn? As it is, you almost turn into a parking
place.
Mr. Sano — Actually, that's how we wanted it, it just was not available with the landlord.
Jon Kanter — It seems possible that sometimes that sign might actually be blocked by cars that are parked there.
Mr. Sano — That's possible, but we've also been limited by the landlord to the height of the sign as well.
Board Member Talty — There's no snow plow in that particular area right now?
Mr. Sano
— No, in fact, if
you go back
in
time, there was a restaurant and a Dunkin Donuts. So there was
actually more illumination on the building
in
the past.
Board Member Hoffmann — I would suggest that you bring in some drawings that show where this is going to
be.
Board Member Talty — Color.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion, I have a second. Is there any further discussion?
Attorney Barney — Just the last, what I'm suggesting adding. "Subject to the recommended condition that the
applicants supply to the Zoning Board of Appeals adequate information regarding luminescence of the sign and
that the same be considered by the Board in determining, among other matters, whether any unacceptable glare
will luminate in the zone." Am 1 catching the spirit of what we want?
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
RESOLUTION NO. 20024
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals Regarding a Sign Variance
Best Western Entrance Sign
East Hill Plaza
7
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved - Approved- Approved
Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 43.7
Planning Board, January 8, 2002
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty.
WHEREAS:
] . This action is consideration of a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding a sign
variance to allow one internally illuminated entrance sign approximately +/ -3.5 feet in height and +/-
2.75 feet in width, mounted on a 2 foot pole and resulting in an overall height of +/ -5.5 feet. The sign is
proposed to be placed in the grass island at the beginning of the entrance drive to the Best Western
University Inn at East Hill Plaza, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 62 -2 -13.7, Business District C, Cornell
University, Property Owner; Best Western University Inn, Applicant; Patrick Doyle, Rapp Signs, Inc.,
Agent,
2, The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 8, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate except as set forth below, a drawing of the entrance sign receive dated 11/15/01, a photo
showing the proposed location of the sign, and other application material.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as the Town of Ithaca Sign Review Board,
recommends to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the request for sign variances be granted,
subject to the recommended condition that the applicant supply to the Zoning Board of Appeals
adequate information regarding the luminescence of the sign and that the same be considered b�
the Board in determining, among other matters, wrhether any unacceptable glare mill emanate
from the sign.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM— SEQR Determination, Vegan Epicure, 1251 Trumansburg Rd.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 8 p.m.
Richard Hautaniemi, 213 Townline Rd, Groton, NY — I'm here with Susie Gutierrez,
Chairperson Wilcox — Good evening. What I'm going to ask you to do is provide a brief overview of what's
being proposed and any environmental aspects.
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. Hautaniemi — What we're proposing is Suzie operates a business out of the location where she's at right
now. In the basement of Rebecca Hall, the old Boardman House on Trumansburg Rd. What she's proposing is
to expand her business to incorporate an area that she'd use for tofu production. The extent of the expansion
would involve the addition of one other worker in the facility. She would not be producing any hazardous
waste, she would not be requiring more than one other parking space, traffic would not be increased by
deliveries or people taking product away because people who service the present business would be providing
raw ingredients and taking product away. So other than that, I don't think we'll be impacting any environmental
issues.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not a vegetarian, so you're going to have to help me here. What happens after the
soybeans are delivered?
Susie Gutierrez, 210 Park Place — Basically, then we start using those soybeans in production right away.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are they cooked?
Ms. Gutierrez — No. We will cook them there.
Mr. Hautaniemi — They show up as raw soybeans. Then they're ground. Then they're cooked in a kettle and
then that mash is pressed to extract some of the water from it and then part of the product is taken into ovens
and baked, the other part that is not baked is packaged as raw tofu.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there a waste product?
Mr. Hautaniemi — There is a little water that is released.
Chairperson Wilcox — But all the soybean is used?
Mr. Hautaniemi — That's right.
Board Member Hoffmann — I was wondering about this too. I was wondering if there was any odor generated in
the processing of tofu.
Ms. Gutierrez — I don't think so. We're going to have a hood over the ovens and a hood over the kettle to bring
out steam, basically. There can't be any more than what I have there now. I make seitan right now, a meat
substitute, and the kind of things I get — it just smells good.
Attorney Barney — Are you planning any other product. lines?
Ms. Gutierrez — Not at
this point, I'm not.
It's seitan and
tofu
really. There are a
lot of
things I can do with what
I have already. I'm not
going to expand; I'm
not going to
add
anything more than
what
I'm doing.
Attorney Barney — So if we were to amend the local law to permit it, if we limit it to the production of tofu and
seitan that would be sufficient.
Ms. Gutierrez- Sure. We'll be making soymilk also out of it so there's not waste, we use everything.
A
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Attorney Barney — Can you give us an idea what the number of vehicle trips might be with respect to delivery,
both of the raw ingredients and then the removal and delivery of the finished product.
Ms. Gutierrez — When we receive the soybeans we're going to be getting a decent amount of that, we might
even get enough for the year, actually. We're going to go pick it up ourselves. Delivery is probably about three
times per week.
Attorney Barney — If there were a limitation of no more than six deliveries per week, that would cover it
adequately?
Ms. Gutierrez — Sure, that would be fine.
Chairperson Wilcox — If I remember right, currently, there are three deliveries per week?
Ms. Gutierrez - Right.
Attorney Barney —The total square footage that is going to be dedicated to the use is 996.
Mr. Hautaniemi — That's the additional.
Attorney Barney — That's the addition, plus the 12060 that's currently in use. Again, we can limit to not more
that 23000 square feet. Would that work for you?
Mr. Hautamemi — That would work, yes.
Attorney Barney — The reason that I'm asking these questions, is you're in technically what amounts to a
residential zone. So, as the attorney for the Town, I'm concerned about drafting a law that is going to be so
broad and so permissive that it's going to allow major food - processing industries to spring up there, which is
not your intention, but in the law that way, someone else might come along at a later time. My recommendation
to the Town is going to draw something that is quite carefully tailored to your specific needs, but not anything
beyond that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to the SEQR? Would someone like to move the SEQR
Motion?
ADOPTED RESOLUTION. RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -2
SEQR
Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval
Special Land Use District #4
Vegan Epicure
1251 Trumansburg Road (Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -3.4)
Planning Board, January 8, 2002
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe.
10
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
WHEREAS:
I . This action is Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Town Board regarding a zoning change to Special Land Use District # 4 for the proposed modifications to
Vegan Epicure located at 1251 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -3.4. The proposal
includes using an additional 996 + /- square feet of the existing building for expansion of the Vegan Epicure
kitchen and modifying the Special Land Use District # 4 language to include food processing and
distribution as allowed uses. Joseph Ciaschi, Ciaschi Properties, Owner; Susie Gutierrez, Applicant;
Richard Hautaniemi, AIA, Agent, and
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, at a Public Hearing on January 8, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part l prepared by the applicant, a Part II prepared by Town
Planning Staff, a floor plan labeled "Al" and entitled "Expansion to Vegan Epicure, 1251 Trumansburg
Road, Ithaca, New York," prepared by Richard W. Hautaniemi, AIA, Architect, and dated December 6,
2001, and other application materials, and
1. The Town Planning Staff has 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Town Board regarding a zoning amendment to Special Land Use District # 4 for
the proposed modifications to Vegan Epicure located at 1251 Trumansburg Rd, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 24- 3 -3.4. The proposal includes using an additional 996 =/- square feet of the existing building
for Vegan Epicure and modifying the Special Land Use District # 4 language to include food processing
and distribution as allowed uses. Joseph Ciaschi, Ciaschi Properties, owner; Susie Gutierrez, applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the Public Hearing at 8:08 p.m. With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson
Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:09 p.m.
11
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to ask a clarifying question. In the application papers, you mentioned just
the seitan production on the tofu production, but you mentioned that you might be producing soymilk.
Ms. Gutierrez — Right. It's a part of the production and that's not something that we're going to do right off. It
doesn't change anything. Everything is where it's going to be placed in the building. We use exactly the same
thing, we just use the liquid and we make soymilk from that.
Board Member Hoffmann — So you're using a by- product and that doesn't mean any change in your distribution
either?
Ms. Gutierrez — No.
Board Member Talty — How is that packaged, the soymilk?
Ms. Gutierrez — Bottles, recycled glass.
Chairperson Wilcox — To my understanding, what Mr. Barney has said is that one of the issues we're asked to
consider before recommendation to the Town Board is the proposed language for the proposed amendment to
the zoning ordinance. The materials that we were provided for the suggested resolution, you've suggested that
we might want to add the food processing and distribution. The resolution does not say the sale— it does say
wholesale. l think the addition of wholesale is important there and I hope that is what you are planning on
doing.
Attorney Barney — What I was going to suggest was that, instead of the wholesale food process and distribution,
it would be limited to the wholesale, processing and distribution of soy milk, seitan and tofu with specified
limitations, which would include no more than, I think we've indicated no more than six additional vehicle trips
per week related to this. That the space permitted be limited to 2400 square feet. Another question I was going
to raise is how many employees are going to be involved with that.
Ms. Gutierrez -One.
Attorney Barney — One employee is related to the production of all three of these?
Ms. Gutierrez- The seitan part has one employee and me. Then Tom is going to be doing it. If we need some
extra part time helpers, there could be some part time, but no more than two, in that area.
Attorney Barney — So if we put in a limitation of no more than three employees to be employed in all of the
areas.
Ms. Gutierrez — I think it would be four.
Attorney Barney — I would suggest something like that. A limit on employees. And the other question I was
discussion with Jon was whether we would like to make this subject to special approval. Not necessarily for this
particular applicant, but in the future continuation of this use by any other owner would be subject to obtaining
special approval.
12
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. Hautaniemi- Why?
Attorney Barney — Again, it's the nature of the facility up there, it's a mechanism for having a chance to review
what's been going on and what's planned and whether it's having an adverse effect on the property.
Chairperson Wilcox — The issue again is whether this has to be a special interest area.
Attorney Barney — Well, it's not going to be a special interest zoned area, but it's in an area that's a residential
area. That last item Jon is not as keen on as perhaps I can get him to be on some other things.
Mr. Kanter — I hate to make it more complicated than it needs to be, if we can fine -tune the wording and the
perimeters enough so that it basically defines what can and can't be there and making the decision up front and
if it's a different person or business but doing basically the same thing, we normally would re- review something
like that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Tim, who owns the building?
Tim Ciaschi — My brother.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you managing it?
Mr. Ciaschi — Yes sir.
Chairperson Wilcox — Enough said?
Attorney Barney — Now we really want to limit it, don't we?
Chairperson Wilcox — I didn't want to go there, but that was my implication. Tim, you bend the rules.
Attorney Barney- I wouldn't say that. I'd say that Tim needs to come before us from time to time to correct
situations that have evolved.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, could you, in essence repeat what your recommendation would be for the
language.
Attorney Barney — Instead of saying "wholesale food processing and distribution" we change it to "wholesale
processing and distribution of seitan, tofu and soy milk, subject to the following limitations: "A ". That the
process involves no more than six vehicle trips for deliveries, either into or out of the facility per week. "B ".
That no more than 2400 square feet of the building be used for this process. "C ". That no more than four
.employees be employed in those area ". I'd like a little leeway in adding "D ". "And such other recommendations
that the Town Attorney may recommend in the course of drafting such proposed local law." There are a couple
others that I want to look at to see whether they might have some relevancy.
Board Member Hoffmann — Didn't you say something about subject to special approval.
13
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Attorney Barney —Well, I've been thinking over Jon's comment about that. I think, as long as we have fairly
clear perimeters, it seems to me that as long as anyone meets those, they should be in compliance.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2002w3
Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval
Special Land Use District #4
Vegan Epicure
1251 Trumansburg Road (Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -3.4)
Planning Board, January 8, 2002
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
WHEREAS:
2. This action is the Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the
Town Board regarding a zoning change to Special Land Use District # 4 for the proposed modifications to
Vegan Epicure located at 1251 Trumansburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 3 -3.4. The proposal
includes using an additional 996 + /- square feet of the existing building for expansion of the Vegan Epicure
kitchen and modifying the Special Land Use District # 4 language to include food processing and
distribution as allowed uses. Joseph Ciaschi, Ciaschi Properties, Owner; Susie Gutierrez, Applicant;
Richard Hautaniemi, AIA, Agent, and
3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as Lead Agency in
environmental review, has, on January 8, 2002, made a negative determination of environmental
significance, and
4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing on January 8, 2002, has accepted as adequate the Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I prepared by the applicant, a Part 11 prepared by Town Planning
Staff, a floor plan labeled "A l" and entitled "Expansion to Vegan Epicure, 1 251 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca,
New York," prepared by Richard W. Hautaniemi, AIA, Architect, and dated December 6, 2001, and other
application materials.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site
Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, 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 expansion
of the Vegan Epicure kitchen, as shown on the a floor plan entitled "Expansion to Vegan Epicure, 1251
Trumansburg Road, Ithaca, New York," prepared by Richard W. Hautaniemi, AIA, Architect, and dated
December 6, 2001, subject to the following conditions, to be met prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy:
M
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
a. Approval by the Town of Ithaca Town Board of the amendment to Special Land Use District # 4 to
include the processing and distribution uses allowed below, and
b. Submission of a copy of the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets facility approval for the
kitchen expansion.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends the Town Board approve the modifications to
Special Land Use District # 4, to include the following permitted use:
(i) wholesale processing and distribution of seitan (a baked vegetarian wheat based product),
tofu, and soy milk subject to the limitation that:
a. No more than six vehicle trips per week in and out of the property shall occur in
connection with such use, and
b. No more than 2,400 square feet of the building space shall be dedicated to such uses,
and
c. No more than four persons shall be employed in such production and processing.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed Phase ll and Ill development at
College Circle Apartments, located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 434-2.3,
Multiple Residence District. Phase 11 includes construction of the 60 additional apartments that were
previously approved by the Town in 1988, with some proposed modifications to the parking, building
layout and circulation, and Phase Ill which includes a community center building, Ithaca College campus
integration infrastructure and a request for an additional apartment occupancy. The discussion will
include an overview of Ithaca College's Master Plan and how it relates to the College's proposed
involvement in the College Circle Apartments, as well as how the proposed renovation of the existing
College Circle Apartments fits in with the overall development plan. J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated
Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the segment at 8:23 p.m
Chairperson Wilcox — To those members of the audience who wish to see the charts and maps and other
materials are welcome to come up behind us, if you want so that you can view the materials. I also wish to point
out that, even though this particular portion of this evenings agenda is not a Public Hearing, it is my intention
to give those members of the public, who wish to speak an opportunity, probably no more than three to five
15
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
minutes, at most once the applicant has presented their presentation and the Board has had a chance to ask
questions.
Herman Sieberding, 315 Columbia St — I work for Integrated Acquisition and Development and our business
address is 15 Thornwood Dr in the Cornell Business and Technology Park. We're here tonight for a sketch plan
conference, the proposed revisions to the College Circle Property, but before we begin, I'd like to introduce
members of the development team that are working on this. From Integrated Acquisition, Tim Colbert and Tom
Colbert, Phil Fratechi. From Ithaca College, Tom Salm, Carl Sgrecci and Brian Macrey. From T.G. Miller,
David Herrick, who will be the principle site engineer for this project. From QPK Design, Vincent DeCofer.
QPK you may recognize as the architects for the conversion of the Woolworth's Building to the Tompkins
County Public Library, they'll be doing all of the architectural work on this project.
The College Circle property, l think as you know, is located approximately one mile south of the main entrance
to the Ithaca College Campus. I think the aerial photo here gives you a good sense of the relationship of the
property to the Ithaca College Campus. This is Route 96 here and the Ithaca College Campus is here and the
College Circle property is located right here. So, as you can see, it's very near to the campus, it actually adjoins
the competition soccer field at the south end of the campus. The project was initially approved by the Town
Planning Board in 1988 and 1989 and the first phase of the project was completed in 1990 and it consisted of 89
apartments with 309 parking spaces, the approval includes an additional 60 apartments with an additional 141
parking spaces. The proposal that we have submitted to the Planning Board for consideration under the Towns
Site Plan Review Ordinance was actually contained in two applications. The first application is for the
renovation portion of the project. The second application, which we call phase 11, are for various improvements
to the originally approved project and during the course of this presentation we'd like to discuss the details of
that proposal.
The basic structure of our proposal is that Integrated Acquisition and Development would renovate and
complete the approved project and then contract to enter into an agreement with Ithaca College and Ithaca
College would then operate and maintain that College Circle and make it essentially part of the College's
housing stock. Give them the opportunity to offer apartment -style residential units, which they currently don't
have as part of their housing offering and l think something that a lot of colleges are finding is in high demand
and particularly attractive to juniors and seniors to whom this project would be targeted, as part as almost a
transition experience, from stepping out of college into "the real world ". l think the benefits of these
arrangements are numerous for both the College and the Town. l think those benefits include Ithaca College
residents life will have a presence on site, they would be on site 24 hours a day to help manage the property.
Ithaca College's safety services would be extended to the property. College Security would regularly patrol the
property. Ithaca College's blue light system would be extended into the property, l think creating a much safer
environment. The proposed community center building, which we'll be discussing later, provides another
opportunity for more direct and sustained presence and contact between residence life and students on the site
and the College's physical plant department will. 1 think a major benefit of this is that it would satisfy the
college's housing demand as identified in it's Strategic Plan and Master Plan, an issue that Tom Salm will be
addressing later. Thereby, we believe potentially reducing the overall environmental impact by focusing this
housing demand on a site that's already been approved for development. As I indicated, the development
proposal that we have submitted has been structured in three phases. Phase 1 is the renovation of the existing
site improvements and the buildings and I think that's the subject of a separate agenda item since we're
requesting final site plan approval for that component of the work. We hope to be able to start construction on
the renovation portion in April 2002 so that it would be completed in time for an August 2002 occupancy. Phase
11, which, again, is outlined in the application, would consist of the construction of the balance of the approved
project, which are the sixty additional approved apartments and the associated parking. Again, our goal
16
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
hopefully would be to receive approval in time to commence with construction in April 2002 and have that
portion of the work complete by an August 2003 occupancy. Phase Ill would consist of a variety of, I think,
enhancements to the property, related to Ithaca College's involvement and they would include a community
center, which would be located in the middle of the project. Various campus integration features, which would
include an internal road connection, potentially. Computer network connections, various programs that would
be delivered by residence life through the community building and their on -site presence. The third aspect of
Phase III, a request for increased occupancy in the project. These elements again hopefully, subject to Board
approval, done in such a way that they could be commenced in April 2002 and be complete in time for an
August 2003 occupancy.
What we would like to accomplish tonight are several things; Tom Salm is here to discuss the relationship
between the College's Master Plan and College Circle, especially with reference to the College's housing need.
Following Tom's discussion of that relationship, we'd like to commence the sketch plan conference with the
Board, where Dave Herrick and Vince DeCofer would present various graphic and other information relative to
the full re- development proposal that we have structured for the property. We would like to conclude the sketch
plan conference with the Board by receiving feed back from the Board on each of the individual proposals that
we will be making so that we know, as we go forward and put together our site plan application, which elements
to include and what information relevant to those elements the Board would need to see before an approval.
Finally, we will present the details of the renovation program, as described in this separate application in terms
of the Boards consideration of the final site plan approval in terms of preparing construction documents. So
with that said, I'd like to turn this over to Tom Salm, who will then discuss the relationship between this
property and the College's Master Plans,
Tom Salm, Ithaca College- Good evening and Happy New Year. Vice President for Business at the College. I
wanted to talk a little bit about the history of, what got us here tonight and I think it's really in two parts. The
first part has to do with an institutional plan or strategic plan that the College undertook about two and a half
years ago to take a hard look at what we wanted the institution to be for the foreseeable future. That resulted in
this document, which is the Ithaca College Institutional Plan, which was actually adopted by our Board of
Trustees in May of this past year. Within that was nine major goals about what the institution should be and
there was a variety of things that if people are interested we love to send you copies to read about what we see
for the future of Ithaca College. But two that bear specifically on our discussion tonight, one had to do with
enrollment and one of the goals within that strategic plan says that we would look to have modest growth and
cost - effective programs at the institution and we hope to grow the institution by three looking for an approval
on our parking lot because our success in attracting students turned out to be a much quicker three to four
hundred students than the three to five year plan. We did very well in attracting students, in fact, a few more
that we would like to have. But we have in fact, come very close to meeting that goal and in fact are working
on slowing it down a bit in terms of the enrollment. We need the additional beds and we need them fairly
quickly, it's what put some pressure on us to move as quickly as we reasonable could to garner some additional
beds. The other major piece had to do with the fact that we wanted to remain a residential college and in saying
that, we decided that we had to add six to eight hundred beds to the institution in order to, not only
accommodate the additional enrollment, but try to house more of our students on campus. That then took us to
the Master Plan. The other part of the strategic plan was to undertake a facilities Master Plan and you've heard a
lot about that . Some of you've seen little pieces of that here and there, but included in that Master Plan was a
way to build out an additional six or eight hundred beds for the institution. We hired a consulting firm about
two years ago, a year and a half ago to undertake a survey, both a market survey and a student survey to
determine what students were interested in terms of housing. It became apparent fairly quickly that what they
wanted was apartment housing, somewhere reasonably close to the campus and they wanted to live there as
M
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
particularly juniors and seniors. We began to look at how we might be able to provide those beds and quickly
concluded that, for a number of reasons, it was best for us to look at working with a developer. It's something
that's happening much more commonly with particularly private institutions, but also public institutions, that
rather than using your own money, you go out and find a partner to work with to put up the money to develop
your housing and then, of course, it's paid back as the students use the residences. We looked at, with the help
of Biteson and Hire, which is the name of the consulting firm we used, seven or eight developing firms,
including College Circle. It made all the sense for us to at least consider College Circle, it was on our back door
step, we've had nothing but Ithaca College students living there for entire time that the place has been in
operation and what resulted was this thing that we're here with you tonight. We decided, after serious
deliberation, that our best bet, if we could work it out because if we . don't work it out, we're going to go
probably looking for another partner to come back and look for those six or eight hundred beds. We decided
that we would exclusively work on the College Circle project and we began that seriously in about July of this
year. So that took us through the kind of strategic plan and the housing part of it. I'm not sure how much you
want to talk about the Master Plan. Obviously, here is College Circle. What they have here is part of the Master
Plan as it its currently conceived, this is not a finished product at this stage in the game, it's still being worked
on for a number of reasons associated with this. This little house here, of course the road and playing field that
come up, these all exist, it stops at the property line right here. We've conceiving of a field right here, more
academic space down in the central core of the campus. We have the Master Plan architects working on plans of
how we would try to incorporate this into the campus and we haven't concluded those deliberations yet, but we
think that this is the place for us to go. You can see the relationship in the photograph that was pointed out,
which, in a sense shows from a different perspective fairly close to the institution. Of course, our students are a
hundred percent of the occupancy. Any questions.
Board Member Hoffmann — How many of the students now live at College Circle as compared to other places
on the campus or off campus?
Mr. Salm — It's a hundred percent. There's 324 beds at the College Circle now and they're all Ithaca College
students. We have living off campus probably 2400 students.
Board Member Hoffmann - And how many on campus?
Mr. Salm — 3600 to 3800. So this is where we are with the College Circle process; the increased occupancy
that's being proposed is very important, as far as I'm concerned and I'm one of the bean counters at the
institution. We simply need the additional occupancy to provide the kind of income to provide the kind of
program that we would like to do as a residential institution. In other words, the same program that we currently
supply to our other residential facilities now in terms of supervision, residential staff and so on. Brian Macrey
will fill you in on that a bit later. So I won't get into that. It also brings us closer to our target and our strategic
plan of being closer to the eight hundred. We don't think that it would make sense that if we build this out as
currently approved at six hundred that it would make sense for us to try to build two hundred beds somewhere
else. So we think that going to the seven -fifty is a decent in between number that would give us some flexibility
in terms of how we would accommodate our students. All of these things are estimates to a certain degree. We
would like to house one hundred percent of our freshman and sophomores and sixty percent of our juniors and
twenty percent of our seniors. So the intent being that we don't know how many of our students will sign up, so
we feel that we need to be on the higher end of that six to eight hundred number that came out of our
deliberation and our institutional plan.
iN
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
So those are the three major things; the strategic plan that tied into the Master Plan, the housing evaluations that
we did with our outside consultants need to do this work with the help of a developer and then the increased
occupancy, I think is very important. In summary, I would say that this project is consistent with both the
institutional plan and the Master Plan that we're developing. The developer option is very important to the
College. I already mentioned as to why. The seven hundred and fifty beds to make it work properly for us. We
will have to get this done one way or another. If this proposal doesn't work, l would emphasize that we still
need those eight hundred beds and we'll have to find a way to do that if we're going to carry out our mission the
way we think that we should do that. The final thing that I guess I would say is that this is important to the
College because you know Ithaca College and we're a very tuition dependent institution so that keeping a full
complement of students is very important to the College on a continuing basis About 91 cents of every dollar
comes from room, board and tuition and we can not afford not to be in a position to have a good complement of
students on a continuing basis. That's the end of my comments.
Mr. Sieberding — I think which brings us to a more full discussion now I think of the re- development proposal
for the College Circle property. As I mentioned earlier, the renovation of the existing site and the existing
buildings is the first phase of that. I think we'll discuss that later as a separate Board agenda, since that's up for
action tonight and focus then on the new construction, what we propose to bring to the project. The new
construction, the revisions that we're asking the Board to consider, in terms of the approved plan, consist of a
number of different elements; a revision to the shape of the original buildings by eliminating the curve, there are
issues with that curve in terms of creating flat roofs that I think Vince Decofer will talk about in a little more
detail, a change in the material used for the exterior of the buildings, revisions to the site plan that would consist
of a small extension to one of the proposed parking areas in the north east corner of the site, the addition of the
community building in the center portion of the site and connection to the campus road system (creating a
physical link between this property and the balance of the campus), and as Tom just mentioned, a requested
increase in the occupancy limit that was imposed by the Board when the project was first approved in 1988 and
1999 from six hundred persons to seven hundred and fifty persons. The details of each of these revisions to the
Plan will be presented first by Dave Herrick, Vince DeCofer, who will then follow and talk about the
architectural revisions that we are proposing to make to the buildings and the Vince will be followed by Brian
Macrey , who will then discuss the various campus integration and connection. So Dave we can start with you
on that site plan?
Dave Herrick, T.G. Miller Engineers, 203 N. Aurora St — Before I talk briefly on what some of the
modifications are, I would like to tell you what we haven't changed. I'm referring to the sketch plan, which is in
your hand, drawing SK-1. We have pretty much kept the integrity of the original design; we haven't altered any
of the horizontal alignments. With respect to the building layouts, we have left the principal building corners in
tact.
Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask you to take the photograph down because I think that that map is the one
that shows what you are referring to.
Mr. Herrick — I'll just slide it over. Again, the elements that we haven't changed at this point would be the
balance of the loop road, we've kept intact the islands, the landscaped islands that the original dumpster was on,
we're kept the intersection, we've pretty much kept the general alignment of this cul -de -sac, as well. We've
proposed to extend for parking needs and access to this far north building. There's been a slight shift in this
north building, it's been rotated so that its direction is a more southwest, as opposed true south. The
modification in the cul -de -sac is simply an extension to provide some additional parking in the front of this
19
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
building. It's shaded here, you can see in the cross hatch portion is what's being proposed as a modification.
That provides an access to this building, which had nothing previously, but a much shorter parking lot.
I would briefly like to talk about the parking space implications. The assumption that on the 1998 approval
there were 450 parking spaces built into the plan, but we have found that we can come up with ten or fifteen
percent more than the 450. So the reality is, that the site, as originally designed, had space for over 500 parking
spaces. With the extension of the cul -de -sac, we'd be able to bring that parking count up to about 540. With a
six hundred -bed count, the ratio of parking is about ninety percent to student bodies. If the occupancy was
increased to 750, it would be about seventy -three percent ratio between bed to parking spaces. The community
building, which is shown here, we've targeted this as the practical location for such a single story building. It's
approximately 6000 square feet and you can see, quite clearly, that it's central to most of the development. It
can be accessed by the construction of some new pedestrian paths that link up the loop sidewalks. The benefit
with staying with the interior of the circle is that we're not pushing out anywhere else on the site adjacent to the
neighboring properties. Associated with the community building would be a small parking lot, approximately
22 spaces there. They would be for residential life staff and visiting students. One of the items that Jonathan put
together in his memo to you was a discussion to you about storm water that was actually item #l. With the
Phase II and Phase 111 improvements, as we have proposed them, we're adding about 9 /10 of an acre of
impervious surfaces, above and beyond what was originally proposed in '88. Regardless of whether Phase II
modifications and Phase III was actually completed, we would find ourselves, in completing the original plan,
making modifications to the storm water management system. Back in 1998 when this was approved, we built a
retention basin down here at the lower north west corner and it was sized to accommodate 25 year run -off
events and that's all that was being considered at that time. Regulations in 1990 changed and required that you
look at more frequent rainfall events than just the 25 year storm. So, in the completion of Phase 11, we will be
making modification to this facility to comply with the current storm water regulations and we'll work that out
with the Town Engineer. I have talked to Fred Noteboom about his concerns that he expressed about the
drainage system below Route 96 and below Ithacare and we'll keep him apprised of what modifications we
make here and make sure that there is no further negative impact. Another item that Jonathan pointed out was
the municipal water system. Back in '89, we looked toward this project at a possible pressure concern for these
upper- most units. Then the sprinkler ordinance was enacted shortly after the approval of College Circle and
we found that to operate the sprinkler systems without having to install booster pumps would be a difficult
situation, so we came up with some engineering recommendations that were presented to the Town to the Town
Engineer at that time and we're trying to have installed a pressure reducing station on the existing Town Main
that would allow for higher upstream pressures while protecting services down stream of College Circle, down
towards the campus, and those higher pressures would provide adequate pressures for the sprinkler coverage.
That was again a proposal that had support from Bolton Point, from the Town Engineer and Supervisor at that
time, so we'll continue to analyze that.
That is the sum of my comments. I'd like to introduce Vince DeCofer and he'll talk about the building
alterations.
Vincent DeCofer, QPK, 450 S. Salina St, Syracuse — The first thing that we looked at as architects was that
eight of the twelve have a curve emaciated facade, which is either curved convex or concave and what that
does, is it creates flat roof areas that end up being a maintenance problem. Additionally, it also creates some
inadequacy in the sizes of the rooms within the units. What we're proposing is taking, still within the original
nine buildings that were proposed, limiting the curved facade. If you look at AI, A4 and A7 in your proposal
sheets, go to the floor plans for the buildings and you'll see that the facade is shattered, rather than curved. With
the reconfiguration of the building that would result in a one percent reduction in the overall size of the
building's blueprints. So this change doesn't really affect the size of the building considerably. It's still the
20
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
about same size and still located in the same place. In order to complement the buildings that we have, what
we're proposing is a material palette that starts with the main brick, that's a very close match to the existing
brick. So we're still proposing that the main fagades of the building (and you have this in your packages, as
well), the red brick facade with a darker color accent band and we're keeping that because overall we'd like to
tie this complex together, it's all one complex so that the new buildings have to look like the existing buildings.
Then to complement the brick, we're looking at this weathered wood type of shingle to go on the roofs. Then,
as Ithaca College and I agree, we'd like to combine projects that are as maintenance free as possible. So we're
looking at a high quality vinyl — and there are differences in vinyl siding so we've investigated a product that
we think will hold up and we're proposing a two color scheme that's very sympathetic to the one that's there,
it's just a different palette that's a little more earthy tone that we think will look much more residential in
character, and then there's a lighter color and a darker color and then there's a third color, which is a trim color
that we're looking at as this antique parchment color. So we think we have a fairly nice palette of materials that
will make the complex look very good. The window color here, we have a sample, the existing windows are a
brown aluminum window. So we're proposing something very similar with a high- energy efficient glass, which
will be clear. So the palette of materials is similar. The street sign, the entry sign and then the mechanical
grooves in the front that protrude and the other sides of the building will have vinyl siding. So that's what the
architect has proposed. Now, in order to make it look whole, we'll talk about in the Phase I proposal that we'll
re -side the existing buildings so that one uses the same palette. In the end, we'll have a very complete looking
complex. There was discussion about the community building that is centrally located (back to the plan). This is
proposed as a one -story structure, using the same palette of materials and then the next omission would be the
details of the parts of the floor plan and what the elevations would look like. We're still fine - tuning the program
with the campus to make sure they get all the amenities in there to support life safety and there is a presence for
the residence life people on campus. So I think more detail will follow about that in the next submission
architecturally, but right now we're looking at a one -story structure that is going to look very similar and be
compatible to the buildings that are around it.
At this time, I'd like to introduce Brian Macrey, Vice President for Student Affairs and Campus Life.
Brian Macrey, 390 Edgar Hall, Ithaca College — Let me first say that we are very, very excited about this
opportunity to hopefully provide on campus very attractive apartment -style housing to our students in close
proximity to the main campus. I stress on campus housing because one of the discussions that we've had at
length at the college is if we were to go into this project, how would we recognize the College Circle
Apartments and how would we house our students there. When all was said and done, we are very much inline
with the fact that these students that would be residing there would be considered on campus. Presently, any
Ithaca College students that live there are considered off campus. The distinction for us is that if students are on
campus, all of our student conduct code, our rules and regulations pertain to those individuals and I think that
that's a very important distinguishing factor to understand. We are very excited about this opportunity, but we
will provide at College Circle live -in residential life staff, who are there 24 hours a day, while the college is
open. What I mean by that staff, is resident assistant staff who are under graduate student that are specifically
trained by us and hired by us and supervised by us. We would have a full time residential director who is a
professional staff member, typically with a master's degree, residing in the College Circle Apartments who
would be the supervisor of the RA's and the first professional staff contact for our students who would reside
there. Those individuals, as many of you know, are responsible for really taking the leadership for our
residential like program with students and that includes everything from administration to programming to
policy enforcement and regulation and obviously, the first level of support and also crisis response for students
and so those individuals would be hired by us and also stationed up in College Circle. In addition to that, our
campus safety staff and that means our full time patrol officers, who are sworn officers and our security staff
21
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
would be responsible for patrolling College Circle Apartments because we would consider that on campus
housing. They do that by foot and also by vehicle patrol, as well as bicycle patrol. In addition to that, as Tom
mentioned earlier, we would extend our Blue Light Phone System. For those of you who don't know what that
is it's an emergency phone system that any student or any visitor at the College Circle Apartments could use,
which would automatically connect that individual with campus safety, so that it's another means of safety. In
addition to that, our life safety staff, our fire safety and other individuals that would be responsible for ensuring
that College Circle is run safely when it comes to fire safety and other like safety regulations. So again,
considering this is an on campus housing area in the future, and this is what we would consider it, there would
be much more supervision, much more management obviously than what unfortunately occurs sometimes in an
off campus housing complex as it exists presently. In addition to that, I mention the community service
building, that becomes a very important function and a point for us in the future for College Circle, in that we
envision in that area our residence life staff office would be located there, a multifunction office possibly for
campus safety staff and our physical plant staff, since physical plant would be responsible for maintaining this
complex as well and if you know Ithaca College, which l know you do, you know how well we maintain our
property, so they would be responsible for the management of this property as well. That building would also be
used for us for laundry services and central mail service in the future, as well as programming space, study
space, a place for student meeting and for other functions. If you think of juniors and seniors who would
probably live here, what becomes an area for us to do our programming and bring people out of their apartments
to try to create a sense of community. That's important on our main campus and obviously would be very
important for us to have those amenities up here in College Circle. So those different factors are very important.
In addition to that, we've been working with IAD to try to put together some kind of connector between College
Circle and the Ithaca College property so that campus safety and physical plant and life safety vehicles will
have a direct access from our property to the College Circle property as well. In addition to that, we've talked
about extending a well lit and a blue lighted pedestrian path that connects our property with also College Circle
property so that the students can get back and forth between the two properties easily. As Tom mentioned
before, the issue of trying to have between 600 and 750 students in this location becomes very important to our
residence life program, we need the beds now, we will need them in the near future and so this really does meet
our residential life program needs very well. Thank you.
Mr. Sieberding — I'd like to make one quick point relative to the extension of parking that David spoke about in
terms of the plan in the north corner. If you take look at the existing plan, that parking lot stops short of the end
of that building. We think one of the benefits of extending that parking would be that it provides better access
for life safety vehicles, in particular, to the fronts of those units on the top of that existing site plan. We're
clearly, very excited about the prospects of this partnership between Integrated Properties and Ithaca College
and really believe that it will bring a lot of the physical and, l think, management improvements to this property.
I think, in order for us to take this to the next step, which, hopefully will be a complete site plan application, for
your consideration of all the various changes that you've just heard discussed, I was hoping that perhaps we
could take a look at each individual item that has been proposed and maybe get Board response on whether or
not you have any questions about those proposed changes, what sort of issues you may see in connection with
an approval for those, what kind of information you would like to have in a site plan application that might
address those concerns. On pages l I and 12 of the book that's titled "College Circle Phase 11 ", which is really
the description of the overall redevelopment proposal program that we just described, I've sort of outlined what
those are. I've sort of put those in terms of the Town approval processing schedule and essentially asked for
some conceptual approval, if possible, of those items. l think if we focus on the Phase II elements, the first in.
that list is the construction of the remaining approved sixty apartments in the associated parking areas. I think
we are requesting the Board to consider approving the revised blue print of the each building as has been since
22
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
described which eliminates the curve and allows that sort of staggered step back arrangement, rather than curve,
which I think will still create architectural interest. and diversity in these buildings.
Chairperson Wilcox — Based upon the drawings that you have provided, the long sides of the building will not
present a large mass. There are architectural features, including the, I believe it's the utilities areas, for example,
which step back. So that you're not going have a big mass.
Mr. Herrick — The second item on this list is a change in the number of parking spaces shown on the previously
approved site plan. I think Dave sort of took you through his analysis relative to the 450 spaces that were
originally approved and the 512 that can be created without any actual change in the parking area and in
addition to that, the small extension to the parking lot in the north corner of the site that would provide some
additional spaces.
Chairperson Wilcox — David, l think one of the things that we're clearly going to want to see is how you
magically pull these extra parking spaces out.
Mr. Herrick — You get 10% increase in parking spaces without adding any additional pavement.
Chairperson Wilcox — How'd you do it?
Mr. Herrick — It's simply putting striped lines on the original plan, which I don't think was ever done.
Mr. Kanter- Possibly, the design standard in the `80's was more like a ten foot wide parking space, this would
be more of a nine foot parking space, there's you 10% right there.
Mr. Herrick — But if you look at the plan behind you, l don't think there was ever a striping plan prepared for
the original.
Mr. Kanter — The 450 number is one that we've only seen in writing and never seen graphically expressed in
any of the approved materials. So, I think as Dave's indicated, what they have done is literally laid it out on a
9x20 module.
Chairperson Wilcox — The current parking area is striped?
Mr. Herrick — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are those ten foot wide?
Mr. Herrick — No, they're closer to the nine -foot spacing. Now there's a little bit of geometry here that we have
to go through. If you think about the spokes of a bicycle tire, as those spokes continue outward to the rim, the
spacing between them increases. Same thing in this case. All of these parking spaces are radials from the center
of the circle. So, you have, what amounts to, an average of 9x20 in these parking spaces striping. At one point,
in might be greater than nine feet and up against the curb, it might be eight foot nine inches. But on an average,
in the middle section, it's nine feet.
23
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — In terms of your design, wouldn't it have to be designed that the outermost point be nine
feet?
Mr. Herrick — Our definition actually is 180 square feet. So it could be 9 x 20, it could be 10 x 18 or something
else. The site plan, you wouldn't want to make it 1 foot by 180 feet.
Mr. Kanter - I think the point is, which l started to mention in my memo is that we will need to certainly take a
hard look at an actual circulation of a parking plan and make sure that it makes sense.
Board Member Hoffmann — And also the indication is that you haven't gotten as many cars as there are parking
spaces, as the number you were proposing, and when all those cars go in and out of the
development, you're talking about a road connecting this part of the complex with campus. That road, I
understand is very limited to emergency vehicles and campus police. So the students are not expected to use this
road with their cars that are going to be parked here. I would like to know how do these students that are here
now go back and forth, what do they do with their cars? Do they take their cars from their apartment to campus
every day? That's the kind of information that's going to be very useful to us.
Mr. Kanter — And l think this is information that we can try to adjust in forum of the traffic assessment. Jon and
I have had some discussion about that. I will say one thing about the connective road and what may happen in
the future, as far as traffic back and forth between the property site and the campus. It is our hope that that
connective road will also be used by public transportation. Tom Colbert, Tom Salm and I met with Rod
Ghearing and Nancy Oltz at T -Cat to talk about the possibility of the T -Cat bus service to the site. They might
take one of the existing bus routes, drive through the College Circle property, use this connecting road to enter
the main campus and exit from the main campus entrance.
Board Member Thayer — You keep talking about this `88/'89 approval and you talk about it as if it's pertaining
to today. l was wondering, is there any expiration on that?
Attorney Barney — There probably is no expiration.
Board Member Thayer — There is no expiration?
Attorney Barney — Not unless they started construction and did the first phase. There is an expiration if you
have a plan, but you don't act on it.
Chairperson Wilcox — But conditions have changed. The requirements for drainage have changed..
Mr. Kanter- In two separate instances during the presentation, there was kind of a jumbalized term that Ithaca
students and staff and maybe someone else would be at these residences. Would there be anyone else at these
residences that don't have any positions at the school?
Mr. Salm — The answer is "no ". It would be treated, remember we have several other residences on campus and
they're all students and residential life staff. So there would be no outsiders of any sort. Is that what you're
asking?
24
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — We're getting a little bit ahead of you. With the materials provided, there's a sentence
that says "however, based on the existing ratio of cars to students, approximately 80 %. And then with my
calculations, I come up with the same number as David Herrick, that the proposed plan offers 538 spaces totaled
with a ratio of 72 %. That seems to be insufficient. In lieu that 538 spaces may not be enough for the 600
apartments and the increased density going to 750, you certainly don't have enough parking spaces.
Attorney Barney — I just wanted to check some numbers rather quickly. For the 600 -bed count, the ratio would
be 90%. For the 750 count, it would be 72 %.
Chairperson Wilcox — My other issue is the materials talk about the connection of the service road. I'm thinking
about the 600 beds, possibly 750 people, thinking about the new community center and what it's going to have;
recreation pin ball, pool halls, study area, computers, maybe things like that. It's not going to have food service?
Mr. Herrick — No, I don't think so.
Chairperson Wilcox — Nothing is said about food services. Many of these students would be on the University
food plan.
Mr. Macrey — We have an apartment complex on campus right now, it
those students choose to be on the college meal plan, okay. So the only
are those in dorm housing. So those in College Circle, because they
required to be on a college meal plan. So you may assume some factor
five meal plan to catch dinner or lunch somewhere on the main part
providing food service or dining services here. Mostly, they want to be
attractive parts of being in College Circle Apartments.
has 400 students in it. Right now 5% of
students required to be on this meal plan
're in apartments with kitchens are not
of those students may choose to be on a
of campus. But we're not planning on
off the dining plan and that's one of the
Chairperson Wilcox — The dining plan is a lot more compounded if there's social events or sporting events,
there's a need to get to central campus for classes. My point is that I'm concerned about the increased traffic on
96B. Therefore, when l read "service road" that may not be sufficient, that the college should be thinking about
an actual road, to connect College Circle to parts of campus, so that the students can drive on campus to get
from one area to another. That might provide another service to have the emergency vehicles parked out front.
What I'm really concerned about is no having things backed up on 96B.
Mr. Walker — As a staff member, can I make a suggestion. Maybe Mr. Salm can answer this question. With this
proposal, when you're saying that this would become effectively part of campus, if we had 500 cars parked at
this facility, does that mean there would have to be 500 spaces on the main campus for these cars? Or are these
going to be the 500 parking spaces for the students that bring their cars and these would be their assigned
parking spaces and not be given a daytime parking space on the campus? To eliminate that and hopefully the
shuttle bus type system would. If you look at the Cornell, the college runs a shuttle back and forth back and
forth to campus.
Mr. Macrey — The answer is "all of the above ". And we're looking for some feedback from the Board tonight to
get some type of feeling about this because it's a dual -edged type of problem. In one sense, if we make it
available as a regular road on to the campus, we create other types of problems; we pave more surface and that
type of thing. We're working on the parking. What we would prefer is to get good enough public transit going
and that's why Herman mentioned that we talked to TCAT, they seemed to be quite interested in maybe adding
25
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
a third route, we have two that come to campus right now, every half hour during the day. And by the way, even
though it isn't part of this, we'd like to see better service over to Longview and that would be a by product of
this. The point being that we need more deliberation on this. Specifically, the answer to your question, right
now, the students are living off campus, come and drive to campus. We would not want to encourage that from
College Circle as part as campus housing. On the other hand, the distance is enough- I said to this Board at one
time before when we were doing the fitness center, one of the concerns that we had was being able to drive
from the campus to the fitness center, which was at the east end, and we still have that problem with people and
their cars and we're going to try to work away at it. So we need more deliberation and we'd like some more
feed back from you on that. We definitely want to try to increase the public transportation. We are going to be
starting the "pass program ". We start this month with the faculty and staff and we hope to extend that to the
students. So, the jury's out on that a little bit, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. If we don't do
this, again let me talk about that a little bit, and this gets built out, there will be 600 cars dumped out on 96B and
what we'd like to do is have some kind of a reasonable compromise. We don't want the students speeding
through those parking lots and we'd rather make a nice pedestrian area and also for public transport. Finally, l
would say shuttle, I'd prefer not to get into a shuttle. A shuttle is like a bad disease in certain sorts of ways
because it grows. It makes some sense when you think about it from College Circle down to the center of
campus, but as soon as we did it before, and we had Hudson Heights Apartments, it than began to grow and
pretty soon we were spending substantial amounts of money picking people up, literally all over campus. So,
from my viewpoint, again being the bean counter, I much prefer to spend some money with TCAT and have
them do it that way. Maybe put the buses and the emergency vehicles and that kind of thing through, but
somehow restrict the students. We're looking for advice on this and we're looking for your feedback.
Mr. Salm — There would be service vehicles, like safety vehicles and hopefully buses and it wouldn't be a full -
scale internal road between the two. I think a bus would relieve the traffic concerns.
Chairperson Wilcox — This kind of information that we've seen so far, the increase of 600 cars and the methods
being used to mitigate the problems with the traffic, this is what we need. Now, David has talked about
drainage. I walked this site Sunday before the snow really started coming down. On the site there .are posts,
posts that surveyors have put in at the proposed corners at the community building, there is also some earth
movements near the posts.
Mr. Mcarey — Yes, soil borings were done there.
Chairperson Wilcox — There's a significant amount of standing water in one of them. I didn't know whether that
was from the earth movement that had occurred or whether there are some drainage piles coming down hill
from the Mokemeyer property. l don't know if you saw what I an referring to.
Mr. Mcarey — I witnessed some of the holes at the community building level and there is ground water
movement there, where the soil interfaces with rock, the rock is quite fractured, so you do get quite a bit a
ground water movement through those crevices. It's a ground water condition. Probably exacerbated by the fact
that the hill slopes down and whatever is running along the ground ended up in the hole.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there an underground spring in there that you are aware of?
Mr. Macrey — No, it's just hillside runoff.
26
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. Kanter — Well, it sounds like, Fred, you would like to see some data on the soil borings.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't know if I'd like to see it — I wouldn't know what I was looking at. Certainly, it
caught my attention as I was walking around the site. It almost looked like, because of the slope and because of
the earth movement, it almost looked like, I don't want to say bubbling up, but it could have been.
Mr. Herrick — There are some other swales that exist above the current Phase I project that may be contributing
some over land flow to that depression as well.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is this a particularly difficult site to control the drainage, because a swale of that size?
Mr. Herrick — No, it'll be able to be dealt with it within the traditional management practices.
Board Member Thayer — I was going to ask David if the new management basin would be ample for the new
parking lots and roof.
Mr. Herrick — Well, l would tell you that the system that's there now is not complete and we would be, with the
balance of the site improvements, fulfilling all of the storm water routings and management that has to be done
by today's standard, not the standard that was used in '88. They are much different. There's water quality
requirements now, the peak flow tenuation has to be for three different rain fall events, not just one, which was
the case in '88. l can tell you that you'll see a different storm water management system at the conclusion of
this project than is there now; it has to be, with or without some of the proposed changes.
Mr. Kanter — Clearly, I think the point that you raise, in term
would have to be some modification for that retention to
increment of impervious surface. I think what they have
modifications to the retention system to bring it up to current
s of increasing the amount of impervious site, there
handle the increased run -off from that additional
to say is that without that there would still be
standards.
Board Member Hoffmann — We have heard from neighbors in that area about the problems that they have with
runoff into their yards from this land. I assume this would be greatly improved.
Mr. Kanter — Items number 2 & 3 on pages l 1 & 12 all they really have to do is increase the parking, I think we
understand that that creates an increased levels of impervious surface, that would be addressed through the
environmental review and a storm water management analysis program.
ln, regard to item 3, l wanted to point out to the Board, the unique natural area. We do have a revised drawing of
the unique natural area down here put together by the Environmental Management Council.(You can look at
this closer later.) This shows on, the base, the existing College Circle Apartments, which the boundary is drawn
around to recognize the use of development, but it also extends to the proposed development and the parking lot
extension around and it looks like it may be near this corner of the unique natural area. So I think we would
suggest that the environmental studies look at that area in terms of any other special features there that should
be recognized or protected rare plants, as an example because that's an important issue of why this particular
unique natural area was designated. Basically, to incorporate that kind of information into the environmental
analysis. So we would do an assessment of that portion of the site that may be proximate to that unique natural
area of floras and faunas relative to the list of those particular attributes that cause that area to be designated and
to whether or not it contributes or doesn't contribute to the designation. I'd also say that if there are going to be
enhancements with the access connection it that general area, to just document.
27
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — I also noticed that there are, on the plans of the College Circle property, there are
several conservation areas. I'm looking here on this earlier map and l see a third place that I don't see on the
new map. I'd like it to appear on your map.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are these part of the set aside area? They seem to be roughly about 10% of what is two
separate parcels.
Mr. Kanter — I don't think it was intended to be a park and recreation set aside, as we would do now. Actually,
back in those days, there was not a state enabling authority to make that kind of set aside in a multiple
apartment type of development, as you would in a typical subdivision. Although, this, in terms of designating
individual units of apartments, it could go to another step of condominium of co -op development actually
ending up with a sub - division on it for multiple residence development, but that isn't what happened with this
particular....
Attorney Barney — I have some vague recollection that there was some open -space consideration. I don't think
it's been through the minutes recently, but I think that there should be, maybe not an open -space dedication, but
maybe an open -space amenity to go with the project.
Chairperson Wilcox — There was one area, in particular, near the drainage basin, which was set aside as an open
space preservation area because of the rare plants that were identified in that particular area.
Mr. Kanter —
That's the area,
where if you're
going up Route 96, kind of off to the left. It's the "extension area"
I think it was
referred to as in
the previous
approvals.
Chairperson Wilcox — Attorney Barney is recommending what we would call now the "buffer area" in the
multiple residence zone.
Chairperson Wilcox — What l read from that, I guess, not to develop in those areas previously under the group
site plan.
Mr. Macrey — I'd like to point out to you that we're keeping the same alignment.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right. I'm aware of the fact that the footprints aren't changing and that the buildings are
located essentially where they're planned to be located.
Mr. Macrey - Relative Fred to item no. 3 here, the extension of the parking lot in that northeast corner, to the
extent we can, say, do an assessment of that particular portion of the site and determine what contribution it
may make to this unique natural area designation. Would that be the time to determine whether or not that
extension is possible or not? Say that we take a look at it and it doesn't contribute much to, in terms of quality
of that particular portion of the site, to this unique natural area, then is that open for a parking lot expansion?
Board Member Thayer — 1.) They need the parking 2.) It's a reasonable request.
Chairperson Wilcox — l don't have a problem with the "concept" of putting those additional parking spaces
there. Anybody else?
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — I'd like to find out what the original intent was for that central area. I see the need
for a community building but, I'd like to know why that is not developed in the original plan. If there was some
reason.
Mr. Macrey — There's a swale coming down into that area now.
Attorney Barney- We're going to look at the previous approval record and see what type of use anticipated.
Considering at that time no one envisioned the kind of problematic elements that Tom Salm and Brian Macrey
discussed, in terms of the college and the space within which those kind of programs and enhance management
function could be provided.
Board Member Hoffmann — And at that time density wasn't really an issue.
Attorney Barney —
I think what we'll find when we look
in the records is that
the College
Circle development as
originally approved
in 1988 was actually a much lower
density than the MR
zone would
permit. The MR zone
says that you could
have 17 dwelling per acre and this is
something much, much
lower, in
the range of 4 or 5.
Mr. Kanter — John, I've actually gone through some of those minutes and there is quite a lot of discussion of
those low densities relative to what's allowed per that MR zone.
Attorney Barney — So I think that's one of the reasons you see so much open space areas on the plan. It's not
that they were intended to be preserved as open space, it's just that it's a very low density multiple residence
development compared to what we could have.
Chairperson Wilcox —We should also point out that the community center makes a lot more sense than down in
this part of campus and also that a community center is not allowed in an MR zone, so that's another issue that
will have to be dealt with by the Town.
Mr. Sieberding- I think that takes us to, under Phase III and p. 12, the community center and the associated
parking. I think we've heard some of the issues that you'd like us to explore relative to bringing that back to a
site plan application.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think you can talk us into the center. l think it's a great idea. Whether it's recreational
activities or social or vending machines of some sort.
Board Member Thayer — This is taxable property.
Chairperson Wilcox -JMS Realty is quoted as the owner, but we have this thing called TMG Liability
Company, there's also some question in my mind whether this parcel was split into two?
Mr. Kanter- It is two separate tax map properties, and one entity, James Realty, owns the developed portion of
the site and the same people have this other entity that hold the land, where the second phase of the approved
project would be build.
Chairperson Wilcox — And you're negotiating with both JMS and TMT?
29
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. Kanter - They're the same people. John Novarr, who's the principal of JMS and the principal of this other
entity, is the individual with whom they have been working in terms of negotiating the acquisition contract.
John represents, JMS Realty, the three original developers of the site.
Chairperson Wilcox — I was just wondering why. But l remember we went through the subdivision and they
were going to syndicate part of it.
Mr. Kanter — That had to do with the finances.
Mr. Sieberding — I think Fred, if we're on page 1, Phase Ill, we just discussed the community center, we will be
pursuing that concept. Item no.2, increasing the occupancy from 600 to 750.
Chairperson Wilcox — David, you've corrected my parking figures, my ratios, but still, nonetheless, we still
have the 80% stated in text and 72% that you wind up with.
Attorney Barney- I think you might also want to address just how this residential advisor situation is going to
work because this College Circle has been a source of a number of complaints to the Town in terms of the
activities that have gone on there. I realize that if it becomes of the College's area, perhaps the College will
observe a little more control, but there have been a number of occasions where there have been applications
made to the College to do something about it and not a lot has happened, so I think that this Board and I know,
that the Town Board, are going to be very interested in what types of activities the college is going to undertake
to control this behavior that has occurred from time to time over there.
Chairperson Wilcox -We should mention illegal.
Board Member Hoffmann — I
have
a question
about something that Jonathan Kanter has pointed out on page 2,
point 2, where you talk about
this 1990
variance. That allows a greater occupancy.
Attorney Barney — l think if there were to be a number of units permitted by the zoning ordinance, to put in
more units would probably be considered more occupants than are permitted by this variance.
Mr. Sieberding — I think the issue that the BZA considered back then had to do with, I think a revision in the
ordinance that was under consideration at the time that the project was being developed that would limit the
number of unrelated persons living together in a unit. The limit that was going to be imposed was no more than
four. Since there are four and five bedroom apartments as part of the project, the applicant went back to the
BZA and the BZA granted a variance that allowed more than four unrelated individuals to live in the apartments
in this project. The issue, l think, that John is describing in this memo has to do with the Board of Zoning
Appeals carrying the same condition that the Planning Board imposed at the time and setting that number at
600.
Board Member Hoffmann — But we're now considering your suggestion.
Mr. Kanter — And that's why it would have to also go back to the Zoning Board to revise their....
Mr. Sieberding — To revise the condition of 600 persons.
30
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — I have a question for Tom Salm, if I may. If Ithaca College did not have this agreement
with IAD, where might you look on the campus to build additional housing? Where have you looked?
Mr. Salm — We talked about three different places, some round the Garden Apartments, some along the Raponi
property, this is where there's an authorized parking lot, and then some in this area here. One of the concepts to
the Master Plan was to develop a significant quad or a triangle, which looked to the lake. In the plan of Phase 1,
they built this out with more housing or building on both sides of this quad and then also coming down this
area. So we haven't come to any conclusion at this stage in the game. Mostly on the east side of the campus,
would be the best way to say it. There are additional buildings over here.
Mr. Sieberding — We also have some additional athletic complexes scheduled.
Mr. Salm — That's the big thing, they're associated with the football field and so on. The locker rooms.
Attorney Barney — One of the reasons that we're putting you through this whole process is that Ithaca College is
going to be the controlling agency, so Tom don't sit down quite yet. What's the nature of your arrangements
and what's the length of your time that these arrangements would be in place?
Mr. Salm — Well, we're working on these arrangements and we're working on beginning a typical arrangement
with a developer, whether it be IAD or another developer. You're looking at a long -term relationship, it will
probably run 30 to 40 years with the expectation that both parties will be involved in it for that entire period of
time.
Attorney Barney — So the agreement that you're proposing — I don't know, have you designed a specific
agreement at this time?
Mr. Salm — No we have not.
Attorney Barney — But the agreement would specifically lock Ithaca College into the operations of this facility
for a 30 -year period.
Mr. Salm — It would lock us into a relationship with them, but not necessarily operating it for the entire 30 year
period. Like any of these things, both parties will want some type of an out if, for some reason, it doesn't work,
it doesn't make sense for either party to get into that type of an arrangement. There's an important piece of this
associated with our whole fiscal structure and what's required of us relative to the debt capacity we are able to
have. If we have too much controlling interest in this, we have to put it on our books as part of our debt
capacity. We simply don't want to do that, we want to keep it off credit and we want to keep it off our balance
sheet because we have enough other things that we need to do, in terms of academic things that we want to
reserve those dollars for that kind of purpose.
Attorney Barney — I guess what would be useful then would be
arrangements Ithaca College would be making. I think we do car
can disassociate itself from because, again, I think if the Boards
large part based on the expectation that Ithaca College is going to
in terms of fines or whatever conditions or whatever agreements
a kind of specific indication of exactly what
e about under what circumstance the College
react favorably to this, they're doing it in a
be the enemy that will be dealt with up there
have been made there. If Ithaca College can
31
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
walk away in a year or two years, I think it might affect their willingness to go along with this. So I think that
the next step we would like to see here is a pretty good idea exactly what kind of agreement you would have.
Mr. Salm — Well, we'll see how we can work on that. Let me just say that it makes no sense for us to get into
this, even though we've got as good business practice, to have some kind of an out with the expectations that
we ever get out, I understand you point. But the fact of the matter is that we would put ourselves in a very bad
position to walk away, we need these beds.
Mr. Kanter — It's a little early to think about conditions at this point, but something we could be thinking about
it whether some type of condition might be able to be connected to approvals that would allow the increase in
the requested occupancy as long as Ithaca College is controlling the situation. l don't know if we can really get
that much into individuals and people and entities in these conditions, but to the extent that we can, that might
be something to think about.
Chairperson Wilcox — l understand why we would want this and l have no specific knowledge of the alleged
events that have gone on at College Circle, other than what has been reported in the Ithaca Journal, which talks
about the sale of alcohol to minors, drunkenness, l believe the County Sheriff being called, that sort of stuff.
That's sort of what's been alluded to; clearly Ithaca College has alluded to having their presence there to try to
mitigate this. If that's going on now and has been a problem, building 60 more units, adding 20% more density
without Ithaca College's involvement, clearly would be an issue and therefore, I believe, John, that Ithaca
College's involvement — their access to the site, emergency vehicles, safety vehicles, campus security, blue
light, having residence advisers there are all part of the College's responsibility.
Mr. Salm — There's no question that we would not be going into it without that in place. Let me emphasize that
the program that we're doing went clear back to our institutional plan, says we want to be an institutional
college, which means we run it just like we do our other housing complexes and, as you might know, we don't
have sheriff calls we don't have keg parties, those kinds of things in our other residence complexes and l don't
want to speak for Brian, but it's safe to say that we want to run it the same way. So, if we're going to get into
this, we're going to do that. The single issue that is going to be of concern is the length of time that we would be
in this and we're not going to be able to guarantee that we're going to do it forever. I might as well say that up
front, so that people understand that. What would happen if we lost 1,000 or 1,500 students, god forbid, but
those are the kind of circumstances that you can't tie yourself into, the unforeseeable things that are 30, 40 years
out in the future, that's our concern.
Attorney Barney — And I don't think we're sitting here saying we expect that. On the other hand, I expect the
other side is not interested in getting into this unless there's some kind of insurance. So all we're asking is to see
what the relationship is there between the college and the developer in terms of what they can expect.
Mr. Salm — And that's fair, I'm not a bit surprised to hear that. Let me just say one thing about Mr. Pritanski
and IAD. They have an excellent reputation and there has to be a certain comfort level with whoever owns it.
Again, if this we're to go ahead with them running, l think you would see things done in a different sort of way
than done previously and that would be there as well.
Mr. Kanter — Fred, while we're still on the issue of increased occupancy. We already talked about traffic and the
need to evaluate that. I'd kind of like to see that broaden and call it a transportation analysis for the
environmental review which should get into the traffic aspects, but also the other things we talked about in quite
32
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
a bit of detail, possibility of public transportation. Certainly, pedestrian and bicycle enhancements that could be
implemented in that physical connection to the college and thirdly, parking and some permanent policies
regarding cars moving from College Circle to the campus.
Chairperson Wilcox — I agree. The issue of getting cars and people from College Circle to the main part of
campus has to be looked at in a way that addresses all of those issues. Will they drive onto 96B? Will the just
stay on campus and Ithaca College handles the traffic load? Do they need parking spaces for all those cars in
central campus? If they're going to do that besides the residence hall, what about the students who wish to walk
or bike? Tom Salm mentioned public transportation, provided by TCAT, I think that's important to point out.
Board Member Talty — I think also, shelters that are strategically located and also complement the site itself.
You really want the students to utilize.
Mr. Salm — They said that if they could make this work, we agreed that we would put in bus shelters; I think
that's a good idea. Let me say too, that we're very interested in bicycle paths, pedestrian paths, regardless of
what happens here. We do want to encourage this. We're going to be working hard to try to reduce the parking
and traffic. This is fair game and we'd appreciate you're feedback.
Chairperson Wilcox — I should point out, Tom will you do me a favor, would you point to this particular map
and would you show the current service road that runs all the way to the edge of the property.
Mr. Salm — It comes up this road and snakes up here beside the terraces and comes up in the terrace parking lot
and the avenue through is really along the edge of this and, at this point, it edges the parking lot. It's purely a
service road at this stage in the game. We've never done anything other than making it a service road, there's
gravel, it's not paved. We talked to the TCAT people the other day, too about what improvements would be
associated with getting a bus in there, getting it turned around depending on where it was going. This was a
preliminary kind of discussion; it goes back to your point that that needs to be worked out. We've also had a
little conversation, and this gets to the conservation zone or the natural area that John was talking about, that
goes down this side. One of the discussions that we're having is does it make any sense to go at a loop, one -way
or the other? Should we put traffic on this road that, basically does not have any traffic in terms of any regular
traffic, our security vehicles use it occasionally and so on. But it's a nice straight line; it's also very close to the
conservation zone, which we are concerned about staying away from. So we asked Vince to do some studies to
see, if we were going to do some kind of a connector, both vehicular plus pedestrian and bicycle, what's the
best combination. We're also looking at what we're going to do with these fields; we would like to contain
those fields, if we can. They're very important to our overall athletic program. It also relates to the whole issue
of what happens in this area up here because this is basically a competition field. If we have more housing up
here, the opportunity to put more playing fields still makes sense to us, we are short athletic fields as we still
today with the additional student population and particularly because we have so many more club sports.
There's been a tremendous demand put on us relative to outdoor playing space in both recreation and regular
competition.
Board Member Talty — There's also an emergency access down to 96B from that area.
Mr. Salm — That's another thing that we talked about. That's down here someplace. Yes, we own a piece of
property. To do the fireworks, we've actually had you people down that road.
33
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — It's called a "seasonal road" at this point.
Mr. Salm — We don't use it at all. The only time I know
is something that's part of our Master Plan. We've tal
discussion about the Master Plan is a different entrance
that tonight, but it will be required. So, fair game, we're
to treat this subject. It's a fairly curved road, not an easy
of that it's
ked about
remaining
looking fo
route for a
Chairperson Wilcox — It isn't wide enough for buses at this time.
Mr. Salm — That's correct.
used is the night of the fireworks. That again
it, and if you think about it, along with the
to be determined. I know we're not here for
r advice here from all of you in terms of how
bus.
Mr. Kanter — And there's alignment issue that, I think Dave Herrick has already pointed out relative to the
drive through that end of the parking lot and the service road, but I think these are issues that Vince is looking
at.
Chairperson Wilcox — Actually blue lights are run all the way along there as well.
Mr. Salm — It's because we have students out here on the playing fields and that kind of thing. One of our long
discussions was what our relationship should be in College Circle relative to liability when we want to
encourage people to use that walkway.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else?
Mr. Kanter — I think that takes us through the last component on this Phase III list.
Chairperson Wilcox — Give me a second, let me just check my various notes that I have made.
Mr. Salm — While you're looking, let me just mention the follow -up memo that I've provided for the Board
regarding the community building and the environmental review before we leave the sketch plan discussion and
go on to the Phase I approval consideration. These are actually the two actions we'd like the Board to consider
tonight so if you've got some thought or concerns.
Chairperson Wilcox — One is re- appraise the designation, the other is how we think it's best to deal with the
issue of putting a community center in an area where it's not allowed.
Mr. Salm — So l think, at least the last time Jon and l talked about that, we talked about one possibility of
requesting a use variance, but it would seem to be not really an appropriate way to handle this situation because
the use variance criteria are quite difficult to prove and it's based on unnecessary hardship and economic injury
and those type of consideration which probably would be difficult to demonstrate in this kind of a case.
Chairperson Wilcox — We don't demonstrate it by appropriateness or reasonableness.
Attorney Barney — For a use variance basically you must be economically depressed.
Mr. Kanter — Although the current zoning ordinance does not permit community buildings, the proposed one
would and we even, when the Codes and Ordinances Committee, as you and Eva will recall probably, were
34
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
discussing this, it was pretty evident that there were certain things that were not permitted in the current MR
zone that made sense to include and a community building was one of those, among other maintenance and
storage buildings and things like that. So it is something that we are contemplating, it's just not adopted yet. So
it seems to us to make sense to bring it to the Town Board for an early decision on that particular element. I did
kind of a time line which gives an estimated overview of what would be involved if we factored that in there. It
really doesn't change the fact that this has to go for a site plan approval, the Zoning Board, that you have the
Town Board in there it probably could be done without effecting the time frame very much. If the Board likes
the idea of a community building conceptually and would like to find a way to make this an allowable use, this
would be the recommended approach to basically make a recommendation to the Town Board to add a
community building as a permitted use in the MR zone.
Chairperson Wilcox — Normally the procedure is the Town Board comes to us and ask for our..this is a reverse.
Mr. Kanter — We could work on this more with the Town Board, but the initial proposal at least could be to take
parallel wording which is in the proposed revise only, which I have attached, at least to have as a starting basis
to refer on to the Town Board and ask them to take a look at that and then send it on to Codes and Ordinances
for other review.
Chairperson Wilcox — "Where
College Circle Apartments is a
sorts of community buildings
recommendation to the Town
building. Whereas the proposed
as the Planning Board believes that development of community center within
reasonable thing to do. Whereas the current zoning of MR does not allow these
to be developed, therefore the Town of Ithaca Planning Board makes a
Board that the zoning for the MR district be revised to permit community
zoning ordinance would allow for a community building."
Chairperson Wilcox — The other Motion in front of us is the agency designation. John, your comments are that
there....
Mr. Kanter — John and l discussed whether this should be classified as a Type I or Unlisted Action and it seems
that because of the number of dwelling units in the un -built portion and the fact that there's a request for a
change in occupancy from 600 to 750, as well as the complexity of the Boards involved, it seems that
classifying this as a Type I Action and doing the coordinating SEQR Review would be the most prudent way to
approach this and so the Planning Board could offer itself as the lead agency and offer to coordinate the
environmental review with the Town Board and the Zoning Board as well as any other possibly involved
agencies. The only other one I can think of at this point probably would be the Health Department. I don't think
the Department of Transportation would be an involved agency, there are some proposed modifications at the
entranceway in the Phase 1.
Chairperson Wilcox — We should talk about that. right now. Let's talk about the separation of the environmental
review for the modifications to the existing buildings that are already build, which we'll get to in a little bit.
And the environmental review for the additional building and the community center and the parking lot
changes.
Mr. Kanter — Without getting into too much detail of the Phase 1 recommendations, we've looked at it and made
our determinations. There really were such nominal changes. The building footprint changes, for instance,
there's no increase in the pervious surfaces per se, other than possibly the entrance road where there could be a
widening. Basically, those elements are building fagade improvements, sidewalk and asphalt replacement.
35
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Those types of things, that are not dealing with new, undeveloped portions of the site and if you want to call it
segmentation, SEQR does permit segmentation in cases where it clearly would not cause a lesser environmental
look at future phases that are not related to that phase of development. That is what we are proposing, stating
that we are segmenting the phase I portion of the request.
Chairperson Wilcox — The issue, is by separating the environmental review into two distinct portions, do the
changes to College Circle, probably would receive less criticism in the environmental review than they would
from us. Having said that, there is a question to designate the Town of Ithaca Planning Board as the lead agency
to declare this as a type of action. Lead agency means more work for us, but we should be the lead agency
because we are the ones most closely involved with the deciding matters here.
Mr. Kanter — So if you adopt this resolution, it would basically notify other involved agencies and asking them
if they would agree to designation of the Planning Board? And give them thirty days to respond.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -4
Referral to the Town Board
College Circle Site Plan Modifications - Phases I1 and III
1033 Danby Road (Tax Parcel No's. 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3)
Planning Board, January 8, 2002
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
I . The Planning Board believes that the development of a Community Center within College Circle
Apartments is a reasonable thing to do, and
2. The current zoning of MR does not allow these sorts of community buildings to be developed, and
3. The proposed revised zoning ordinance would permit community buildings as accessory uses in
the MR zone.
THEREFORE,
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board that
the zoning for the MR District be revised to permit community buildings.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None
ADOPTED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -5
36
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Lead Agency Designation
College Circle Site Plan Modifications — Phases II and III
1033 Danby Road (Tax Parcel No's. 434-2.2 and 434-2.3)
Planning Board, January 8, 2002
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Eva Hoffmann.
WHEREAS:
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering modifications in the approved site plan for the
College Circle Apartments for proposed Phase 11 and III development at College Circle Apartments
located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple
Residence District. Phase 11 includes construction of the 60 additional apartments that were previously
approved by the Town in 1988, with some proposed modifications to the parking, building layout and
circulation, and Phase Ill which includes a community center building, Ithaca College campus
integration infrastructure and a request for additional apartment occupancy. J.M.S. Reality, Owner;
Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant, and
2. The proposed actions, which include site plan approval by the Planning Board for the proposed
modifications for Phases II and 111, a zoning amendment by the Town Board to permit a community
building in the MR Multiple Residence District, and a modification in the previously approved variance
by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the number of individuals permitted to occupy each dwelling
unit and the limitation regarding the overall number of occupants in the College Circle Apartments
(requested increase from 600 to 750), are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality
Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for
Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca, and
3. A Long Envirommental Assessment Form (EAF), Part 1, will be required to be submitted by the
applicant for the above - described actions, along with other application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the
environmental review of the proposed site plan approval, zoning amendment, and modification of the variance
for the proposed College Circle Apartments, Phases II and Ill development, as described above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this
proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department
within thirty days from the date of notification of the involved agencies.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
37
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
The Public Hearing was opened at 10:20 p.m.
David Richards, 1058 Danby Rd- The west side of the street, about four houses south of the College Circle
Apartments. With the Board's permission, I'd just like to submit a document that goes to representations in the
proposed sketch plan. This is one of many documents that I'll be submitting at the later Public Hearing. The
document that I just delivered, I delivered three copies of a recent Ithaca College quarterly journal which has an
article on alcohol abuse on the campus. Which, in my opinion, is an incredibly damning statement about the
nature of Ithaca College student life and that is in a journal published by the College, which is based on
statements by the College's own administration, faculty and students. It among other things, it goes into the
inability of the existing residential staff system and campus safety to deal with the existing alcohol abuse
problems in the existing residential structures on campus. This just states the obvious, I was just wondering of
all the people involved with this project; the developer, the designer, the architect, how many of those people
live within 700 feet of this facility? Which we're now proposing to put 750 students in, which is equivalent to
the student body of some small liberal arts colleges, which is only adjacent or near the campus under the most
liberal notion of the words adjacent or next to this campus. We're putting this in a residential community. I'd
like to ask to the people who are here in support of it, how many have woken up at 3 in the morning over and
over to loud, obnoxious alcoholic parties going on and the parties attendees going back and forth on their
property? How many have woken up to cars parked on their lawns, to cars driving over their lawns to get
around the cars that are already parked on their lawns? Woken up in the morning to walk their dog to find
broken bottles, plastic beer bottles and condom wrappers all over their front lawn and I'll remind the Board that
I live five houses south of this development, l don't even live directly next to it. So when you talk about the
conservation area and the natural area, this is what's going on on my lawn, some 500 feet or so from the facility.
1 can only imagine what's going to happen to the natural and conservation areas that are within 50 feet of the
proposed development. I'd also like to say that it's been seen that the 1988 approval is in some way also an
approval of the existing 60 apartment for the development now and 1 strongly object to that notion. Mr. Barney,
I've heard you discuss it at some length and I'd like to propose the question to the Board, other than, I guess it's
section 46 e, sub. A of the Zoning Code, on what other basis is this Board basing this conclusion that that
approval in 1988 still stands? I'd also like to ask anybody else here that's a neighbor in the community to meet
me outside and state your name and addresses, so if the College and the developer fail to address our concerns,
that we can mount an opposition to the further ruination of our neighborhood. One other quick comment to you
Mr. Wilcox; you talked about the vehicular ingress and egress, let's talk about the pedestrian ingress and egress
because what we have now, with the existing 324 students is a lot of pedestrian traffic, walking up on the side
of the highway to get to the quickie mart, Big Al's up at the gas station at King and Danby Rd. That goes on at
all hours at the night right now and with the new sandwich shop that's being developed just two houses down
from me, that will increase. We're talking about more than doubling the student population; there are no
sidewalks there. There's a huge ditch on the east side of the road. So I'd ask that, at the very least, we consider
requiring the developer to put in a sidewalk there because what you're going to have is 700 students walking up
and down 96B, on the side of the road, which is not lit in any way, there are no sidewalks, it's a very narrow
side to the road before you get to the ditch and they should be required to suffer that expense. Thank you.
Joel Harlen, Dryden — I'm always out all hours of the day and night throughout this whole half the county and I
see what's going on. There is a way to build a road going on because I see security when I'm up the collecting
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
cans and stuff. They come up around and there's a little stream at the end of the far parking lot of the old
building here, there's a dumpster, but there's also a small stream on the road that the security uses. It's only 200
or 300 feet from the parking lot, you can build a road over that, that security uses and you don't have to go in
and out, you don't have to use the highway. Also, I'm used to seeing these parties, I'm out there with them
collecting cans when they have block parties. That means College Town, that means Cayuga Heights, that
means up by the condominiums. I'm out all hours of the night and I see it all and we got worse problems with
the college students and they're throwing their trash all over the place. That's the problem, the traffic, the
parking, but when it comes to the colleges I don't see the other people complaining. I don't see Dan Hoffman or
the Green Party down here complaining about the growth up in the colleges. They're only worried about the
growth from the national chain stores, they're not worried about the problems in their own back yards from the
growth of the colleges and what the college kids are doing to terrorize these neighborhoods. You could change
that road, it's only a couple hundred feet from the security road and you can develop that road into a nice little
road that everybody can use.
The colleges have more power to expand than the businesses trying to come into this town, they'll just keep on
going and going. I'm just telling the truth.
Pauline Layton, 1029 Danby Rd —I have the unique situation of being surrounded by College Circle on two
sides. I would like to assure you, Fred, that yes, there is a spring out there, there's more than one spring
actually. About the location on that map, where the amphitheater is shown. There is the remains of a farmers
pond, where he used to water his livestock and in wetter years there was actually water in that. We've had a
number of relatively dry years, so you're not seeing the water out there in it's full splendor. Even now, on last
Sunday, you may have noticed a patch on the slope there a very icy that covered quite an area and that area is
quite frequently in that situation in the winter time because it's really a spring. It's not just something that
happened when they went out and dug the test hole. There's some other area there that are also springs. I think
probably the community center is a good idea, but you need to be a little careful where you put it so that it and
the parking lot are not on top of the spring. Actually, the springs there, I've got this 1996 map, it's called a
"working draft and ownership" and wetlands and South Hill Swamp and it's actually got that area on the map
marked as a wet area.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is that a county map or a town map?
Ms. Layton — This was a Town of Ithaca project, from Jon Kanter,
Mr. Kanter — I don't recall the report. I should maybe take a look at what that is, it might refresh our memories.
Ms. Layton — So anyway, in the middle of that area, there is indeed water. I have the impression that at the time
the amphitheater first appeared on the map that it was there because Mr. Novarr, in all his first joy of being a
landlord for students, thought he should be providing students with amenities, such as a wonderful amphitheater
where they could have rock concerts. Pretty soon he changed his mind about things like that so he wasn't so in
favor of noisy parties. I think that was his original thought. It's not necessarily something that needs to be
preserved as a feature. It's not really that there is an amphitheater there, it's just that he was going to build one.
Also, I've heard about water and I've heard about traffic, I haven't heard anything about sewage, is Danby
Roads sewage capable of dealing with this influx and I think you should look into that. It's already very often
difficult to get in and out of my driveway. If there's going to be renovations taking place this spring and
summer, can it be specified that the waste products from these renovations be taken away and not just dumped
in the buffer zone, which is something that has been tending to go on during renovations under the previous
Mi
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
administration, which is very annoying because I live right on the other side of the buffer zone and they're not
really supposed to dump things in it I don't think. Also, on road maps, they show an area, it's represented on
that map, there are some trees between the two north- reaching arms and it's referred to as scarlet oaks, an area
that should be preserved, so this is something that your environmental studies should look into. There's a
number of many large and healthy oak trees in that area. Now some of the oak trees farther north are really
unhealthy right on the edge of Ithaca College land — they'd dying and not worth preserving, but in that area there
are some slightly younger ones that are healthy and I think they ought to be allowed to live. As for the numbers
of beer bottles to be found on the ground all the time out there, I think Ithaca College students have some real
drinking problems that ought to be addressed by somebody. That's it for now.
Chairperson Wilcox — For the members of Ithaca College who are here, I should point out that the pictures of
the drainage problems will become part of public record and I will pass it down to Dan at this point. I also
accept the letter and three copies of Ithaca College Quarterly that have been handed to me by Mr. Richards. Is
there anything else?
Chairperson Wilcox declared this portion of the meeting closed at 10:36 p.m.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -6
SEQR
Preliminary and Final Site Plan - Modifications
College Circle Renovations
1033 Danby Road
Tax Parcel No. 434-2.2
Planning Board, January 8, 2002
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe.
WHEREAS.
l . This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications
to the College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2.2,
Multiple Residence District. The modifications include repaving the entrance drive, parking lot, and
walkways, construction of dumpster enclosures, install new utilities, install new vinyl siding and trim on
buildings, repair building foundations, construct new patios and drip edge around buildings, and repaint
existing light poles. J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant,
and
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. Although additional site plan modifications are proposed for the undeveloped portions of the approved
College Circle Apartments, the above described renovations to the existing apartments and site
improvements can be reasonably segmented from the future phase modifications for purposes of the
environmental review pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, since the renovations of the existing development
.O
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
are functionally independent from the future phase modifications and stand on their own even if the
future phases are not constructed, and
4. The Planning Board, on January 8, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental
Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part Il prepared by Town Planning staff,
plans entitled "Modified Site Plan," dated 12/7/01, "Drainage Details" dated 12/7/01, "Pavement
Details," dated ]2/7/01, "Dumpster & Recyclables Enclosure Details," dated 12/7/01, prepared by T. G.
Miller, "Preliminary Drawing by NYSEG for Gas Line Distribution," dated Dec. 04, 2001, elevations
66AR.2," "AR.3" and "ARA," dated December 7, 2001 and "Typical Building Footprint With Patios,"
dated December 7, 2001, prepared by QPK Design and other application material, and
5. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with
respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval;
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, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That segmentation of the proposed renovations of the existing apartment buildings and
site improvements for purposes of this environmental review, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617, is
warranted for the reasons stated above, and such segmented review will be no less protective of
the environment.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
SEQR Determination, College Circle Apartments - Renovation of Existing Apartments, 1033
Chairperson Wilcox declared this segment of the meeting open at 10:37 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Herman, are you still here? Are you taking the lead with this one?
Mr. Sieverding — Only as much to tell you that Dave Herrick and Vince will just go through, in a little more
detail, the components of the renovation program. We can start with Dave and run through the site plan changes
again.
41
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — So that we can save a little time David, normally I would ask for just a brief description
and the environmental issues. Let's go through the site plan and talk about what you want to talk about and then
we'll get to the environmental issues as well.
David Herrick - Looking at drawing sp -1, which is labeled "modified site plan ". That has current conditions for
the Phase I project and it's annotated to describe some of the site improvements that are proposed for the
existing facilities and if you are looking in the site plan review application booklet, I'll be addressing those
items I thru 5.
First off is "work on the entrance drive ". There's been some erosion along the edges so we'd like to work to
improve that condition by adding curbing on both sides of the drive to the point where there is curbing up near
the first parking lot and curbing the island and that would help maintain a nice detail, a nice edge. We're talking
about a slight widening, a couple feet to make two driving lanes, adding those curbs to give a little bit extra
space for moving around. We will also have to add a minimal amount of piping down at the corner of Rte 96 so
that runoff collected by the curb will not simply spread out into the intersection. I'd like to point out that that
component of the renovation project is created as an alternate. It's an alternate in the event that the funding is
not there to complete all of the other improvements, then that will be left to last. The hope and expectation is
that after all the other building renovations and submitted parking lot improvements are made, there will be
sufficient funds left to do the entrance modifications.
The parking lot: all of the parking lot surfaces were constructed to the top of the binder core, we have a base, a
binder core and a top coat, unfortunately, the parking lots did not receive a top coat application 10 or 1 I years
ago, so the condition of the surface has deteriorated to a certain extent with the weathering oxidation of the
asphalt binder core. The asphalt binder cores aren't meant to be left open. There will be specific locations where
base repairs will have to be made. There's some evidence of potholes that have been skimmed over. The base
repairs, maybe some other improvements in the surface in the binder cores there.
Board Member Talty — If I understand correctly, does the ultraviolet light break down the asphalt over a period
of time affecting the top coat, is that correct?
Mr. Herrick — Well, it is the break down of the oxidation.
Board Member Talty- So, isn't there a new base that has to go on. Not just the areas that have incurred the
potholes and so on. But in order to have the proper topcoat seal, don't you have to go over the whole thing.
Mr. Herrick — There will have to be some skimming across the parking lot so it gets the grade back into its
original design. This will be power - grooved and cleaned off that existing surface and we'll apply a tack -coat.
Board Member Talty — I just think that going through that whole application, you wouldn't want the sealer, after
all that to come up in a year or so after.
Mr. Herrick — It should bind well, with a proper application of the tack coat.
Board Member Talty — I just don't want it to look like the mall.
Mr. Herrick — Now pedestrian walks; in quite a few areas there has been settlement behind the concrete curbing
so that you have trip hazards on the backside of the curb along the walk. That varies from an inch to more than
an inch, but we're talking about an inch overlay on all of the existing pedestrian walks with the exception of the
EVA
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
walk out to 96B, there's no reason to resurface that walk at this point. In terms of where the access is to the unit,
we'd want to have those sidewalks taken to three, so that would be an overlay.
The dumpster locations that are on the plans are all currently exposed. There's no enclosure for them. There are
recycling containers throughout, that just sit open, so we'll be providing two sided structures around the current
locations to tidy -up the area, reduce the visibility impacts and also keep the containers organized.
The last item I have is the extension of gas service by NYSEG for our domestic hot water and heat. Essentially,
they would be running a line along, through the existing building there. We may do some landscaping repairs
after they're done.
Mr. Kanter — l think, within your application packages, there's a preliminary drawing prepared by NYSEG
showing how that gas line is going to be extended through this phase of the property.
Mr. Herrick - Here are drawings that show, in quite detail that cover all of the items that we have discussed.
Any questions from the Board on these details?
Chairperson Wilcox — All set, we're all set.
Board Member Hoffmann — You were talking about the improvements to the entrance driveway that is curved
and a possible widening of the road, but I believe there was also something about drainage there? Did you
mention that too?
Mr. Herrick — Yes, we need to put drainage piping down, towards that intersection so that the run off channeled
by the curb doesn't flow out into the street. So we have to pick up that runoff.
Board Member Hoffmann — Is that particular component something you're going to do at the end, if there's
enough money? Or will that be done.
Mr. Herrick — It's all part of the curbing installation. So without the curbing, you don't need the drainage
improvements.
Board Member Hoffmann — So it may not happen?
Mr. Herrick — It may not happen.
Board Member Talty —In regard to the parking lot, the change that you have made, if I am correct, is going to be
from granite. You're going to a more concrete type of curb, is that correct?
Mr. Herrick — No, we're proposing granite for that whole site.
Board Member Talty — Right, I know that's what you proposed, but you kind of left that out. So it's going to be
granite?
Mr. Herrick — If, by the time we get through with all these other improvements, there's money left in the budget
to do the curbing. The curbing will be granite.
43
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — I have another question about the dumpster and containers. I see that there's a
drawing here. I see that there are two, two sided units that don't join each other, there are openings. It looks like
one of the openings is quite large. It's maybe nine feet or something like that.
Mr. Herrick — That's right.
Board Member Hoffmann — So, depending on how these are arranged, the walls can maybe block the view of
the garbage or the dumpsters from one side, but when traveling from the other direction, you will see in?
Mr. Herrick — The preference in these college residence centers is to not have these entirely closed.
Board Member Hoffmann — Why is that?
Mr. Herrick — Access for the collection vehicles, I guess has proven to be a problem. Not so much as in the
commercial areas as it is in the residential areas.
Mr. Kanter — So your orientation of that large opening would be towards the driveway and the parking lot so
that the garbage truck can pull in there an pick up the dumpster and the orientation of that smaller opening that
you see at the bottom, would be toward the walkway to make it easier for pedestrians, people walking from
their apartments, to get into the enclosure for garbage and recyclables?
Board Member Hoffmann — So there's no way that you know of, of actually screening garbage from views of
the residents?
Mr. Herrick — Well, there's the vertical component. We're six feet six inches above grade. That certainly will
screen dumpsters. All except the head on view from the driveway, when you're in a car.
Chairperson Wilcox — Recycling is better than not, even if you can see it,
Board Member Hoffmann — I suppose it is, but I guess I just try to push for something that looks better.
Mr. Herrick — The reason we have the opening along the sidewalk is so that the students have access from the
sidewalk. They can drop off the trash and the recyclables without having to go out to the front on the street.
That's the reason why have the two openings.
Board Member Hoffmann — I see the reason for two openings. I thought they could be functional and look better
at the same time.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you going to talk about the architectural details?
Vince DeCoter, 450 S. Salina St, Syracuse — Yes. We think the biggest visual that we've got out there now is
the condition of the existing siding, which is the wood siding and over the last ten years it has deteriorated
considerably in a number of locations. As we mentioned before, this is the color palette that we are proposing
for the project. The masonry already exists. The brick already exists. The roof already exists. What we are
proposing is to tear off the existing wood siding in its entirety and then re- tyvex, which is an air infiltration
barrier, we put that on there if it's in poor condition and we will come back with the vinyl siding that we talked
..
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
about earlier. So that stylistically and architecturally they will be similar. That's probably the most significant
renovation that we have up there.
Chairperson Wilcox — I noticed on my walk up there this past Sunday that the existing buildings to the south
side were actually in slightly better shape, but as you walk north, the siding deteriorates terribly.
Mr. DeCofer — And I think what has happened there Fred, is that, 1 think it has only been within the last several
years that they're go to those units on the southern -most end of the project that they've started re- staining and
repairing, replacing a lot of the trim and siding.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm actually surprised how bad the siding looked in just 10 or I l years.
Board Member Thayer — Is part of your contract the disposal of the siding that you take off.
Mr.DeCofer — We're not contracted to because we are architects. We're working with two different
organizations, but we can make sure that there is proper off -site disposal.
Mr. Herrick — The general contractor will have dumpsters there and they'll regularly be filling them and hauling
them away and not allowing material to drift and find itself on adjacent properties.
Mr. DeCofer — The second component of the exterior is that there is a portion of the foundation right now is
about anywhere from 6 to 24 inches that's concrete block that's exposed and it's bowed and it was originally
coated with a semititious coating, which, over the years has come off. We'd like to go around there and put that
coating back on after proper preparation of the surface, both for appearance and for maintenance.
Board Member Thayer — What kind of coating did you say that was.
Mr. DeCofer - Semititious. It's basically concrete and fibers. It's sprawled on.
Board Member Thayer — Like a drivit type?
Mr. DeCofer — No, actually it's cement based. Drivit is acrylic based.
Mr. Herrick — Sometimes referred to as parking a foundation.
Mr. DeCofer — Basically it's to seal the block and give it the appearance of otherwise scoring the block itself.
The third component is, if you look on drawing AR l in your packet. We proposed to eliminate some of the
areas right behind the patio doors, by putting a concrete patio out there and also we're proposing a stone drip
line, which is actual stones — which is about that high and then carrying a width of 18 inches. What this will do
is, we've talked to the college maintenance people who will actually be doing the mowing, it eliminates the
problem of weeds growing at the foundation line. So you get a very clean edge and mowing pattern. Again, this
is something that the campus will maintain so they're interested in not only making something that we think
will look good but, which we think will be easily maintained. That's really the significant architectural
improvements that are proposed to the building.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm surprised, most of these are maintenance items. The other thing that we need to
address was the renovation of the existing light poles.
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. DeCofer — The intent there is to sand, re -paint and clean them up. Same colors.
Chairperson Wilcox — Environmentalism aspects? Do you have anything?
Mr. Kanter — Relative to this portion of the project?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, relative to this portion, either positive or negative.
Mr. Kanter — I would say there are no environmental impacts relative to these proposed improvements. It's
repair and maintenance work, really. I think why we're here is because there's this provision in the ordinance
that says if you spend more than $20,000 on repair and maintenance, it's subject to site plan approval. I've
reviewed the materials prepared by Mike and the proposed resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — The first floor patio is slightly beyond that. If you walk up there, walk around behind the
building, there's a six -inch, let's say eight -inch drop off from the sliding glass doors. I'm not sure whether the
initial site plan intended for concrete patios to do that. In most of the apartment complexes in and around Ithaca,
even the ones in Lansing, you walk out and there's a concrete patio.
Mr. Herrick — I think the stone drip edge in addition to the maintenance benefits, it also allows us to fill some
depressed area, areas that have settled over the years that are right up against the corners and correct that
condition.
Chairperson Wilcox — Staff comments?
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: RESOLUTION NO. 20024
Preliminary and Final Site Plan - Modifications
College Circle Renovations
1033 Danby Road
Tax Parcel No. 434-2.2
Planning Board, January 8, 2002
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty.
V%1HEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications
to the College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43- 1 -2.2,
Multiple Residence District. The modifications include repaving the entrance drive, parking lot, and
walkways, construction of dumpster enclosures, install new utilities, install new vinyl siding and trim on
buildings, repair building foundations, construct new patios and drip edge around buildings, and repaint
existing light poles. J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant,
and
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 January 8, 2002, made a negative
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town
Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 8, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate, plans entitled "Modified Site Plan," dated 12/7/01, "Drainage Details" dated 12/7/01,
"Pavement Details," dated 12/7/01, "Dumpster & Recyclables Enclosure Details," dated 12/7/01,
prepared by T. G. Miller, "Preliminary Drawing by NYSEG for Gas Line Distribution," dated Dec. 04,
2001, elevations "AR.2," "AR.3" and "ARA," dated December 7, 2001 and "Typical Building Footprint
With Patios," dated December 7, 2001, prepared by QPK Design and other application material;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final
Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, 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 Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for
the proposed site modifications to College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road as shown
on plans entitled "Modified Site Plan," dated 12/7/01, "Drainage Details" dated 12/7/01, "Pavement
Details." dated 1.2/7/01, "Dumpster & Recyclables Enclosure Details," dated 1.2/7/01, prepared by T.
G. Miller, "Preliminary Drawing by N) SEG for Gas Line Distribution," dated Dec. 04, 2001,
elevations "AR.2," 46AR.3" and "AR.4," dated December 7, 2001 and "Typical Building Footprint
With Patios," dated December 7, 2001, prepared by QPK Design and other application material,
subject to the following conditions prior to building permit:
a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper to be retained by
the Town of Ithaca, and
b. submission of documentation to the Town of Ithaca Planning. Department that a permit has been
obtained from NYS Department of Transportation for work within the Danby Road right -of -way,
and
c. submission of final drawings for the gas line distribution by NYSEG, for approval by the Director of
Engineering.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
47
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modifications to the existing College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Rd, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 43.4-2.2, Multiple Residence District. The modifications include repaving the entrance drive,
parking lot, and walkways, construction of dumpster enclosures, install new utilities, install new vinyl
siding and trim on buildings, repair building foundations, construct new patios and drip edge around
buildings, and repaint existing light poles. J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development
Corp., Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox declared this segment of the meeting open at 11:00 p.m.
Joel Harlen , Dryden — I don't know. It seems like everyone asks me why I'm getting involved in these politics
about Ithaca and downtown and Town of Ithaca issues. It's because I care about county issues and I see Ithaca
turning into a cesspool and it's stinking up the county. We need to make improvements and I think what's going
on are some nice improvements, if you get it worked out. It would be just like Hollywood up there, just like
north campus. It'l] probably only take two or three years to do all these projects, just like north campus, just like
the mall area. They came up with the idea, went up in about a year or two. These things will be up in a year or
two. Look at the south park and Wide Waters area, that's been going on seven or eight years and they haven't
done anything yet. What I'm saying is that there's a difference in this area, you know what I mean? When you
go up there and look around College Circle Apartments, take a look at that dumpster right there. There's a walk
bridge and then a road, you could make another road within a couple hundred feet of that walk bridge. Go up
there and take a look at it, that will solve all your problems.
Chairperson Wilcox — But right now, all we're discussing here is the proposed renovations to the existing
buildings. Joel thank you.
Chairperson declared the public Hearing closed at 11:02 p.m.
MOTION moved by Rod Howe, seconded by Kevin Talty,
Attorney Barney- Can I ask a question. Are these renovations contingent upon the other applications that we
talked about earlier tonight, in passing or are these independent of that?
Chairperson Wilcox — The people who know are not saying anything, somebody's got to come up to the
microphone.
Phil Francheski, Integrated Acquisition and Development, 15 Thomwood Dr — They are independent. This
application is separate and these improvements are independent of the prior discussion.
Attorney Barney — Are they contingent upon making an arrangement with Ithaca College for the occupancy of
the building?
Phil Francheski — They're contingent upon our completing the acquisition of the property. And that acquisition
might by contingent upon our making an agreement with Ithaca College.
.•
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Talty, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Persons to be Heard
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 11:05, with no persons present to be heard,
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 11:06.
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson of Planning Board 2002.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any nominations?
Board Member Thayer- Eva.
MOTION moved by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -8
Nomination and Election
Planning Board Vice Chairperson 2002
Planning Board, January 8, 2002
MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Kevin Talty.
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Chairperson of the Planning Board for the year 2002.
does hereby nominate and elect Eva Hoffmann as Vice
FURTHER RESOLVED, that said election shall be reported to the Town Board.
AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Hoffmann.
The MOTION was declared to be carried.
AGENDA ITEM.: Consideration of Approval of 2002 Planning Board Meeting Schedule.
Chairperson Wilcox — This is a MOTION to set the meeting times for the remainder year from the first Tuesday
of this month and then back to the first and third Tuesdays of all remaining months. That includes meeting on
Election Day. Any questions or comments.
EIKO
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. Kanter — Wasn't here for the very beginning of that, but I have a suggested change from the outline that we
gave you. It looks like we don't really have too many official items for the February 5`h Meeting. So, at this
point, I would recommend that we drop the January 22 "d, fourth. Tuesday meeting. The one item that we were
really thinking of for that meeting was the further discussion of the proposed revisions that the Planning Board
indicated you might want to do. If you want to do that, I would recommend that we do that on February 51h,
instead of January 22nd and if, by some chance, some other items come up, they would be pretty small and
probably pretty quick items. So I don't see a need at this point to have another January meeting. Does that
sound good?
Chairperson Wilcox — Amended to remove the second meeting in January. Anybody have any comments or
care about the meetings starting at 7:30, the other Boards start at 7:00. How about the staff, you guys are around
all day. 7:30 is fine with me, I was just thinking about moving it earlier for their sake.
Mr. Kanter — I don't know what you think Mike. 7:30 to me makes more sense because it gives us more time to
go home and relax.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -9
Town of Ithaca Planning Board
Schedule of Meetings - -- 2002
Planning Board Meeting -- January 8, 2002
MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer.
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board adopt and hereby does adopt the following as its
schedule of Regular Meetings for the Year 2002. Unless otherwise notified, all meetings will be held on the
first and third Tuesday, commencing at 7:30 p.m.
FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH
January 8, 2002 (Second Tuesday)
February 5, 2002
March 5, 2002
April 2, 2002
May 7, 2002
June 4, 2002
July 2, 2002
SECOND MEETING OF THE MONTH
February 19, 2002
March 19, 2002
April 16, 2002
May 21, 2002
June 18, 2002
July 16, 2002
50
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
August 6, 2002
September 3, 2002
October 1, 2002
November 5, 2002
December 3, 2002
August 20, 2002
September 17, 2002
October 15, 2002
November 19, 2002
December 17, 2002
MOTION moved by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Talty, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Minutes of the November 20 "', 2002 and December 4, 2001 Meeting
Chairperson Wilcox — We now have in front of us the minutes from the 201h of November and the 4'h of
December 2001. This is where you confused me.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have to believe that the minutes of November 201h have not been approved.
Tee -Ann Hunter — Well, Carrie's pregnant and gone. She's coming back on Monday. So these were transcribed
by Mary Bryant and Lori Quigley. Mary Bryant couldn't attend the meeting, so she wasn't sure what was going
on.
Board Member Thayer — So we need to re- approve the November 20'h minutes?
Ms. Hunter — We need to delete mention of approval of the November 20'h minutes from the December 4th
minutes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Were the November 20`h minutes ever approved?
Ms. Hunter — No.
Board Member Thayer — So we need to approve the November 20`h minutes as well.
Ms. Hunter — The December 4`h and November 201h
51
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
RESOLUTION NO: 2002 -10
Approval of Minutes — November 20, 2001 and December 4, 2001
Planning Board, January 8, 2002
MOTION by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Kevin Talty
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopt the November 20, 2001 and December 4,
2001 minutes as corrected as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting.
THERE being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Talty, Howe.
NAYS: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously
Board Member Hoffmann — I'll pass on my corrections. On page 4, there are questions put by various Board
Members and no answers. Maybe there weren't answers, but if there were they should be put in. Otherwise
there would be nothing, except resolutions.
Chairpersons Wilcox — Remember we have new people transcribing them.
Ms. Hunter — And we have a practice of transcribing minutes that is a little... Carrie has it under wraps, but this
amount of editing does not sit well with other transcribers. We're kind of in this training stage. It's necessary
that if there's going to be this verbatim transcribing, that people speak into the microphones. There are those of
us who are unwilling to put words in the mouths of others. If it was inaudible, it was inaudible.
AGENDA ITEM: Other Business
Board Member Talty — I'd like to thank the staff because I love it when the architects show up with all their
things. I love it. I get to see the brick,.the siding. So, as they come to you, keep endorsing that whole practice.
Mr. Kanter — This is a very good developer. I'm sure a lot of people are familiar with a lot of their local work.
That is their own idea to bring that stuff in.
Board Member Talty — And second did we ever, I know we brought up a month or two ago about cards,
business types for the Town of Ithaca.
Chairperson Wilcox — I forgot all about it. I'm supposed to write a letter to Tee -Ann and the Town Supervisor
and I remember starting it and l just forgot all about it. I was going to write a memo about why it was important.
I had a particular encounter with a property owner, not that it was bad, but l had no way to prove who l was
and I went on their property to do the inspection and do the review.
52
January 8, 2002 Minutes
Approved- Approved — Approved- February 19, 2002 — Approved- Approved- Approved
Mr. Kanter — We actually, in Town Hall, discussed getting id cards for the staff and these could be the same
type of cards for Planning Board Members.
Chairperson Wilcox - The issue is that when somebody files an application for site plan subdivision, they give
us the right to go walk their property. I've never had a problem, except Evan Monkemeyer. It would be nice to,
other than just say who we are, to actually have some evidence. And at Ithaca College, all of those projects I ask
permission because there's no site plan review at this point. It could be an issue if I was just out there poling
around and college safety came up, 1 could say I have some id.
AGENDA ITEM : ADJOURNMENT
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the January 8, 2002 meeting of the Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 1 l :l 9 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lori L. Quigley
53