The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPB Minutes 2004-11-16FILE DATE TOWN.OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, in Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairpersons Eva Hoffmann, Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; John Barney, I .m.); Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning (7:19 p.m.); Engineering (7:31 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director Environmental Planner. Board Member; George (7:15 p.m.); Larry Thayer, attorney for the Town (7:19 Daniel Walker, Director of of Planning; Mike Smith, EXCUSED: Kevin Talty, Board Member; Christine Balestra, Planner. OTHERS: Thomas Hartshorne, 108 Kay St; Bill Goodman, 231 Rachel Carson Way; David Mountin, 274 Gray Rd; Helen Gibson, 108 West Haven Rd; Barbara Warland, 108 West Haven Rd; John Keefe, Cornell University; Rob Gilbert, Cornell University; Michelle Baily, Cornell University; Shirley Egan, Cornell University; John Gutenberger, Cornell University; (several other representatives from Cornell that did not speak or sign in). Chairperson. Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m., and accepted for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 8, 2004 and November 101 2004, together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on November 10, 20040 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 members of the public to address the board on ar With no persons present to be heard, Chairperson meeting at 7:06 p.m. meeting at 7:05 p.m., and invited item that was not on the agenda. Wilcox closed this segment of the AGENDA ITEM: SEOR Determination: Hartshorne 2 -Lot Subdivision, 106 & 108 Kay Street Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Do you wish to make a statement or not? Tom Hartshorne, 108 Kay St I don't think its necessary. It's very clear. It's outlined in the paragraph.at the top here. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you aware of any environmental concerns related to the subdivision being proposed? . Mr. Hartshorne — None. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to environmental review? There are none. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -113: SEOR, Preliminary and. Final Subdivision Approval, Hartshorne Two -Lot Subdivision, 106 and 108 Kay Street, Tax Parcel No.'s 71 =1 -54 and 7141 55 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 106 and 108 Kay Street, Tax Parcel No.'s 714-54 and 71 -1 -55, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a 0.12 + /- acre parcel from 106 Kay Street and consolidating it with 108 Kay Street, Thomas H. Hartshorne, Owner /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 Subdivision Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on November 16, adequate a Short Environmental Asse: applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the "Survey Map No. 106 & 108 Kay Street, York," dated September 13, 2004, by application materials, and 2004, has reviewed and accepted as >sment Form Part 1, submitted by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New Allan T. Fulkerson L.L.S., and other 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision 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, neither PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 106 and 108 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 71 =1 =54 and 71 =1 =55, Medium Density Residential. Zone. The proposal is to subdivide off a +/- 0.12 -acre parcel from 106 Kay Street to be consolidated with 108 Kay Street, Thomas H. Hartshorne, Owner /Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. and invited members of the public to address the board. With no members of the public present to be heard, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7 :08 p.m. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -114: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Hartshorne Two -Lot Subdivision, 106 and 108 Kay Street, Tax Parcel No.'s 71 =1 10054 And 71 =1 -55 MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 106 and 108 Kay Street, Tax Parcel No.'s 71 =1 -54 and 71 =1 -55, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing off a 0.12 + /- acre parcel from 106 Kay Street and consolidating it with 108 Kay Street. Thomas H. Hartshorne, Owner /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 Subdivision Approval, has on November 16, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part It prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board on November 16; 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part. 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 "Survey Map No. 106 & 108 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," dated September 13, 2004, by Allan T. Fulkerson L.L.S., and other application materials. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: i. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision at 106 and 108 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 714-54 and 71 -1 -55, as shown on the survey map entitled "Survey Map No. 106 & 108 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," dated September 13, 2004, by Allan T. Fulkerson L.L.S., subject to the following conditions. a. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, including the name and seal of the registered land surveyor, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and b. Within six months of this approval, consolidation of the 0.12 + % acre subdivided parcel from 106 Kay Street (Tax Parcel No. 714-55) with the neighboring property at 108 Kay Street (Tax Parcel No. 714-54), and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for the consolidation. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Extension / West Haven Road Mountin 8 -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:09 p.m. Bill Goodman, 231 Rachel Carson Way Since the last time we were here, if you remember the discussion, we had a meeting with Town staff toward the end of October and we split it up what was lot f at that point, which was one lot into. three separate lots, lot f, lot g and lot he Lot g. is going to be dedicated to the Town for general municipal purposes and it contains the access road for two lots back here plus the emergency access road for Ecovillage. Then lot f would continue to be donated to the Town for public park and then lot h is going to be taken over by Mr. and Mrs. Terwilliger, who live here, and consolidated with their lot. The Town wanted this strip here to remain in private hands and the Town will get an PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 easement over lot' h to put in a walking trail for additional access from Elm St Ext up to the park. Then of course, the Town will own this strip to give it access through here as well. Chairperson Wilcox - Susan, can you tell me why the Town decided to deal with those two access strips differently? Ms. Ritter - Well, I think there was a thinking that having one owned access would be a good idea. It would give the Town a little bit more control over getting access into the park and having some control over if there needed to be parking facilities and things like that, but I think the Town wanted to limit the liability. We were kind of given some legal counsel that perhaps we should limit the liability and the cost associated with having both access drives. It was thought the one off West Haven seemed to make the more sense. Chairperson Wilcox - So, if the Town had their choice, they might not have taken either strip? Ms. Ritter - I think it was a desire to have... Chairperson Wilcox - I mean from 'a liability point of view they might not have wanted to take either one, but they decided it would be in the Town's best interest to have one so that they would have access to it. Ms. Ritter - And the one on West Haven seemed to make most sense. Chairperson Wilcox - Given its current use which is. ..and its also the secondary access to Ecovillage right now, right? Ms. Ritter - That's correct. So maybe down the road some future day maybe that would turn into a public road, but not anytime soon. Chairperson Wilcox - And then the little piece for the snowplows to turnaround. Ms. Ritter - That's correct. Right. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? I mean we have seen this one a couple times now and I kind of wish Mr. Barney was here at this point, but he's not. Board Member Hoffmann - It seems to me that all the things as I look at the papers we got that all the things have now been taken care of really. Chairperson Wilcox - We went through most of the environmental issues at the last meeting. No further discussion. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -115: SEOR, Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Mountin 8 -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension/West Haven Road, Tax Parcel No. 28 =1 -28.22 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 84ot subdivision located on Elm Street* Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 284- 28.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 33.3 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots (between 3.7 +/- and 5.8 +/- acres in size) along Elm Street Extension, two narrow parcels of 2.7 +/- and 0.98 +/- acres in size to be consolidated with existing adjacent parcels, a narrow 0.98 +/= acre parcel with access off W. Haven Road to be conveyed to the Town for municipal purposes, and a 10.7 +/- acre parcel to be donated to the Town for open space /park purposes. Helen DeGraff Family Real Estate, Owner; David Mountin, 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 Subdivision. Approval, and 3. The Planning Board on November 16, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Final Subdivision Plan for Mountin Subdivision" by Scott E. Edsall and William A Edsall, Land Surveyors, P.C., dated Nov. 5, 2004, and plans titled "Elm Street Extension Town of Ithaca Subdivision Review Hydrologic Investigation" date stamped 9116104, prepared by Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District, and "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Elm Street Extension Subdivision" date stamped 9130104, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Subdivision 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, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:14 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 33.3 +/= acre parcel into four residential building lots (between 3.7 +/= and 5.8 +/= acres in size) along Elm Street Extension, two narrow parcels of 2.7 +/= and 0.98 +/- acres in size to be consolidated with existing adjacent parcels, a narrow 0.98 +/= acre parcel with access off W. Haven Road to be conveyed to the Town for municipal purposes, and a 10.7 +/= acre parcel to be donated to the Town for open space /park purposes. Helen DeGraff Family Real Estate, Owners David Mountin, Applicant, Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Proposed lot d actually has two points of frontage on.Elm St Ext. Ms. Ritter —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Does it need a variance? Ms. Ritter — You don't add those two together and come up with the 150, is my understanding. Chairperson Wilcox —. You need a contiguous... Ms. Ritter _ That's right. We've had that happen before where we've had two pieces, in fact, I think it was on Elm St and there were two pieces and the two of them together would have come up with the right amount but it has to be contiguous. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we have any questions of the applicant? Chairperson Wilcox invited members of the public to address the board. With no persons interesting in addressing the board, Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 7:17 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox — Has the Town Attorney reviewed the draft resolution that is in front of us? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Ms. Ritter — I believe so. I don't know if he has reviewed this most recent one. Chairperson Wilcox — I read it and I didn't find anything, but... Ms. Ritter — The only thing different from the previous easement was now we need to get a maintenance agreement for the parcels that would be fronting on Elm St and would be using the Elm St Ext driveway. That would be necessary because we are approving a subdivision and just wanting to make sure there is a maintenance agreement. So that was really., the other addition also is loth. Ym sorry lot g. Chairperson Wilcox — Lot g is separate lot now. Ms. Ritter — So we need to get an easement on lot h to. get an easement access that trail and maintain it. Chairperson Wilcox — Good timing, John. We were just discussing the Mountin resolution. It is what I would call a complicated subdivision requiring numerous consolidations and easements and agreements. Attorney Barney — We have talked about these before. Chairperson Wilcox - Before we get to the resolution, Mr. Mountin and your other members who will be neighbors who have come together to put this together, is a wonderful show of community support and maybe benefits both the neighbors and the Town. I don't k congratulations. 1 think it is appropriate to thank putting houses there and the finance it in some way. I think it even activism a little bit, which :now how you pulled it off, but PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004416: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, Mountin 8 -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension/West Haven Road, Tax Parcel No. 28 =1 -28.22 MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Eva Hoffmann. WHEREAS. 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 8 -16t subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28- 1- 28.22,, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 33.3 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots (between 3.7 +/- and 5.8 +/- acres in size) along Elm . Street Extension, two narrow parcels of 2.7 +/- and 0.98 +/- acres in size to be consolidated with existing adjacent parcels, a narrow 0.98 +/- acre parcel with access off W. Haven Road to be conveyed to the Town for municipal purposes, and a 10.7 +/- acre parcel to be donated to the Town. for open space /park PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 purposes. Helen DeGraff Family Real Estate, Owner; David Mountin, 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 Subdivision Approval, has on November 16, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 16, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and Part ll prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey entitled "Final Subdivision Plan for Mountin Subdivision" by Scott E. Edsall and William A Edsall, Land Surveyors, P.C., dated Nov. 5, 2004, and plans titled "Elm Street Extension Town of Ithaca Subdivision Review Hydrologic Investigation" date stamped 9116104, prepared by Tompkins County Soil and Water Conservation District, and "Erosion and Sediment Control Plan for Elm Street Extension Subdivision" date stamped 9 130104, and other application.. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: i. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the' Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the. Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 84ot subdivision located along Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1= 28.22, as shown on the survey entitled "Final Subdivision Plan for Mountin Subdivision" dated Nov. 5, 2004, by Scott E. Edsall and William A Edsall, Land Surveyors, P.C., subject to the following conditions: a. prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, the Town Board grants approval for the Town to accept the donation of lands shown as "Lot F" for a Town park, and "Lot G" for general municipal purposes, all as shown on the above - referenced subdivision map, and be granting of the necessary variances for Parcels A, By C, D. and F from the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 ce submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined prints, including the name and seal of the registered land surveyor, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and do submission of an easement and maintenance agreement, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, allowing the shared use and maintenance of the access driveway off Elm Street Ext. between Parcels A, B, C. and D, said approval.to be issued prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and e. submission of a maintenance agreement, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, to insure continued shared maintenance responsibility of the access drive off Elm Street Extension (Lot H) between parcels owned by Cowie & White, Terwilliger, and Luft prior to the signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, and fe completion of an easement agreement (to be incorporated into the deed when Lot F is conveyed to the Town),. for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, granting a temporary 20 foot wide easement from Lot H for trail construction, and granting a permanent 10 foot wide easement from Lot H for purposes of providing public access and Town maintenance of a pedestrian trail, and go within six months of this approval, consolidation of Parcel E with the adjacent Eco Village at Ithaca Inc. property (Tax Parcel No. 28. -1- 26.22) to the north, and consolidation of Parcel H with the Terwilliger property (Tax Parcel No. 29. -4 -12) and submission to the Town Planning Department of a copy of the request to the Tompkins County Assessment Department for the consolidation, and he submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county or state agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activities for NYSDEC, and i. conveyance of Lot F to the Town of Ithaca for park purposes and Lot G to the Town of Ithaca for general municipal purposes prior to the issuance of Certificates of Occupancies for Lots A — D. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination: Cornell University East Campus Research Facility, Corner of Tower and Campus Roads Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:23 p.m.. John Keefe, Cornell University Good evening. My name is John Keefe. I am the project manager for the East Campus Research Facility. Tonight along with Dr Rob Gilbert, the Associate Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, we are going to present the site plan review for the East Campus Research facility. If you recall, we were here back in August with our sketch plan review. From that point in time, we have certainly advanced our drawings and our specifications to the point where we feel we are ready for the preliminary and final site plan review for the Phase I and II% The East Campus Research facility is an 80,000 gross square foot facility. It will be four floors with three floors dedicated to research and the top floor dedicated to the mechanical areas. It is slated to be primarily an animal holding facilities and it will be able to handle any studies up from biological safety 1 through biological safety 3. The building is needed by Cornell University and before] talk more about the site plan I would like to read a quotation from the provost at Cornell that really spells out the reasons why we want to build this facility. Earlier this year, Provost Martin stated: "Cornell University regards the use of animals in research and teaching as essential to continued progress in science, engineering, medicine, agriculture, and education. We also consider essential to devote all resources necessary to adhere to the highest ethical standards of animal care and use." That is the primary reason that we have a desire to build this facility. On my. left your right is the vicinity plan and hopefully I can show you about where we are at. This is Tower Road running along here, north being in this direction, Campus Road and then 366 along the side here. This is the College of Veterinary Medicine's medical facility, large and small animal clinic, and this right here is the 9 -story veterinary research tower, which is a prominent landmark at Cornell. The East Campus Research facility is proposed to be in the northeast corner of Tower and Campus Roads in this area here is shown. On the map on my right, maybe a little hard to see some of the cross hatches, but we tried to overlay the new building on existing conditions and show the old building so that you. can get an idea of what it is going to look like. This` right here is the lab animal sciences building and that is the 24,000 gross square foot facility we will be demolishing to place the new facility in this location. Basically what we have dog location. We have moved it further building. So our parking situation taken the bus stop located here, Number one, it brings the bus stop sight lines if you are trying to pull there is a bus in the way. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 ie, is if you look there is a parking lot right in this south and added additional parking to the rear of the really became a wash when we did that. We have moved it more to the north really for two reasons. closer to the entrance to the college and it has better out of the parking lot right now it is quite difficult if The building is basically blocks that are designed...(not audible)... to Tower Road. The main block, which right here, is the animal holding portion of the facility. We have what we call an east support block here. That is a three -story structure. It is all part of the facility, but it comes more into blocks... easier to explain. In that section there will be both procedure and research area. To the rear, we have what we call the east support block. That is a two -story structure and that primarily has the loading docks, shipping and receiving on the first floor and on the second floor it has a rather large cage and rack washing facility. To the rear, we sort of refer to this as our mechanical tail. That is where our utilities will be entering and that is where the electrical panels are and a lot of the mechanical pumps. Then finally, up in this area is what we refer to, as neck of the facility and that is basically the connectivity to the veterinary research tower as well as a conference room in the commons area. We have also highlighted at the bottom here, which will be Phase II and Phase II is our potential future expansion. No idea when and if we would do this and it would depend upon research needs and availability of funding in the future. Next, I will give you a little idea of how we plan to landscape the facility. Again, we look at this, as a prominent entry to campus and a prominent entry to the veterinary medical center so what we have planned to do currently is line the Town Road area with sort of a hedge maple or a tree of that type. We have a coniferous grouping up in this area right here basically to assist in circulation. Against the buildings we have some shrub massings here and here. This little area here is sort of an inner courtyard. We'll have a signature tree, some type of flower crab apple or something like that in there, which will also be visually lit at night. Again, the parking lot here and the brick pavers in this area and lawn to continue up through here. The traffic circulation will have no alteration at all. It will remain as it always has been. Pedestrian circulation we will focus pedestrians out and around the facility rather than up close to it. These two boards give you an idea of what we are proposing it to look like. This on my right is the east side and that's the side facing the college of veterinary medicine and the west side which is the Tower Road expose, which is the primary exposure for the facility. We are planning to use parallel overlapping brick panels for primarily most of the building. The glaze structures you see here are actually our corridors in the front and back and they are going to be a translucent structural glazing. Sort of a u- shaped PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 channel glass to bring some light into the facility. The commons area down here is also made up of that translucent structural glass and it also has some clear glass reveals in its Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask you a question at this point? We don't see the medical facility on this drawing. Is that because it is hidden by this building or because you just didn't draw it? Mr. Keefe — Its because the architect didn't draw it in.. You are going to see it, but if you could imagine this top of the stair tower here is about 76 feet and. I believe that the veterinary medical center runs about 85. So depending on if you are down low or if you are standing up you will get a view of it. So we just say that we are standing close to the building at this point. In this picture you can sort of see it in relation. This is a southern view. Both the southern and northern exposures will be this infill material that is sort of an aluminum glaze metal panel along with clear glass reveals in these areas here. This also gives you a good idea on how it stands in relation to both the tower as well as the vet med center. On our right is the artist rendering of what the facility should look like. Board Member Hoffmann — And that is seen from where? Mr.. Keefe — That is seen from Tower Road if you are almost even with the vet research tower, you are sort of looking at it in an angle that way. Chairperson Wilcox — With the commons area right in the middle. Mr. Keefe — That is correct. This is the commons area right here. They have left out the flowering crab so you could see the building itself. So the next step we did is we took...we tried to take a look at what it is going to look like from various locations throughout the surrounding community. We took six shots, which are shown down there on the bottom right hand corner of that slide and as you see in the shots if it is depicted in bright yellow that is what you will see, if its dotted in yellow, which you really can't see on some of these it would be hidden by other structures or vegetation. The first shot is coming up Dryden Road on Route 366. You will be able to see it. The building will not be that yellow. We took a lot at ... shot two is from Forest Home. Actually we moved up from Forest Home up Pleasant Grove Road, not a visible facility from that point. Three was our shot from the municipal golf course and four from West Hill and in both of those locations it is concealed. Five gives you a view from Hungerford Hill. Hungerford Hill you will get to see a little bit of it and I think the best way to picture this in your mind is if you can see the vet research tower and you come down about 60 feet or 50 feet that's what you are going to see of this facility because it is sort tucked in there. Finally, from South Hill there will be some evidence... PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann - I have some questions about that. The first one is why did you choose to look at the view from Hungerford Hill? There is not even a public road going through there. That road is closed to the public for going through. Mr. Keefe - I wasn't aware of that. I've driven on it. Board Member Hoffmann - There are signs on it saying that. And the ... I mean there are other roads in that area, like I just did a quick survey tonight I approximately knew it already from living in that area and seeing it, but if you go on Pine Tree Road, which is a very heavily traveled road you might see it a little bit from certain spots from Maple Avenue you certainly see it. From Route 366 further west than where you took the picture you certainly see it because you are closer to the facility. Lets see. What was the other road I thought of? From Ellis Hollow Road and especially at the end where Game Farm Road comes off Ellis Hollow.you definitely see it. So why did you choose Hungerford Hill? That doesn't make any sense tome. . Mr. Keefe - I just tried to basically spread it out along the major points in the taller elevations and I choose Hungerford Hill as one of them. There is really no other reasoning behind it other than that. We are certainly not trying to hide the building. I think architecturally it is a very attractive building, but we wanted to show it from various locations and I guess I was wrong in my choice of Hungerford Hill. Board Member Hoffmann Yeah, I think so because there aren't that many people going that road and the only people who go there are the people who go out to work in those labs or supposedly. I mean there is a sign that says it is not a through road and its Cornell's property. The other question I had is where on South Hill did you take that picture? Mr. Keefe - The exact location is pinpointed right there. Board Member Hoffmann - What is the name of the road? Mr. Keefe - Deer Run, Board Member Hoffmann - I don't know. That doesn't look like Deer Run to me from this map that I have, but it is really very hard. I'd like to know what road you took it on because I think there are probably roads where you can see it more. I'm not saying this because I think it is necessarily going to be a problem. You see the existing buildings much more than you are going to see this. I just think it is a poor choice of places if you are trying to make a point about what can be seen and what can't be seen because you should make a choice of places where there are lots of people who might see it or not see it rather than a road on a private property where not many people are going to see it except Cornell people and this is a Cornell property. Do you understand what I am trying to say? Mr. Keefe - I certainly do. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES. NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know how other people feel about this, but I felt it was a little odd. Board Member Howe — It wasn't really an issue for me. I think it gives you a sense from a variety of locations so I was very comfortable and there are two buildings next to it that are much taller so it was really not a major issue for me and this gave me a sense. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but I think you would get a better sense that it is going to be much more visible than some of those other roads that I mentioned in the southeast than the view you get from Hungerford Hill. Board Member Howe - Like I said, I don't see it that way. Mr. Kanter — I think if you were doing a visual analysis in the sense of possible significant impact on scenic resources I think you would do it the way you are describing its I don't think that is what this was. I think it was a characterization of what the architecture would look like. It's recognizing that it is basically an urbanized campus area so it is not like a scenic viewshed that you are affecting. Board Member Hoffmann— Right, but I disagree and I .take exception of the Hungerford Hill Road choice. Anyway, that was just something that I wanted to say when you were talking about that. You can go on ahead with whatever you were going to talk about next. Mr. Keefe— What I've done is taken the second floor plate to give you an example of what the interior is going to look like since all the floor plates on each of the floors are pretty much identical. The drawing on my left here represents the phase I and all we did over here is add in the phase II. As you can see, phase 11 would simply be just one additional suite or one additional bay of the. six rooms. We have also taken into account all fire and life safety issues that if we ever put this phase II in it still meets the requirements, the stairs and stand pipes and those items. So anyway, if you look at the diagram to my left, your right, I talked earlier about the animal holding room block, which is right here. This is a four -story block with the four -story being all mechanicals. What this is, is it starts out as an administrative area in this portion, has a men's and women's locker room and then simply two bays or two suites of six rooms each. This is the example of the west support bar and on the second floor, which is the entrance to wear we plan to have the barrier mouse facility that is primarily sterilization to get into the facility itself for both personnel equipment and animals. The support bar on the east side is a full cage and rack washer facility, if you can imagine this is like a very, very large dishwasher, sort of walk through type and the machinery at the top is a conveyor tunnel washer where you rotate things through when they are being cleaned. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 One of your concerns in August was security and we have been working closely with both Cornell Police, local security agencies, and a security consultant that we've hired. I just wanted to touch for a second on those aspects. All of the doors basically into the facility and into the rooms and into these airlocks here are going to be secured with a proximity reader. The ones at the very entrance of the facility will have both the proximity reader and either a keypad or some type of biometrics. So for instance if Dr Gilbert lost his ID card and I ran and got it I could not get in unless I had the biometrics or his keypad address to get in. If you are a researcher working in this room right here, you would pass one, twol three, four, five, six, seven doors. I don't want to say that we have seven levels of security, but it is also for access control because we want only certain people to have access to certain rooms. Certain workers could only have access to certain rooms because you don't want workers who are perhaps working on one species of animal mixing with another species. That is how we sort of keep it separate by using proximity readers on a door allowing access only to certain areas. I think that concludes our formal portion of the briefing and we would be happy to take any questions you have at this point. Board Member Hoffmann — You showed us the floor plan of the phase II building, but you have not shown in the elevations what the phase II building might look like. Is that right? Mr. Keefe — That is correct because if you ... all you can do on this is that it would be exactly the same except that it would continue out to here and come down that one bay. I have a picture in the office of it but it was really ... you couldn't even tell the difference. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but for our purposes, I think ... maybe I should make sure. Does this approval include both phase I and phase II? Mr. Smith — No. The approval is just for the phase I, the 80,000 square feet. The segr...all the material referenced both phases, the seqr part I referenced both phases. Without having the timeframe for the second one, we didn't put it along with it and the timeframe in the zoning ordinance when you would have to go through and actually start construction from the time period that you get the approvals without having the time and just the phase I would take construction over two years. They would have to come back at some point anyways, so... Board Member Hoffmann — So this is just for general information in the future. We are not approving those.. Ahat phase I I addition that you show us. Mr. Keefe — That is the way it was explained to me. Yes. Board Member Hoffmann —That explains that. Thank you. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Mitrano — The translusive material that you mentioned on the front there,. how is that perceived from the inside? Is it dark window or... Mr. Keefe — No. Its...if you can imagine a window with maybe like wax paper on it so you can see images, but you can't see any distinct features of it. This is the view that you would get. Board Member Mitrano — And on the outside how is it perceived? Mr. Keefe — It would be exactly the same because it is basically a u- shaped channel glass, which is interlocked- like this .so you would really get the same. You could see shadows and shapes and that would be about it. Board Member Mitrano — Is it more environmentally sensible in our climate to not use windows? I'm just trying to understand. Mr. Keefe — Certainly you could build a building with absolutely no windows in it, but that is not desirable for the people who work inside. This glass does have a...l mean it would obviously... the glass would transmit more cold or heat than brick would, but this type of glazing is much different than you would really see on a normal double panel window. It's much better rating than that. Board Member Mitrano — The second question 1 have, I'm just a little bit curious and it is probably tanjuncture to site plan review, but what are your policies with respect to the records that are . kept by the security systems that use biometrics or other forms of . identity augmentigation. Mr. Keefe — Could you ask that again? Board Member Mitrano — What do you do with the records that are kept by the technology that records entrance and exits...? Mr. Keefe — They would be kept by the facility manager. That individual would have knowledge of who went into what rooms at what times and that is an important thing to know. Board Member Mitrano — And do you have any access policies as to how that information is disclosed or not disclosed? Mr. Keefe — I'm not aware of any that we have planned right now. Board Member Conneman — I have a question. You didn't bring a sample of the materials or did you show them to the staff? Mr. Keefe — No, I did not. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Conneman - Sometimes it helps to see a sample of what the siding is, what the windows are or so forth. Board Member Howe = I wasn't here for the August meeting and I should know this, but where is the waste incinerator. I know that all the waste from this building will go to the waste incinerator. Rob Gilbert, Cornell University Before this facility is complete, the new waste management facility at Cornell will be complete. The current incinerator is situated right here and the new waste management structure extends slightly west and north. It makes it more or less in the same spot with a slightly bigger footprint. Board Member Mitrano - I am woefully ignorant about veterinary medicine. Is there a design purpose to the lack of windows in the tall structure that exists in what appears to be the design of this one that doesn't have windows? There must be a purpose to it and I'm curious as to what that is. Mr. Gilbert - I'm probably not the right person to comment on that, I don't personally like that windowless feature on that tall building, but many researchers ,prefer the environmental control that the lack of light allows in a laboratory. Others have precisely the opposite view and enjoy looking out over the lake or whatever they see. Board Member Hoffmann - I would assume that if there were windows in the building they would be just to look through rather than to be able to open because they have these special pressurized rooms and so on to contain the things you don't want to let out. Chairperson Wilcox - While we are on windows, is there potentially an issue with not wanting people to be able to peer into the facility? Mr. Gilbert - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. That is sufficient for me. If I may, you mentioned... John mentioned biological safety levels one through three. Couple minutes on what that means or what they are just...) don't need excrutiatly technical detail. Mr. Gilbert - Federal regulations divide infectious agents into levels one through four. From the least dangerous to work with to the most dangerous to work with and prescribe increasing levels of requirements for the physical facility, training of the staff and the kinds of equipment and containment apparatus that is used to handle them. So very briefly, level one is the kind of thing that might even be used in a biology high school class. It is regarded as pretty safe for the people who are using it and it requires levels of precaution that you would consider common sense, a sensible impervious surface to work on, doors on the room you are working in, elementary personal protection perhaps gloves and eyewear in some instances. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Progressing to level two, which requires slightly more stringent physical facilities, lockable doors, impervious surfaces that are readily cleaned, principle investigator or laboratory director who is a skilled scientist, who is an experienced scientist who assumes responsibility, who lays down written procedures, who is responsible for insuring all of the employees are trained and comply with training and a slightly elevated level of protection including eyewear and mandated lab jackets and disposable gloves and so on. Going to level three, which requires a fairly sophisticated level of building management with air pressure control, making sure the air flows into building rather than flows out of it, a two door barrier as you enter into it so that an interlocking so that you cannot have both doors open at once into the building and completely impervious surfaces all the way around, floor, walls, roof, ceiling of all the penetrations through the walls so that those can be properly sterilized and cleaned and the interior of the building can be fumigated. All the work surfaces have to be impervious. You are required the use of biosafety cabinets. The air that leaves the unit has to be hepa filtered on the way out. The biosafety cabinets, of course, are hepa filtered on the way in and out. Then the scientist in charge requires a certain level of training and responsibility and is responsible for creating for each laboratory within a unit, specific, laboratory specific safety manuals and safety procedures, training the people, insuring and recording and documenting at least annual. retraining of those individuals. Then there is personal protective gear and although it is not required, our facility will allow a complete change clothing in and out. The kinds of organisms that we have projects involved at biosafety level three include tuberculosis, west nile virus, for example. We are not proposing biosaftey level four. That is the most dangerous kind of stuff, things like Ebola and rather scary things that require complete isolation and further set of refinement of the procedural and physical requirements for the facility. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Appreciate it. Scary stuff sometimes. Board Member Mitrano — Interesting. I'm glad you asked I was thinking that. Board Member Hoffmann — I have another question. In part four of the eaf there is talk about the old building and demolition and what has to come away from the site before the new building is_ built and it has become known that there is both asbestos and lead based paint there. What is that building used for now? Mr. Keefe —That building is currently used as an animal holding facility? Board Member Hoffmann - And are those healthy animals or are they animals with infectious deceases that are housed there now? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Mr. Gilbert — Most predominately are healthy animals and are used mostly in studies of physiology and other prohibitions without specific infectious disease studies. I speak under correction. I don't believe there is any infectious disease study in that building at the moment. Certainly there is no sophisticated level three -type work. Board Member Hoffmann — The reason I ask the question is that you mention in talking about how to dispose of the materials after the demolition that some of it might be recycled and reused either on campus or some of them in the past the University has permitted Ithaca Neighborhood Housing Services to salvage building materials from buildings. My question was, are we sure that these building materials are going to be safe to reuse for residential use. Mr. Gilbert — I cannot speak to the asbestos and lead, I'll leave that to John, but certainly from an infectious point of view these materials would be perfectly safe. Mr. Keefe — The lead and asbestos would have to be abated before we did any demolition, obviously. Board Member Hoffmann — Because I wouldn't want to approve something that would create problems down the line even though I think it is a good idea to reuse materials. Board Member Mitrano — Are there Federal regulations that prevail with respect to some of these materials such that would be an answer to your questions? Mr. Keefe — Not other than asbestos and lead abatement. Board Member Mitrano — In other words, the Federal regulations do take care of the asbestos. Mr. Keefe — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I think there are regulations about the lead -based paint, too. Mr. Keefe — Yes. Correct. Board Member Hoffmann — And any of that would be taken care of before. it was taken to a landfill as well? Mr. Keefe — That is correct. Attorney Barney — Well, asbestos goes to specified landfills, certified depositories to it. It is basically gets bagged and your name gets put on it and its yours for life. Board Member Hoffmann — As far as demolition, there is also the question of taking it away from the site and you showed a map with truck routes and mentioned that 366 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 would be the main route near the site, but what other routes leading to 366 would be used? The map seems to indicate Pine Tree Road. Mr. Keefe — The exact truck routes right now are unknown because we don't know exactly which landfill the contractor will be taking the materials to. So what we would have to do is have the mapped out once we come to that conclusion, probably in the spring, and have that approved by your office before we utilize it. Board Member Hoffmann — I am concerned that Pine Tree Road has been blackened on this map. Pine Tree Road takes a lot of construction traffic and the residents who live there are very much troubled by all the truck traffic that they have day and night and I would be very interested to know what other alternative truck routes there might be for this project. Mr. Keefe — At the present time I do not know because I don't know which way the material would be moving and how that is exactly going to be handled. Board Member Conneman — Would that come back to this board? Chairperson Wilcox — As drafted it would not come back to use. If we should get passed the environmental review and get to the actual site plan review. The drafted resolution concludes a provision that the director of engineering would make that approval subject to whatever input we provide Dan Walker. Board Member Mitrano — What -is the opportune moment for us to provide that? Chairperson Wilcox — The opportune moment, I think, would be when we get to the site plan review. Board Member Mitrano — Because I would endorse what Eva suggested. Chairperson Wilcox — Clearly we want the truck traffic to stay on state highways as much as we can and limit the access and the travel across either county roads or town roads, absolutely. There is no doubt about that and I'm sure the applicant is aware of that. On the other hand, if the applicant is going to take material out 366, towards Dryden, it is pretty easy to get from this site to 366. If, on the other hand, they are going to take materials out Route 79 E and they have to get from there to Route 79 that is where Pine Tree Road becomes an issue. Board Member Mitrano — Well, there is Ellis Hollow. I mean there are some alternatives. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, Ellis Hollow is not the greatest route to take either, but that is not mostly in the Town so I guess we can...as concerned about that, though personally I feel that we have to be concerned about other communities as well. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Mitrano — It is also not as heavily populated as Pine Tree, Board Member Hoffmann — No. It probably isn't. So can you.. what typically happens? What choices are there once it comes to you, Dan? Mr. Walker Well, basically I look at the road situation and the ability of the road to carry it. Basically county roads and state roads are meant for Intermunicipal traffic and they are designed to carry weight of the trucks and have to be licensed for the weight that they carry and they can't travel over roads or bridges that are not sufficient to handle the weight. If they stay on the state routes, primarily our town roads such as through Forest Home with one -lane bridges there are weight limitations and we wouldn't want to send that kind of truck traffic through Forest Home. So we would prefer to see it on the state routes, which is Route 366. If they are heading to the north probably the most,. it might be a slightly longer distance, they are going to go out route 13 but they can take route 366 directly to route 13. The other option is to take route 366 into basically Mitchell ST and down. route 79 through the city and to route 13 in that direction. There is a lot of heavy truck traffic that takes that route now. Board Member Hoffmann — That is not a very happy solution either. Mr. Walker— But those are state routes and they are designated as being sufficient for vehicles that meet the state vehicle and traffic law for safety and containment as far as materials and being...for the appropriate hazardous materials. So there is really... basically I want to make sure that they stay, on the state road or major road and not travel through Forest Home and dump it into the creek or something. Board Member Conneman — You would include Pine Tree in that too, wouldn't you? Mr. Walker - Pine Tree Road is a county road and it is meant to carry the heavier traffic. Board Member Conneman — Well... Mr. Walker — So it is rated as a connector road in the town by the Federal Highway Transportation: That is why we get funding for that road to the county for maintenance on it. Board Member Mitrano — And we don't on Ellis Hollow? Mr. Walker — Ellis Hollow is also a county road. I'd say Ellis Hollow is probably rated at a lower capacity than Pine Tree is simply because of the connection between two state roads. Board Member Mitrano —Is great on Ellis Hollow? Right? Hmm...break it up a little bit. Mr. Walker — Well, a lot of it depends on where they are going with it to the landfill. Most of the material is probably going to head up to Seneca Meadows. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Mitrano - Where is that? Mr. Walker - That is up in Waterloo. Board Member Mitrano - So they would take 89 or 96. Mr. Walker - 969 Board Member Mitrano - Okay. Board Member Hoffmann - That means it has to go through the City of Ithaca. Mr. Walker - There are a lot of trucks that go through the City of Ithaca right now on state routes. They would be limited to Seneca St and Green St basically on the routing because that is route 79. Board Member Conneman - But it is also true, isn't it that going from the airport to route 366 the state has maps to put through Forest Home. Isn't that right? Mr. Walker - Maps to do what? Board Member Conneman - The map of the access to route 366 is through Forest Home, which is not true. Mr. Walker - No. The principle route because... Forest Home is a very poor choice because of the,, in the middle and the rating of the road is not as a connector road. It is pretty much as a residential road. The actual preferred state route would be out 366 to 13, not through Forest Home. It is shorter to go through Forest Home or Free Road but both of those situations are rough on trucks and they cannot make the turns. They are both rated for weight so they are not supposed to travel on those roads. Board Member Conneman - You have seen them in front of the Forest Home church where they do get hung up occasionally. Mr. Walker - There is a 10,000 pound weight limit in Forest Home except for normal delivery. Occasionally truckers get lost and that is what their excuse is, but they are still in violation of the...but some of those trucks...one of those trucks was actually delivering to the water treatment plant, which is technically local unfortunately. Board Member Hoffmann - Well I have some more questions unless someone else wants to have a chance. Chairperson Wilcox - Before we go on, do we have any idea of the ratio of trucks removing demolition versus the number of trucks that would be bringing in building materials? Just out of curiosity. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Mr. Walker- Well the building that they are building is bigger than what they are taking down. Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah. I was just thinking here that consideration of the truck traffic bringing in the building materials might be more important than the truck traffic removing... Mr. Walker - It will probably be spread out over a longer period of time simply because demolition would probably take six weeks and construction would take two years. I mean the heaviest construction traffic will be during foundation construction and framing, you know, structural work. Chairperson Wilcox - Eva, you had more questions. Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. I read attachment seven about the biological safety level policies and procedures for this level three facility and I think it sounds pretty good, but I still have some questions. For instance, you talk about an independent contractor will maintain and certify the cabinets to insure optimum performance and containment and there was some talk about the hepa filters being used in various places and I've heard of cases where a contractor comes in and takes care of those things, but they don't necessarily, this is in the past probably, they didn't necessarily know much about the safety precautions and the filters were disposed of in the regular trash. Will your contractors who do this and deal with hepa filters that probably contain infectious agents or similar things; will they be specially trained to do that? Mr. Gilbert - What I can say is that we have a biosafety engineer employed by the College Veterinary Medicine and so the interaction with such contractors would be by him and people like him. So the supervision of the contractor is in the hands of professional engineers whose specialty is biological safety. So I can't speak to the training of the consultant or the external engineers, but they are supervised by Cornell staff who do know what they are doing. Michelle Bally, Cornell University The companies that we use to certify the equipment that is all that they do. They are specially trained companies that this is their business and they are certified. Chairperson Wilcox - Since I have you on record, are you.. you are part of the Cornell contingency here? Ms. Baily - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - And your function is with Cornell? Ms. Baily = I'm responsible for the animal care and use program. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, thank you. You know all of these things sort of form chains of events and the chain is only as good as their weakest link. Sometimes there is just a little tiny thing that doesn't work right and that's what made me think that something like taking care of these filters might just break the chain. I think I read somewhere that there would be inspections of the labs at certain intervals. Is that right? To see that everything is going the way it should? Mr. Gilbert — I'm not sure what you are referring to, but all the labs are inspected periodically. If you referring specifically to the biolevel safety three, the biosafety level three labs are periodically vacated and decontaminated completely no matter what is going on. The daily use requires certain or frequently repeated daily decontamination of work surfaces and so on. In addition to that, there are periodic vacation of the lab and fumigation of the entire unit. So that happens on a regularly scheduled basis and the work is interrupted to achieve that if necessary. Board Member Hoffmann — And what happens if there is an accident and how are accidents reported and to whom and how are they taken care of? Mr. Gilbert — Well, the reporting possibly would depend on the nature of the accident. If the accident involves an individual being bitten by an animal then they would report that to a supervisor who would report it and channel it into our occupational health channels and it would be handled that way. If it is a chemical spill, it gets reported by a supervisor and eventually to environmental health and safety who ultimately are responsible for certifying that a spill has been appropriately dealt with and handled and so on. If it is a mechanical accident you are referring to, the engineering systems are designed to fail -safe so that the failure of mode is such that it prevents the escape of an agent or a spill. The Ym not sure if you have other examples of kinds of accidents you foresee. Board Member Hoffmann — No, I don't because I'm not in the the field, but I am just imagining that accidents might happen that something might accidentally escape the building ev features and who would get involved. Is there some Federal with such an accident or is it taken care of locally by the department? field. I'm not educated in and my concern would be en with all these safety agency that gets involved people who work in this Mr. Gilbert — Again, it is difficult for. me. I'm not trying to evade the question at all. It's difficult for me to speculate without knowing what you have in mind. The building,.Ahe kinds of things that might escape. An escape of an animal is extraordinarily unlikely since the animals are contained in a primary containment or a cage of some kind within a room within all the barriers that John mentioned. So the unassisted escape of an animal from a facility is an extraordinary remote possibility. Likewise the escape or leakage of agents from the building...the only place where agents will be used that would be of concern that are not ... biosafety level two agents can be used in rooms that have open windows for example as long as they have a fly screen. So the only agents PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 that are of concern from that point of view would be biosafety level three and there the entire building is impervious. The surfaces of the biosafety level three rooms are impervious and all of the components of the building that require penetration of the wall by pipes or cables or whatever have to be sealed so that a spill is.. although the work is meant to happen in a biosafety cabinet, assuming something fell out of that or an animal fell out of that or some fluid spilled, it would still be contained within a room, which itself is a barrier which room is also in a unit which is a barrier. So the possibility of an inadvertent escape of an agent is extraordinarily small. Board Member Hoffmann - And if. someone stepped in a spill.. well I don't want to go too much into it, but I can imagine things happening. I have to trust that this is taken care of I guess. Board Member Mitrano - Are any of these agents what I understand are now being called select agents under more recent Federal legislation? Mr. Gilbert - Well, the select agents are different, a different classification from the biosafety level classification. So the biosafety level classification is designed based on the risk to the health of the people handling the organism and the potential surrounding people. The select agents are those agents, both chemical and biological, who.. which have potential for use in biological warfare or terrorism. So if they fall in a biosafety category, the biosafety level regulations pertaining to that category still pertain, but in addition the select agents are governed by very detailed and prescriptive regulations for security. So there is biological safety and the shear security of making sure that select agent material is not stolen principally and bluntly. In addition to the biosafety level requirements, the access is more strictly controlled, single access is not allowed and an individual may not go in there alone. Any individual going into the building or the select agent unit requires approval on a one by one basis by the Federal government and only those people may enter the room even the room within which the agent is kept in a separate locked container. So the select agents are governed in a security way in addition to the biological precautions. Board Member Hoffmann - Good. I am glad to hear that. I will move on to more mundane things. Chairperson Wilcox - Before we move on, I want to stay here if I can just briefly. At the vet school today, given the research that is done, what is the highest biological safety level that is currently on campus? Mr. Gilbert - The highest biosafety level currently is three and it is the two agents I gave by way of example earlier and that is tuberculosis and west nile virus. Chairperson Wilcox - And so there are areas today at the Vet school that operate under biological safety level three. Mr. Gilbert - Yes, sir. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Eva? Board Member Hoffmann - Yes. There was some mention of the construction workers parking in some specified places, not right here, but'somewhere else. Where are they going to park? Mr. Keefe — We haven't identified where exactly the construction workers are going to park at this point. What we did on a recent project that I managed is that the supervisors were allowed to park in the vicinity of the building and the workers would park remotely and then transported in and I assume in this workforce with the number of people we have a possibility of having on at one time it would be the same principle. Board Member Hoffmann — Where were they allowed to park remotely in the past? Mr. Keefe — They parked at the Oxley Lot. Chairperson Wilcox — The newly completed Oxley Lot right across from the Cornell Heating and Cool plant, which I think we approved the changes a couple of years ago and just recently finished. In fact, I think it was approved as a temporary lot as a construction.. well it was one of the reasons given was temporary lot for construction workers primarily on central campus where there is no parking. Board Member Thayer — Exactly. Chairperson Wilcox — That would be convenient sort of. It's pretty close. Eva, I'm sorry. Floor is yours. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. There was some discussion about noise from the exhaust system in front of the fans and this concerns me personally a little bit because the new facility right near where I live, the new Baker Lab Addition on Hungerford Hill Road, actually this past summer there was much more noise from those fans than I had expected. So when I am outside in the summer I hear this high - pitched whine and it is not pleasant. There aren't too many people living that close to the facility that you are building and I suppose the people in Forest Home are the closest. Do you think that's right and maybe it is shielded by other buildings from Forest Home, but I'm much more aware that noise can be a problem than I was before the Baker Lab Addition with all these modern fans. Mr. Smith — I think the closest resident in Forest Home is about 1600.feet away and that is in a.straight line down. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know how many feet I am away from the Baker Lab, but I certainly hear it through a lot of trees. Is there any way that that kind of noise can be...if it turns out to be heard where it is not supposed to heard, is there any way to change that? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Mr. Keefe — The only way you can change it is to put sound attenuators on it. They are planned to be in the project as it is right now just because the nature of the veterinary college. and the work is going on there. We don't want it too loud for the people working there or teaching classes so we have a concern just from that perspective as well as residents being 1600 feet away. So all the fans are going to be equipped with attenuation devices, which will even further reduce it. Chairperson Wilcox — Baffle the sound in some way? Mr. Keefe — That is essentially what it does. These are strobic fans that are designed to run very quietly anyway, but they are rather large and massive. So you can baffle the sound as it comes out. Board Member Hoffmann — The last question that I have for now is I was puzzled by the lights that you are proposing that are called M1 along the road between the building and the parking areas. They are sort of historic style lights and I'm wondering why you have chosen such lights for this, which is a modern looking building. Mr. Keefe — Well, they are basically the same lights used around Cornell, trying to maintain the same appearance throughout the university, but one of the conditions on there was to put cutoffs on them and we plan to do that also. Board Member Hoffmann — It is also the style. I don't see any lights looking like the ones in the drawing up in this area. All the other lights there are much more modern looking so where on campus do they have these lights like you are proposing? Mr. Keefe — Actually there are ones right there, unless I did a mistake in the submission. Board Member Hoffmann — I didn't see them and I was just up there and the lights were on. Are they right on this site you mean? Mr. Keefe — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann - How many are there? Could I have missed them? Chairperson Wilcox — Roughly? Mr. Keefe — I think there are six or eight because it is very, very little change. We are going to move them out of the way and probably reuse them and put cutoffs on them because it is a Cornell standard is.basically what is specified. Again,) might have put . the wrong information in the packet, but I don't believe that I did. Mr. Smith — I was going to correct myself on that. The lights that were shown in those Ml's, the detail that was in there wasn't very clear and I thought the light bulb was actually in the center of the fixture. I did some more research this afternoon and I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 couldn't match exactly this fixture, but I found the edge water ones with this same style and it looks like it does have a cutoff on it with the way it is. So that condition may not be necessary or it may need to be reworded to make sure what I found is what is being proposed because it looks very similar. Board Member Hoffmann — I am talking about this one, which has this more old fashioned look. Mr. Smith — Right and when I was Ic centered in that piece and the ones here, it actually shows the bulb up would showed down. I'm not sure There's two different versions of it, sheet provided. Joking at that, I was thinking the bulb was actually that I found on the web instead of the bulb down on the top area in the enclosed area and then it if. that is what is being proposed exactly or not. but the dimensions didn't match exact to the cut Chairperson Wilcox — What is clear is the desire for cut -off. Mr. Smith — And it looks like that style can do that very easily. I'm not sure if what is proposed is that one or not. Board Member Hoffmann — I am concerned about glare, but in this case I was puzzled about the style as much as being concerned about that. I don't have any problem with them putting on this style, I was just questioning the reason for it because it doesn't seem to fit with the look of this particular part of campus. That's it for me for now. Chairperson Wilcox — Mike, you all set? Any comments you want to add on the light fixtures? Any other questions with regard to environmental review? PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -117: SEOR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, Cornell University East Campus Research Facility, Corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63 =1 -2.2, 67 =1 -10.2 and 67 -140.3 MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by Rod Howe, WHEREAS. 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research Facility located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63- 1 -2.2, 67440.2 and 67440.3, Low Density Residential Zone.. Phase I of the proposal involves the construction of an approximately 80,000 square foot four -story building, with a possible Phase II four -story addition consisting of 24,000 square feet. The facility will house animals used for research and teaching and will be directly connected to the Veterinary Research Tower. The project also includes the demolition of the existing one -story PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Laboratory Animal Services wing of the Veterinary Research Tower that currently occupies the site. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; John M. Keefe, Agent, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated its intent to act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, and the Height Variance, and 3. The Planning Board, on November 16, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning Staff, two bound packets containing plans, details, and other information titled "East Campus Research Facility - Preliminary Site Plan Review" and "East Campus Research Facility - Long Environmental Assessment Form" date stamped Oct. 12, 2004, prepared by Cornell University and other application material, and 49 The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, and Height Variance; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED; That the Town. of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - described actions; AND BE IT FURTHER 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 that a notice of this determination will be duly filed and published pursuant to the provision_ s of 6 NYCRR Part 617.12. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:24 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Facility located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63 =1 -2.2, 67 =1 -10.2 and 67 =1 -10.3, Low Density Residential Zone. Phase I of the proposal involves the construction of an approximately 80,000 square foot four -story building, with a possible Phase II four -story addition consisting of 24,000 square feet. The facility will house animals used for research and teaching and will be directly connected to the Veterinary Research Tower. The project will require the demolition of the existing one -story Laboratory Animal Services wing of the Veterinary Research Tower that currently occupies the site. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants John M. Keefe, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:25 p.m. and asked members of the board if they had any questions on the site plan: Mr. Keefe — I just have one comment, perhaps it was a misinterpretation on my part: We originally desired to do preliminary site plan review for phase I and II and then obviously you thought the documents were good enough to do a final on phase I, is that still what we are looking at? I think we would still like to pursue preliminary on phase II so when we come back later if we need. an extension or something like that... Chairperson Wilcox — Do me a favor, repeat it but change the words. What would you like to walk away with? Mr. Keefe — I would like to walk away with preliminary site plan approval for phase I and II and final for phase I. Board Member Hoffmann — But you haven't given us... Chairperson Wilcox — Do we have anything that would allow us to give preliminary approval for phase II? Mr. Smith — I think the material of the seqr, all the material would be adequate if the board judges it that way. From what I was looking at it was for one and two, but I think if you grant preliminary approval that final approval has to be granted within 18 months or something like that, I believe is the timeframe. Chairperson Wilcox — In addition, many of the drawings that we have looked have not included phase II, some have and some have not. Mr. Smith — The majority of the pieces included both pieces. Chairperson Wilcox — Shirley, do you want to speak to either one of them or to us? Shirley Egan, Cornell University Counsel's Office The reason of course that a party applies for preliminary approval for a second phase is so that they know that they have it. If there was any remote chance that we could not get approval at a later date of the second phase we would certainly need to rethink what PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 we have presented to you here today because having the ability to build this addition if we have the money and the need at a later date is very key to this project. So that was the reason that we applied for both. We are more than happy to come back and ask for an extension or perhaps given that we anticipate at least at this moment that we won't be coming to you for a final approval of phase II within the normal time periods in your statute perhaps even the terms of preliminary approval could right now extend that period of time that it would be good for. Otherwise, we're happy to come back and get extensions at a later time, but it is important to us to have the preliminary approval of the second phase of that. We have designed it. We have presented the materials on it and it is just something that I assumed was .going to be considered tonight and hearing Mike talk this evening was the first that I knew that that was somehow what was not going to be presented to the board. We certainly thought it was being presented and do think it is vital interest to go ahead and have that portion approved tonight. Board Member Mitrano — Well, it does have in the proposed resolution, under paragraph 1 of the whereas... Chairperson Wilcox — Can we step back for a second? Lets first look at the public hearing notice that was provided. Mr. Kanter — There should be no problem with that. And the seqr resolution definitely included phase II in terms of the environmental review. Chairperson Wilcox - Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I just want to be sure because I thought somewhere in the text that it said that you didn't know how the phase II building was going to be used because you didn't' know when it was going to be happening in the future and that you wanted to build a state -of- the -art building now, but then maybe the next phase would be the next "state -of — the -arf' with different kinds of...and things like that. Maybe it would be a level four - security building. Mr. Gilbert — No. It couldn't comply with the requirements for level four. The extension wouldn't even involve the level three unit, which is contained well within the building and not near its boundary. The envisioned extension is simply the addition of one animal suite for three floors. If there were major changes in the state of the art they would be in internal fixtures and things like that, but the building systems are designed and contemplated to accommodate a simple extension whose shape and layout is really determined now and is determined by the architects to be complied with safety and fire codes and so forth. So there would be no substantial difference. I could anticipate if there was a long delay of 10 or 15 years that there might be enhancements in the, internal furniture or something like that, but I would expect that is the limit of the advance that we could accommodate between now and then. Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Barney, comments? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Attorney Barney - Well, actually I would like to look at the Town Law because it is not really in our zoning ordinance that governs I think the phasing, I think it is the Town law itself. My only concern is that we are looking at seqr as it applies to this phase I proposal while technically the seqr resolution could be drawn, I think, to cover both. get a little bit concerned where we have had the experience in the past where we make a seqr determination and then rules change in the seqr or the circumstances change, our review changes and that sort of thing and whether we want to be locked into a seqr determination for something we know. ..right now. ..its really your call.. I'm not sure that it is a legal issue. Board Member Thayer - They would have to come back for an extension, however, right? Attorney Barney - That's why I want to take months, but I'm not quite sure how it works. that so if you could give me five minutes months I would have a little bit of concern. a look at the Town Law. I think it says 18 I, quite frankly, wasn't prepared to react to :o be more prepared...even if it were 18 Board Member Mitrano - And if things change, John, are they generally laws with which they would have to comply anyway? Attorney Barney - Well it has always raised an interesting question because you have granted seqr approval, you have done the environmental review and found no significant environmental,, adverse significant environmental impacts today and we are now looking at a project four years from now, which comes in and are the rules still the same. What has gone on in the area surrounding it? What other construction has traffic situations? As a matter of practice, I am not comfortable seeing us really expanding too much beyond what is proposed for the immediate building. I understand Shirley's concern to some extent, but that is a concern when anybody comes in. Board Member Mitrano - So there is nothing about approving the seqr at this time that would exempt them from complying with new environmental regulations? Attorney Barney - I'm not too sure that is true. Board Member Mitrano - I think that might be a very pertinent to ask that. In other words, we wouldn't want to be grand fathering things that we don't even know might exist. Mr. Kanter - I think from the staff's standpoint, there was such an amount of detail for the phase I project that we were prepared to recommend preliminary and final approval to the board at one meeting as were are now considering. It really would not be that much extra for Cornell to come back in with this phase II, which is only a smaller portion of this same type of facility and do the same thing pretty much in one meeting if the same kind of information were put together. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Thayer - Give them preliminary and final at that point. Mr. Kanter - Right. Board Member Mitrano - That sounds appropriate. Board Member Thayer - ,Makes sense. to me. Board Member Hoffmann - But that still wouldn't deal with what John was just talking about. Mr. Kanter - It would because they would be presenting a whole new application to the board. Attorney Barney - At the time when they were ready to basically build. Mr. Kanter - And again, it was our comfort level with the unspecified timeframe of phase II, which is why we... Board Member Hoffmann - I see what you are saying. I actually was a little confused when we voted on the seqr because in my conversation earlier in. the evening I had understood that we were only talking about phase I so I forgot that this actually said phase [I. Attorney Barney - I said possibly. I mean I think it needs to be clarified one way or another whether you are granting or making a seqr determination with respect to both phases, not a possible. I'm sorry I didn't catch that when you were doing the resolution. Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah, and I didn't either and I should have since I talked about it. Ms. Egan - I think we went to some pains to disclose in the leaf of everything about phase I and phase II. I think we very distinctly answered some questions in double format to say this was phase I and this was phase II. It seems to me that there is protection for this sort of thing that you, John, were concerned about in just our having to come back for extensions of that because at that point in time you could assess then had something so radically changed that you no longer wanted to grant the extension to it. And this is perhaps more a theoretical concern on my part, but my concern is at the outset if there were some objection right up front to giving preliminary approval to phase II of it, we would certainly want to know that right now. Attorney Barney - I don't think anybody here is expressing an objection, but on the other hand there might be an objection four years from now depending on what the,, what my concern is that we might have a very strong disagreement three years from now if preliminary were granted and the board at that point in time said we think there has been sufficient change in circumstances and we don't think we want to extend PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 it and Cornell taking the position that the refusal to extent is arbitrary and capricious and makes the lawyers warm up because we are now into a confrontation in the courts which takes a lot. time and earns a lot of money. I'm not comfortable with putting the board in a position where we are precommitting to a particular action, not really having it ready to be built today. By saying that, I don't think there is any sense and I haven't heard any sense at all in the discussion tonight that there is any problem with getting it or problem with doing it, but to ask them to commit today something that you are telling us that won't happen for at least 18 months and maybe an extension beyond 18 months for 2, 39 49 5 or 10 years. That's a little unfair to put the board in that kind of a position. Ms. Egan - I understand what you are saying, but I guess I feel it is unfair for us to have gone to the effort of having designed a second phase one which is very important to us to have had the capacity to expand on this site from this building if there were a thought that for some reason we couldn't build phase II here we might not have built phase I because it is that important to us to be able expand by this one little bay. Attorney Barney - Why don't you build it now? Ms. Egan - Money. Attorney Barney - There is an impediment to your building that is probably far .more significant than this board and that is dollars, but on the other hand you are saying because we have this impediment of dollars we don't know whether we can build now or ten years from now, we would still like you to commit that you are going to approve whatever we bring in at some time in the future when we don't know as a board and really you don't know perhaps at Cornell what the future may bring in terms of other opportunities in that vicinity that may or may not impact the outcome of this building. Ms. Egan - Well, I guess I've missed something here. I seems to me that I see all the time developers having a phase I and a phase II of a project and it is important for you to see what the full build out is and that is why builders are encouraged to present what their phase II plan is. We thought we were doing the forthcoming and good thing here. It was also important for us because if for any reason that phase II would not have been acceptable to you we really need to know it tonight, not next month or next year. Like I said, it may be theoretical, its not that I've heard you voice objection to it and say well we would only approve a building this size, but note we would never approve one that was 24,000 square feet larger. But it is. none the less a very important aspect of this site and of this building that we have at least the preliminary indication and I think that we understand with not being able to give you a time frame that we may be taking our chances if we push that out asking for multiple extensions and maybe we are talking ten years from now, but we may not be. We may only be back here in 17.5 months asking for it and that is why we are asking you for the preliminary approval of phase II if not tonight then at least next month. Board Member Hoffmann - But what about if you in fact bring in not just the floor plan, that is assuming the floor plan is the same on three levels now. If its not, there needs to PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 be different floor plans, but also the elevations showing that addition since you seem to have it. Mr. Keefe — That was provided in the site plan review packet. Board Member Hoffmann — It was? And also a statement saying that whatever is going to go on in the first phase of this or whatever is going to go on in the second phase is going to be the same kind. of thing that goes on in the first phase and then that is approved and then maybe the university has to take a chance that if that is not in fact what is wanted at the time when this construction is planned for when you get the money then you would anyway have to come in with a change. Ms. Egan — We are willing to take that change. Obviously, we are not great predictors of the future, but we submitted everything we do know about the second phase, which is that it is just like the first phase. That b13 won't be in it. The floor plans will be . the same. It is literally just another bay, exactly as designed and I think all our materials were submitted to show that, both in the leaf and site plan application. It is just like another unit of the same thing that is there and I do have to say that I apologize, Eva. It was the first that I heard tonight that there had been some kind of a shift and I think perhaps John did not understand the significance. I guess Mike must have called you last Friday and I didn't hear about it until this evening and maybe the importance of that shift wasn't fully appreciated on all sides, but I think we certainly set out to... Mr. Kanter — Talking about phasing, I'm thinking of the Conifer Linderman Creek site plan. The way we handled that is sort of an in- between approach. Its not an either or. The seqr is actually going to be looking at the whole development build -out of the property, but the approvals are going to be phase by phase and the sketch plan, which was done for this project as well, is the place where the conceptual understanding of the entire project first occurs. Staff actually was recommending that the phase I and II of this project be included in the seqr review because we felt there was sufficient information in the materials to be able to make a determination on both phases and that believe is what the resolution did. If that is an issue you need to discuss further you can do that, but I believe that is what that seqr resolution at least was from the staff's perspective. What would happen then is if you granted approval for phase I tonight but not for phase II it would be a very simple matter of a new application coming in for phase II where the seqr determination could be revisited very quickly to make sure there was nothing different from what we did in the first seqr and it would basically be a reaffirmation of the seqr determination. Really a very straightforward thing. I think by keeping phase II in the seqr is to some degree giving Cornell the assurance that those things have been looked at for phase II and have been recognized by this board as being acceptable to the degree of the information was available, but coming back in with. the application for approval of phase II as a separate approval would allow the board to revisit and make sure all those things were still okay. Board Member Hoffmann — And you are meaning for the phase II site plan approval to come in at the time when that phase is going to be built? Mr. Kanter —Yes, that determination would be okay its uncertain, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 or at the time where sufficient detail is available to the board to make If Cornell wanted to go that step and bring it in next month that just that it doesn't make sense to me to do that if the timing is so Board Member Hoffmann — Can I just ask where are the drawings that show the addition in the drawings that we got for phase II? 1 mean I see drawings that show the footprint, but I don't see anything that shows the elevation. Mr. Keefe gave the sheet details (not audible). Board Member Hoffmann — I still don't understand this because there is a little key that shows in the corner here what it covers and that looks just like it. does on that drawing and it doesn't seem to indicate the extension for the phase II. Mr. Keefe not audible. Board Member Hoffmann — This is the west elevation. I will have to compare it with the other elevation. Well, I guess it seemed to me just so sketchy that I didn't think that those were the drawings. So part of it is a three story expansion and part is a... . Mr. Keefe m- It is all a four story. What you are seeing is the window corridor. Mr. Gilbert — Three stories of animal accommodation and a mechanical suite on top. Mr. Keefe — The construction drawings we provided really even show how we are accommodating adding on this expansion by providing a system of moving the louvers and also providing a double footing at the bottom. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me get a sense of the board here at this point.., how you would like to proceed at this point. Board Member Mitrano — I like Jonathan's idea. Board Member Thayer — I do, too. Board Member Howe — Makes sense to me. Attorney Barney — If you do that, I would really like to see built into the resolution a very clear statement that you reserve the right to review that seqr determination at such time the application comes in for approval. My concern, Jon and I are usually on the same page and occasionally we may be half a page a part and I think this is one of those occasions because my concern of the seqr review is that once you have done that you have really dealt with the very same issues that you have to deal with in doing the site plan and special permit approval. If you look at those, those are really by and large PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 environmental kinds of determinations so once you make a determination on a seqr you are in effect binding yourself pretty much on subsequent actions.. Jt really ought to state that is really done as of today urider the circumstances available today, reserving the right to review that seqr determination at such time when an application for formal approval is submitted for phase ll. Chairperson Wilcox — John, can I ask you a question? If our environmental review only looked at phase I and phase II at all, we would potentially have an issue of segmentation, so it is probably a good thing that we looked at the entire proposed project. Attorney Barney - Absolutely and I'm not suggesting that ... as with Linderman Creek you want to see what the layout of the land is and what the whole area is going to be, but you obviously focus on the phase that is immediately in front of you, but you want to get a little bit of an idea of what other activities are going to occur .in the vicinity particularly if they are known: So that is part of your seqr requirements, but it doesn't necessarily mean that you have to give seqr approval for the entire project. You basically give it with respect to what is proposed. Board Member Mitrano — John, how procedurally would you like to move? Would this be in addition to the site plan or do you want us to make an amendment to the seqr that we just approved? Attorney Barney — I think what probably what you would do is amend the seqr and say we are approving.phase I and II to the extent that you have the information in front of you and reserving the right...make it clear that that is what you have done because quite frankly didn't pick up on it. My mental set has been phase I throughout this so I apologize. Board Member Mitrano — Is it all right if I ask the applicant if your amendment would be acceptable to them? Attorney Barney - Sure. Board Member Mitrano - Is John's amendment acceptable to the applicant? Mr. Kanter - And actually I don't disagree wift John at all. Board Member Mitrano - Yeah. This all seems reasonable. I just want to be sure... Ms. Egan — Yes it is acceptable and I think it is something that Cornell would expect to be subject to at a future time if there are changes in circumstances at the time. It's still a final approval even if you were granting us preliminary today. And I think seqr plentifully allows for changes that have occurred in the interim to be revisited. This is based on that set of assumptions that we disclosed to you now and they could be different at a future time. So the answer is yes. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Mitrano — Excellent. Thank you. So it looks like we have a resolution. Chairperson Wilcox - We need to readdress SEAR. The public hearing has been opened but not held yet, is that OK? Attorney. Barney - You probably just ought to put back and revisit the SEQR and then go on. Board Member Mitrano - Yes, that sounds right to me. Chairperson Wilcox - Correct, OK, so what do I need? I need a motion... Attorney Barney - To reconsider the SEQR resolution and hopefully by the time it's passed, I'll have something for you... Chairperson Wilcox - OK. OK. determination. Seconded by? Board Member Thayer - Second. I will move the motion to reconsider the SEQR Chairperson Wilcox = Larry Thayer. George, you were going to say something? Board Member Conneman - No, I was worried. about the public hearing and the resolution. Chairperson Wilcox - OK. All those in favor please signal by saying aye. Anybody opposed? And there are no abstentions. OK. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 =118: Reconsideration of SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, Cornell University East Campus Research MOTION made by Fred Wilcox, seconded by Larry Thayer. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca reconsiders the Motion for SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, Cornell University East Campus Research Facility, Corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63- 1 -2.2, 67-1 -10.2 and 67 -1 -10.3, , and be it further RESOLVED, that PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -117 is hereby rescinded. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES. Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox = Having said that, Mr. Barney is busily drafting a revised SEQR motion. If we make him write too quickly then he can't read his own handwriting. [long pause] Chairperson Wilcox - Please bear with us. Attorney Barney - Alright. I'll have to write this clearer for Carrie before we're done, but hopefully it would be something like this ... leaving your first resolution as you adopted it except modifying it where it says quality review act for phase I of the above referenced action is proposed and leaving the rest of it [inaudible]. And further resolved that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with NY state environmental quality review act for phase II of the above project as proposed, based on circumstances existing today, reserving to the Town Planning Board the right to reconsider this determination in such time as an application for preliminary and /or final approval for phase II is submitted. Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by the chair. Board Member Conneman - Second. Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by George Conneman. Discussion? All those in favor signify by saying aye. Anybody opposed? Nobody opposed, very good.. OK. Back to the site plans. What I hear from the straw poll was preliminary and final tonight for phase I only. That was everybody's comfort level. OK. And, you are welcome to come back when you want, whether that's next month or the month after or in 18 months or in 2 years, and come back and formally apply for phase II. I do need to give the public a chance to speak, so if gentlemen, you want to take a seat, take your materials with you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for waiting patiently, this is a public hearing. If you would like to address the planning board this evening on this particular agenda item, then we ask you to please step to the microphone, again we will ask for your name and address, and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say. I can't see behind, is there anyone raising their hand back there that I can't see? Is everybody an employee of Cornell University? There being no one, I will close the public hearing at 9:02 and bring the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox = John Barney, have you looked at the proposed resolution? Would you take a quick look at the proposed resolution granting preliminary and final just to make sure that we are consistent. Yeah, and in fact I see, under the whereas, I see, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 we've got to make sure that references to possible phase II are either appropriate to leave in or removed as appropriate. OK. John, you've clearly seen this resolution as drafted and are aware of the conditions that were included? Mr. Keefe - Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - OK, no issue? Mr. Keefe - No. Board Member Conneman - I would like to make some sort of amendment to E, which says "trucking routes, both in and out In my view, there is no reason, and I have great faith in the town engineer, the director of engineering, to do the right thing, but we strengthen his had if we put some limitation in this. For example, there is no reason to go from route 79 up Pine Tree road where you can go if you're coming from Binghamton or something where you can go to Richford and then take route 38 into Dryden and then go up 366, and there are lots of ways that I think we ought to protect Forest Home and Pine Tree Road. That's my view, because I think those are neighborhoods.and we can avoid trucking stuff out or in it would be very helpful. Board Member Mitrano - I'm confused... Mr. Kanter - Forest Home is protected by virtue of the truck limitations, but Pine Tree Road again, we would be hesitant to recommend that the board put limitations on Pine Tree Road, recognizing that it is, there are residences along it, but it is a county road and it is basically an important connector road between 79 and campus. It would depend very much on where the trucks are coming from. Board Member Conneman - I realize that. Mr. Kanter - But I think I would be hesitant myself to recommend that the board go ahead with any strict prohibition of trucks. Board Member Conneman - I believe in neighborhoods and I think this is just... Mr. Kanter - But anywhere else you go, you're probably going to impact a different neighborhood, so... Board Member Conneman - Well, if you come in from 79 and go to 38 and then to 366 and 13, then you're... Mr. Kanter - And then where are you going through? Varna. That's another neighborhood, it doesn't happen to be in the Town of Ithaca though. Board Member Conneman : You're going through Varna? No, I don't think so. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Mr. Kanter - 366 goes right smack through Varna. Board Member Conneman - That's true. Mr. Kanter - So no matter what route you use, you're going to have some neighborhood impacted to some degree, and so I think rather than put a limitation on one, you want to try to spread it out and around as much as ,you can. And I think that's what Dan was saying is that's the kind of things he looks at when he looks at. these routing plans. Board Member Mitrano - That'd be preferable. Some plans spreading it out, so that there isn't one neighborhood that is consistently and always impacted. Board Member Conneman - Well, I just think that Pine Tree Road needs to be protected. Board Member Hoffman - Is there some other wording to put in there, maybe to encourage, what was the word you used? [Comments inaudible] Board Member Mitrano - Diversify, excellent. [Comments inaudible] Chairperson Wilcox - And then we want to pass along the recommendation that the heavy truck traffic be distributed... Attorney Barney - Well, you're equalizing the flow of heavy truck traffic through the neighborhoods. Board Member Mitrano - I'm in favor of that. Board Member.Conneman - I'd just like to strengthen Dan's hand so that he has the opportunity to do something. Chairperson Wilcox - Do we like to term minimize the impact on neighborhoods, to the extent feasible. Board Member Mitrano - Sure, sounds good. Chairperson Wilcox - OK. Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Board Member Thayer - I will move it. Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Larry Thayer. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Howe - Second. Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Rod Howe. Chairperson Wilcox - OK. We agree. Sorry, Larry and Rod, you agree to changing E to add the words "with approval by the director of engineering..." Attorney Barney - I would just add at the end "such plans will be designed to minimize to the extent feasible, impacts on neighborhoods ". Chairperson Wilcox - That's acceptable. Attorney Barney - residential neighborhoods. Chairperson Wilcox - Yes, you're right. The resolution is fine as drafted? Or nothing needs to be changed with regard to the phasing language. Mr. Kanter - And in F on the lighting plan, is that OK to leave it? Not cut off. Board Member Thayer - How about number 1 where it has the possible phase II? Mr. Barney - It is a possible phase II. With legality in the whereas, but the resolution only applies to,phase I. Chairperson Wilcox - OK. All set Mike, anything else you want to say? Mr. Smith - I think the lighting condition can be left and just clarify what kind of lighting is proposed... Chairperson Wilcox - And they're aware of the fact that we want something that cuts light off appropriately and if this particular style does that, which would be kind of interesting, given it's design. If it can do that at the same time as looking a lot nicer than your typical ugly parking lot fixtures, that would be very nice. Board Member Thayer - It should say "cut off" rather than "cur off". Chairperson Wilcox - Yes, we got that little typo. OK, anything else Mike, you're all set? Any other discussion, comments? There being none, all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. All those opposed? Nobody's opposed. The motion is passed. Thank you all very much. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -120: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, Cornell University East Campus Research Facility, Corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63- 1 -2.2, 67 =1 -10.2 and 67 =1 -10.3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 16 This action involves consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research Facility located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63- 1 -2.2, 67440.2 and 67440.3, Low Density Residential Zone, Phase I of the proposal involves the construction of an approximately 80,000 square foot four -story building, with a possible Phase ll four -story addition consisting of 24,000 square feet. The facility will house animals used for research and teaching and will be directly connected to the Veterinary Research Tower. The project also includes the demolition of the existing one -story Laboratory Animal Services wing of the Veterinary Tower that currently occupies the site. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; John M. Keefe, Agent, and 26 This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, Special Permit, and a Height Variance, has, on November 16, 2004, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 16, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, two bound packets containing plans, details, and other information titled "East Campus Research Facility" Preliminary- Site Plan Review" and "East Campus Research Facility - Long Environmental Assessment Form'; date stamped Oct. 12, 2004, prepared by Cornell University, and other application material, and . NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the construction of the Cornell University East Campus. Research Facility, finding: that the standards of Section 270 -200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for Phase I of the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research Facility located at the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Tax Parcel No.'s 634-2.2, 674-10.2 and 67 -1 -10.3, which. includes the demolition of the 241000 +/- Laboratory Animal Services building and the construction of the 80,000 +/- sq. ft. building and associated parking, landscaping, lighting, and other site work, as shown in the two bound packets containing plans, details, and other information titled "East Campus Research Facility - Preliminary Site Plan Review" and "East Campus Research Facility - Long Environmental Assessment Form'; date stamped Oct. 12, 2004, prepared by Cornell University, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and be submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and %r federal agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent and Pollution Prevention Plan for NYSDEC, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and ca the granting of the height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to issuance of a building permit, and d, revision of "Topographic Map" plan ( "Topographic Survey', TS100), to include the name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the topographic survey, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and e. submission of a truck routing plan including the landfill destinations for the demolition material from the Laboratory Animal Services building for review and approval by the Director of Engineering, prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, such plan to be designed to minimize to the extent feasible heavy truck traffic in residential. neighborhoods, and f. revision of the Lighting Plan (LP01) to include cut -off fixtures on the eight pole lights (Labeled M1 on Sheet LP01) to minimize glare and light spillage on surrounding areas, prior to the issuance of a building permit. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Agenda Item: Persons to be heard. Chairperson Wilcox- Persons to be heard. I'm going to move through the rest of this quickly.. No persons to be heard. The minutes, the minutes were handed out tonight, so they will be approved at the next meeting. Agenda Item: Other business. Chairperson Wilcox - Other business. Some of you may remember Keith McNeill who spoke a couple of meetings ago. He sent me a nice letter thanking us for allowing him to speak at the beginning of the meeting with Persons to be heard rather than at the end with the Linderman Creek thing. So that was very nice. Chairperson Wilcox - I have two, John just handed me tonight, I have two letters from Christiann Dean about the hotel... Country Inn and Suites, sorry. Board Member Conneman - Let me ask you a question. The question is, should Harry Ellsworth exclude himself from being involved in this. Chairperson Wilcox - Not my decision. I don't know.the details. Board Member Conneman - Theoretically, if he were Mr. Auble's engineer, would he be excluded? Chairperson Wilcox - I don't know the details. You know what? Christiann Dean has written a letter, which says that she wants to alert Jonathan Kanter; it's addressed to Jonathan Kanter, of a conflict of interest, which exists with a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals. That's for that member and the Board of Zoning Appeals to determine, and I'm not going to weigh in. I have one person's side on this; I don't have the other person's side on this. Mr. Kanter - Right, it also deals with the Zoning Board, which I'm not directly involved in, so I passed that on to Andy Frost. Of course, John Barney deals with the Zoning Board as well as the Planning Board, so if the issue comes up... Chairperson Wilcox - He'll take it up. Board Member Conneman - That was my real question. Chairperson Wilcox - Did you get a copy of this one? It says Ed. OK, and then the other one is addressed to me saying the Country Inn and Suites proposal was approved. by the Planning Board with mixed feelings about it's impact on the neighborhood. I ask that it be sent on only with the caveat that Mr. Auble be required to restrict construction trucks to Danby Road, keeping off West King. Also when you refer the Country Inn and Suites proposal to the ZBA, please note that ZBA member dot, dot, dot. The conflict. We've already referred it onto the ZBA, but she makes a good point, that when they come back for final, that is something that we ca n the routing of the trucks. But we've already made ZBA. All right, Jon, do you have any small items get to the other one? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 address as part of final, in terms of our... we've already sent it onto the under other business, and then we'll Mr. Kanter - Only that we're going to be putting a couple of resolutions before the board, probably at the December 7t" meeting, one of which will be the 05 meeting schedule, and .if it's OK with the board to just continue the first and third Tuesday as we've done. So, we'll put that before the board and then a couple of other business resolutions might be on that agenda. Chairperson Wilcox - Back to me? Board Member Thayer - It is possible to change or omit Election Day ?. Mr. Kanter - Interestingly enough, in 05, Election Day, this is the only year I've ever seen this, does not come on the first Tuesday. It's the second Tuesday. Chairperson Wilcox - Is there a funny rule about Election Day? Mr. Kanter - There must be. Something about the first Tuesday after the first Monday. Chairperson Wilcox - But the answer is yes, we as a board, did not want to, and a previous board, a previous incarnation of this board, did exclude Election Day. So for 05 we could do the same, but apparently it's not an issue. Now, the other business item I'd like to bring before this board is I'd like to cancel the 12/21 meeting. Mr. Kanter - Sounds good to me. Chairperson Wilcox - I didn't think there'd be a lot of... And the only reason is, it's Christmas week. Now, in doing that, I set off a change of events, which resulted in a conversation, a couple of voice mails and a conversation. With regard to end of year resolutions, that moves some of them up to the 7t ". Such as a recommendation to Town Board on Chair for next year, would have to be moved up to the 7t" instead of the 21 st. Mr. Kanter - I was thinking of doing that anyway. Chairperson Wilcox - That's one thing. The other issues were things that were originally scheduled for the 21St meeting. In my conversation with Jon, he felt comfortable on the phone that most of the items could be pushed back to the 7t ", or pushed off to the New Year, except for one. And that was Wally Wiggins and La Tourelle. Board Member Mitrano - Just a final site plan? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox - Right. Now, do we really think that if he gets approval on December 21St that it's going to be any different than if he gets approval on January 7tH To him, yeah, to him. Is he really going to be able to start construction two weeks earlier around Christmas or January? Board Member Thayer - I wouldn't think so. Board Member Mitrano - I'm OK with postponing it. Mr. Kanter - Although, Mr. Wiggins has basically said that as soon as he gets approval, he plans to put the shovel in the ground the next day, basically. For whatever that's worth. Board Member Conneman - What is the date for the first meeting in January, Jon? Mr. Kanter - Something like January 4th Board Member Thayer - Is the 7th too full to have him there then? Mr. Kanter - Well, that's not possible because the Town Board set the public hearing for the zoning amendment on December 13tH, so it has to, be after that. Chairperson Wilcox - They've got to get the zoning change on the spa. January 4th is the first meeting of... two weeks. Board Member Mitrano - Well, ask him if he wants to come in on for 20 minutes. I'll come in on the 21 st Board Member Thayer - Either that or have a meeting on the 14tH Chairperson Wilcox - That's a little too quick. Ms. Ritter - I just would add that the Ellis Hollow apartments are scheduled for the 21 st, and I still need to check with them to see if they would be able to come in on the 7th They plan to bring their materials in tomorrow actually. Chairperson Wilcox -.They would be one that would go two weeks earlier. Ms. Ritter - If they can, they were the other ones that were hoping to get on for the 21 st Chairperson Wilcox - I just wanted to cancel that meeting because it was Christmas. week. If it doesn't work, it doesn't work. John, and staff, if we cancel the 21St, it's my intent to try to lighten your load a little bit too around the Christmas and holiday season. I mean it shifts the workload a little bit. is what it does. But I don't want to make anyone's life more difficult to get something on the 7th PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Chairperson Wilcox - If we have to move the meeting to a different date, 1_ don't want to move the meeting. I want to cancel a meeting, is what I want to do. Mr. Kanter - Well, if you want to cancel it conditionally on finding out about particularly on that Ellis Hollow one, I didn't realize that that was as critical. Chairperson Wilcox - If Ellis Hollow wants the 21St, we might as well deal with Wally on the 21 st. Board Member Conneman - Jon, do you have a lot of things coming up in January that would add to the crunch. Mr. Kanter - Not at this point, but there could be ten items, there could be zero items. Board Member Conneman - Do we have to cancel it tonight, or can we wait until the 7tnt? Mr. Kanter - You can wait until the 7 th Mr. Barney - Or you can give the chair the authority to cancel, if he in consultation with the director of planning determines that it is feasible to do it without overburdening staff. Mr. Kanter - First of all, would there be a minimum of 4 people who could be here on the 21St if we did do it? I agree with Fred that it would be awfully nice if we could cancel it. Chairperson Wilcox - Alright, while you guys were having your little sidebar, somebody mentioned that you could decide to postpone this decision to the first meeting in December, and at that point, you could either postpone or grant the chair, in consultation with the director of planning, the ability to cancel the meeting subject to... Mr. Barney - This time of year, I would suggest you make the motion tonight to allow the chair, with the consultation of the director of planning... Board Member Thayer - So moved. Board Member Conneman - Seconded. Board Member Mitrano - All in favor? Waiting for resolution. Board Member Mitrano - It was moved by Larry, it was seconded by George, it was unanimously voted in favor. Chairperson Wilcox - Alright, so Jon, it's up to you and me and staff. OK, is there any other business? There being none, can I have a motion to adjourn? PLANNING BOARD MINUTES NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Approved December 7, 2004 Board Member Hoffman = Yes. Chairperson Wilcox - We are adjourned at 9:23. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the November 16, 2004 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 9:23 p.m. Ily Submitted, 60 %re a ne Coates Whitmo Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, November 16, 2004 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:04 P.M. SEQR Determination: Hartshorne 2 -Lot Subdivision, 106 & 108 Kay Street. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 106 and 108 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 71 -1 -54 and 71- 1-55, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to subdivide off a +/- 0.12 -acre parcel from 106 Kay Street to be consolidated with 108 Kay Street. Thomas H. Hartshorne, Owner /Applicant. 7:10 P.M. SEQR Determination: Mountin 8 -Lot Subdivision, Elm Street Extension / West Haven Road. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 33.3 +/- acre parcel into four residential building lots (between 3.7 +/- and 5.8 +/- acres in size) along Elm Street Extension, two narrow parcels of 2.7 +/- and 0.98 +/- acres in size to be consolidated with existing adjacent parcels, a narrow 0.98 +/- acre parcel with access off W. Haven Road to be conveyed to the Town for municipal purposes, and a 10.7 +/- acre parcel to be donated to the Town for open space /park purposes. Helen DeGraff Family Real Estate, Owner; David Mountin, Applicant. 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University East Campus Research Facility, Corner of Tower and Campus Roads. 7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research Facility located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63- 1 -2.2, 67 -1 -10.2 and 67 -1 -10.3, Low Density Residential Zone. Phase I of the proposal involves the construction of an approximately 80,000 square foot four -story building, with a possible Phase II four -story addition consisting of 24,000 square feet. The facility will house animals used for research and teaching and will be directly connected to the Veterinary Research Tower. The project will require the demolition of the existing one -story Laboratory Animal Services wing of the Veterinary Research Tower that currently occupies the site. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; John M. Keefe, Agent. 8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 9. Approval of Minutes: November 2, 2004, 10, Other Business: 11. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 - 1747.. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF IT1 ACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, November 16, 2004 By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, November .16, 2004, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 106 and 108 Kay Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 71 -1 -54 and 71 -1 -55, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal is to subdivide off a +/- 0.12 -acre parcel from 106 Kay Street to be consolidated with 108 Kay Street. Thomas H. Hartshorne, Owner /Applicant. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 8 -lot subdivision located on Elm Street Extension and West Haven Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.22, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the 33.3 +/- acre. parcel into four residential building lots (between 3.7 +/- and 5.8 +/- acres in size) along Elm Street Extension, two narrow parcels of 2.7 +/- and 0.98 +/- acres in size to be consolidated with existing adjacent parcels, a narrow 0.98 +/- acre parcel with access off W. Haven Road to be conveyed to the Town for municipal purposes, and a 10.7 +/- acre parcel to be donated to the Town for open space /park purposes. Helen DeGraff Family Real Estate, Owner; David Mountin, Applicant, 7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University East Campus Research Facility located on the corner of Tower and Campus Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 63- 1 -2.2, 67 -1 -10.2 and 67- 1 -10.3, Low Density Residential Zone. Phase I of the proposal involves the construction of an approximately 80,000 square foot four -story building, with a possible Phase II four - story addition consisting of 24,000 square feet. The facility will house animals used for research and teaching and will be directly connected to the Veterinary Research Tower. The project will require the demolition of the existing one -story Laboratory Animal Services wing of the Veterinary Research Tower that currently occupies the site. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; John M. Keefe, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, November 8, 2004 Publish: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 �T,he�ithaca Journals ,Y�� x�� 1Ne£tlnesday Novembe. 1 °2004 F TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: November 16, 2004 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME d c./EJ-i-rry� PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION a mod c� TOWN OF ITHACA AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper, The Ithaca Journal. Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on Tuesday, November 16, 2004 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street. Date of Posting Date of Publication: November 8, 2004 November 10, 2004 Clgt'� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 10th day of November 2004. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Oualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 0(4