Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PB Minutes 2005-12-20
FILE < <� DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, DECEMBER 20, 2005 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Members George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Members Larry Thayer, Board Members Rod Howe, Board Members Kevin Talty, Board Member, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Towns Dan Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner, Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED Chris Balestra, Planner, Nicole Tedesco, Planner. OTHERS Carol Oster, Conifer Realty; Dave Harding, Carl Jahn & Associates; Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College; Carl Sgrecci, Ithaca College; Rick Couture, Ithaca College; Stacey Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County David Herrick, TG Miller. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson` Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7 :07 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on December 12, 2005 and December 14, 2005, 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 December 14, 2005. Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by :the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox invited any. member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the, agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the Board. SEQR Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, Conifer Drive Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 . David Harding, Carl Jahn and Associates David Harding, Carl Jahn and Associates; Syracuse New York, 450 South Salina. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you going to make a presentation? Mr. Harding Yes. I'll make a short presentation. I want to mention here tonight also with us is Carol Oster, with Conifer Realty. As I mentioned, John Fennessey could not make it. He had another obligation and Stacy Crawford, is also here from Better Housing for Tompkins County. I think most of you were here last February when we last made our presentation. We were sent away from that meeting with a couple of tasks. The least of which was to establish a secondary emergency access, which we have done with discussions with New York State DOT and Ithaca Fire Department. So here we are back. The project has not changed substantially from that which was presented to you last February. In the packet that we resubmitted we did have a one page 12 item summary of those changes. I'll briefly run through the; project again in case you weren't there or don't remember. It is a senior apartment building, 72 unit, 3- stories, located on lands due north of the existing phase II apartment complex. This is the phase I area off to the right. I am presenting this on the overall conceptual subdivision plans so you can get reoriented as to where it is within the context of the overall property. The building will be similar in architectural character as ` the existing` apartments. It will have similar siding finishes. It will have a peaked roof. Per the comments that we received back at the February Planning Board meeting, this proposal does change in that we, are going with the 43 foot high building height, which will require a zoning variance which allows .. up to 36 feet and that was in lieu of the flat roof 3 -story version of this building, which complied with zoning, but was not very attractive. The property entails 9 acres of land with Linderman Creek running along the southern boundary: We have a proposal to extend Conifer Drive from the existing T- intersection that is off to the phase I and phase II areas and will become the public . road spine up through the site. The access road will wind up the hillside to the terraced in building setting and we have got 82 parking spaces proposed with provision .for 14 additional spaces should the need arise and that was in compliance with the Town's minimum parking requirements. We do that because the experience has been that typically parking isn't in such . demand for a senior apartment facility. The potential future parking is situated up along the northerly edge of this roadway. One of the other major points that you asked us_ to address at the last meeting was to provide more flat open space area for recreational purposes. We have since modified the site plan to grade out approximately 150 feet long by 90 feet wide flat ,. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 area up to the north side of the parking lot. In doing so we did have to drop the building floor elevation down one foot so that we would. maintain a balance of cut and fill on the site. So that actually had a positive impact in terms of the overall net height of the building. There were comments originally. to better. accommodate the bus and fire truck turning inside the parking lot. We have done that. The isles are now 26 feet wide and we have provided a generous turning radius at this island. We had submitted a plan to the Town's Planning Staff showing how those vehicles can make those turns through the site. The other modification was to revise the road location, which was coming in in a more southerly location at midpoint in the parking lot to the northerly end: That just simplified the turning movements and also flattened out the roadway. In addition to creating this flat area, we had to push the northerly property line out to encompass that area so the site grew from what was being proposed at 8.2 acres before to just slightly under 9: In the proposal that was submitted to you, one of the comments was that we needed to extend the access easement to 100-feet passed this northeast corner to provide that so- called 100 foot frontage to the balance of the property that remained up there. That continues to be in the scope of this proposal. We have, since submitting this, which proposed the Conifer Drive extension as a .private roadway, gotten feedback from the Planning Staff and Engineering that they would prefer that Conifer Drive be a public roadway. So. Conifer Realty has agreed to develop that to Town standards with roadside swales, including retooling the existing roadway out to the highway frontage, which was also done as a private road originally. So there. is a substantial price tag associated with that, but the feedback from the Town Highway Superintendent, I understand and Dan Walker, was that they would prefer to take over ownership of Conifer Drive sooner as opposed to later so that-they could ensure that it had proper maintenance to ensure pavement longevity. They don't see snowplowing as an issue. This proposal will provide a hammerhead turn around .at the entrance. There were also comments that I think originated out of County Planning about providing more pedestrian routes and walkways. At that February meeting I had indicated that .Conifer was wiling to provide connecting walkways around the parking lot, down the access driveway and then along Conifer Drive and would connect back over to the existing bus shelter area. .Those roads, or walks rather, are now proposed as concrete walks to match the concrete up on site in the vicinity of the parking lot and down along the curb, all the way down to Conifer Drive and then the walk would be an asphalt path along the edge of Conifer Drive out to the existing bus stop area. There was a request to also add the wetland mitigation buffer area. We did receive permits. from the Core of Engineers on disturbing the wetlands associated with 3.. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005. Approved January 3, 2006. the creek. corridor that were being impacted by the road crossing and a couple of utility crossings. They issued their approval to do that with the provision that we create a. forever -wild area 60 feet wide paralleling the wetland boundary on the north side of the creek. That does appear on the subdivision plat that was part of your submittal: So it will be included as a deed restriction. There was also a request to modify the facility identification sign, including the elimination of uplighting, consistent with the proposed, is it still proposed town ordinance or has that been enacted yet? Chairperson Wilcox - It is still proposed. Mr. Harding — Still proposed. Well we are out ahead of you. We have researched some options to illuminate that sign and it will consist of a 2.5 inch diameter by 4 inch deep cylinder that will hang out off the post and shine back and down towards the sign panels on each side. Those halogen lights will be sticking out from the face of the sign by about 14 inches and is small enough to be somewhat inconspicuous. There. was a question brought up about what we were proposing as far as wall mounted building lights. In the original proposal we had shown you some decorative lantern lights that would be mounted on the walls at each of the balconies. Those were not of the cut -off variety and so we have changed the proposal to utilize ceiling mounted recessed lights at each balcony. So each individual apartment owner would have control over that light and it would not have any non - cutoff characteristics. There will be two locations, however,. that we will need to utilize wall mounted pack light for fire safety issues. There is a fire exit at the northwest corner of the building,. also associated with the dumpster. location and there is a fire exit on the southerly facade of the building. At those two locations, we will be using the same wall pack that had been approved in the previous Linderman III project and I had submitted a copy of that catalog cut to Sue Ritter. I don't know if you had the opportunity to distribute it with the packages or not, but I think that conforms with the intent of the Town regulations. The last item that we had on the list was changing the concrete headwalls at the culvert crossings at Linderman Creek to flared end sections, which the proposal now shows. That was requested by Dan Walker. We have also since gotten some feedback that the northerly detention basin is illustrated as being encroaching into.what would become the future road right -of -way and that should be pulled back out of it. We have plenty of real estate now with the shift of the northerly property line to pull that back out of the road right -of -way. That is the extent of my formal presentation. If you have. any questions regarding the market study, Carol Oster can address those I believe.. Any questions relative to the site plans themselves? S Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. Chairperson Wilcox Before we get going, let me just make the disclosure with regard to the market study. There is a company called Claritas that is quoted often in the disclosure as the supplier of data. I am. a vice president with Claritas. I have responsibility for producing those demographic estimates, but I have no knowledge of their sale for this purpose. I certainly have no financial interest in the applicant using them. Having said that, now we can move on. Questions with regard to the environmental review? Eva, you always get to go first? Board Member Hoffmann Thank you. Mr. Kanter - Fred, I was just going to ask that if part of the presentation if David might be able to expand a little bit on the emergency access configuration and how that ended up. Mr. Harding — Sure. Back on the overall subdivision plan, I have highlighted in orange highlighter here this is the main access into the site. This is the secondary emergency access, which will utilize the same location that was used for the temporary construction access for the construction of the phase III expansion. That entrance has since been restored, but the New York State DOT has agreed to let us utilize it as a temporary access configured differently so that it accommodates the clearance requirements for the large ladder trucks that might want to use it. The caveat on temporary is that it shall not remain any longer than such time that another secondary access is established. They acknowledged that that might be some time down the .road, but they still made that a caveat.of their approval. The way the access works is that there will be two sets of chains, posts and chains. There will be one out at the highway with signage on it that says emergency vehicles only. That is a fake chain so to speak. It will have a breakable link system in it. The fire department will drive their. fire truck into it and it will break the link and allow their truck to proceed up off the highway without their rear end hanging out into traffic. To the ordinary person, such as myself, it would look like something I would not want to drive my car through. There would be a second chain at the end of the connection to the parking lot in phase II /III area. That one will have a non - breakable link and both these chains will be padlocked. So even if someone tried to plow through that or went through the one out at the street for some reason, they wouldn't be able to get through the second one. Only the fire department with the access key would be able to utilize that as well as Conifer's maintenance staff who needs to maintain it free of snow so that these vehicles can get through. The route , them would proceed along the existing road system and parking. system and then would continue on an extension of the emergency access drive, which will be stone in both cases, crossing Linderman Creek and coming into the back side of the senior apartment complex. 5 Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, Jon? Eva? Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 Board Member Hoffmann — The lights on the sign that you mentioned, if the sign is like this and they come out and shine from either side, I assume that they are a little bit above the top. Mr. Harding — Yes. In fact, I brought a drawing along. If you like, I can. distribute drawings to everyone,. Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely: 1 Board Member .Hoffmann — Okay, because I am worried that the bulbs might cause . glare if they are mounted like that. Mr. Harding — I have sketched on the,,-Aines, the approximate pattern of light spilling based on photometrics that you will find on the last page of this package. As I mentioned, it is a very small light fixture, basically at a 4 -foot distance it has a 3 40ot light spread. Board Member Hoffmann — So it looks like there are two light fixtures on each side. Mr. Harding — That is correct, for a total of 4. Board Member Hoffmann — And you feel that they are not going to cause any glare outside of the sign area? Mr. Harding — No because they would be adjustable and one potential revision that we might have is to extend those posts up another 6 inches so that they are up a little bit higher and you can point them down. There will be .a lot less potential for glare with this type of system than you would traditionally find with the uplighting systems. However, I have seen many uplighting systems done nicely without glare. So sometimes it's a matter of who. is doing the aiming. Board Member Hoffmann - And could you explain what you mean by an uplighting system? Mr. Harding Very commonly when you have an opaque panel sign sitting up off the ground like that, you have floodlights that sit in fixtures down at grade that shine up at the sign from down below. Sometimes those fixtures are oversized so you get a lot of spread and sometimes they are misdirected so they actually shoot underneath the sign. So the glare would spill passed the sign underneath. The advantage of an inert problem with the uplights is that you have general. light spillage through the G Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 . atmosphere, which is contrary to the night sky philosophies. These particular systems mounted up high like that are going to be directing their. light in a downward fashion so. that you don't get that degree of nighttime spill. You won't get glare up on oncoming drivers eyes or pedestrians because these actually point down towards the ground. Board Member Hoffmann — The sign itself is low? It's not up on a hill with a road below it? Mr. Harding — That sign is, I believe, a 6 foot height, overall height. . Chairperson Wilcox - A little over 4. Mr. Harding — 4 feet and 6 feet wide and it is essentially sitting down at grade with the walkway. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Chairperson Wilcox — Not only are those lights pointing down, they stick out from.the posts and point in and down. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, well as long as they are shielded by. the sign or by the posts rather, but sometimes you see them on sort of neck or stands that come up and there is the possibility of seeing the bulb above the sign and that is what I was concerned about. Mr. Harding — These would be less conspicuous because they are down lower than the ... (not audible) ... itself. Board Member Hoffmann — I have also seen, if you decide to. go with the kinds of lights that are mounted below, I have seen lights like that that have sort.of louvers on them that help direct the light so that it doesn't spill. It just goes to the sign. Another question that occurred to me when you were showing us the layout of the walkway is, would it be possible to have a .shortcut? If you bring up the drawing if you can... Board Member Thayer — I was thinking the same thing. Chairperson Wilcox — You're right. I think we are all thinking the same thing. Are people going to do that? Mr. Harding — If you are a mountain goat. Board Member Thayer — Oh, its steep. 7 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. Mr. Harding — It is quite steep. There is probably 20 feet of grade difference between the corner of that parking lot and the elevation of.this road here, the driveway, which is why the driveway has to wind the hill a ways. Yes, somebody who is more energenic would probably do that and eventually when the path .along the creek gets developed that would be another opportunity for somebody to take a shortcut down. Board Member Thayer — Will TCAT drive in there all the way? Mr. Harding - Yes. Board Member Thayer- Because you mentioned that the sidewalk went down to the other bus stop, so there is no need to walk down there. Mr. Harding — No, there isn't. That is just for exercise benefits or someone happens to live in the phase I or phase II areas and is visiting or working at the senior apartments they would be able to walk there. Board Member Hoffmann not too far from that new developed. People might that, but I have a feeling steep slope it might be s some steps in it. — Yes, or to walk in general. I was thinking that this site is park that was developed off Westhaven Road or that will be enjoy walking over there, the ones that are fit enough to do that they are going to want to have a shortcut and if it's a afer if there is a walk, either a sloping walk or a walk with Mr, Harding — There is a liability issue when a walk exceeds a certain steepness then it has to become a stair. That is more of a design liability as much as. anything. If somebody were to slip on a very steep walk then they would be looking to sue the designer of that thing. Board Member Hoffmann — All right, so it would have to be stairs. Mr. Harding — And it would be troublesome in terms of maintenance and expensive to build. For those people who are physically fit, walking down the slope wouldn't be an issue. I say its steep, but it is a mowable slope, 3 on 1 maximum slope. So its not impassible, but its just as if you were walking out in the meadows of the highlands. Board Member Mitrano — But David, but couldn't you set stairs in it for those. who are mobile and could use them more readily? Mr. Harding — Pardon? Board Member Mitrano — Wouldn't stairs work? Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 Mr. Harding — They would work, but stairs are a difficult thing because now you have to maintain them. You put stairs there people are going to want to use them in the winter and that means somebody is going to have get out there and keep the snow and ice off them. They are liability really. We try to avoid .stairs whenever we can. Board Member Mitrano — How about if you, I don't know if this works or not, but I know that up to Cornell they put signs up that there is no winter maintenance of those stairs, but you can use them from April or May to October. I don't know. Just throwing out the idea. Geographically, topographically, stairs are possible to build? Mr. Harding — Yes. They are possible. I don't know that the level of use .that they would get would warrant the cost to build them. It would be quite expensive. Board Member Mitrano - Okay. Board Member Hoffmann — Wouldn't there be a liability problem if people walked on the slope? Mr. Harding — No because we didn't tell them to.. That would be at their own pleasing. We gave them a walk that was appropriate sloped and appropriately maintained if they wanted to go off + wheeling then... Mr. Kanter — With the walkway where you are showing it, the ADA accessible meet the requirements? Mr. Harding — Well, the gradient, if you were to look at the road profiles in .your package, I believe are exceeding 6% in some locations on that road. ADA indicates that walk should be at a maximum of 5% or they are considered a ramp at which point you would have to put handrails on . it and put landings in .every 30 feet. From that standpoint, it doesn't meet it. However, if you were to consider the walk to be a trail, then there are other ADA requirements that allow you to have walks that go up 8% for a distance of 300 feet. In that case, we would comply. So it depends on how you interpret the law. The concept behind accessibility to do this, here is the road, here are the parking spaces, this is a very steep site.. It is just like what we did at phase I and phase II, we don't have accessible walks between units in. those complexes either. There is just too much gradient on the site to accomplish that. Mr. Kanter - So that doesn't become a problem in terms of the Division of Housing and Community Renewal accrual of the low income tax credit application. I mean they have flexibility in terms of those things. 9. Planning Board Minutes . December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 Mr. Harding — We have provided the accessible route. It. is just by vehicle to get onto the site and once you are on the site, it is accessible around the immediate environments. Chairperson Wilcox — By that do you mean you can get to the recreational. areas with a slope of less than...? Mr. Harding — Yes. Less than 5. Although you do bring up: an interesting point. One thing I will make a point to check is to make sure that we do have curbcuts to allow that to happen. I don't believe.:.. again it has been so long since last February, but I will make sure that we do provide that access. Chairperson Wilcox - I sense another, addition to the resolution if we get to that point. Mr. Harding — Well, it is a final site plan approval. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a few points on the environmental form. On page 4, point 18, will the project use herbicides or pesticides and you say yes, for fertilization and extermination by an outside contractor, could you explain what that, means? Mr. Harding — Basically, if there is an issue with maintaining a healthy turf grass that might require the use of some fertilizer or herbicide, there might be occasion where there is need to hire a commercial applicator that will do that. In that case, we would expect that they would follow state regulations to provide applications. Pesticides, if there is some type of infestation, then we would expect that a professional exterminator might need to use such types of materials. Board Member Hoffmann — But you are not talking about outside now? Are you talking about in the building now? Mr. Harding - It may be in. It may be out. Board Member Hoffmann — I couldn't quite understand the dimensions of the building and I was a little disappointed actually. I wasn't able to see when you had the balloons flying, but I was a little disappointed to see for an L shaped building. that you had just 2 balloons, one at each of the opposite corners, totally excluding 1 corner in the L and I don't know how we were supposed to see what the building was supposed to look like looking at the balloons. It helped to have these drawings that you have also up there tonight. to imagine what it might look like. Also in the environmental statement, there are these figures.for the size of the building, which didn't make sense to me. Could you please tell us what the dimensions of the building are? It says here on .page 3, 43 feet height, 80 feet width, and 285 -foot length, but I believe at the widest point it is wider than 80 feet at the bottom of the L. 10 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 1006 Mr. Harding — I believe the 80 feet is referring to the general width of the building and the 285, I believe. is the longest length of the building. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but I think that the appropriate width to give is the one across the bottom of the L. The widest width.. How much is that? Mr. Harding — I didn't bring my scale, but its about 120 feet long. Board Member Hoffmann — I thought you said that the top part of the L was 80 feet. Chairperson Wilcox — No. You are asking for the hypotenuse, is what you are asking for, aren't you Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I am asking for the width of the lower part there. The greatest width of the building. The`width of the greatest point. Attorney Barney 120 feet. Board Member Hoffmann — 120 feet? It looked to me like... Attorney Barney — I think what I heard was 120 feet. Mr. Kanter — Except that is not really the width. That is the length of the lower L of the building. Chairperson Wilcox- What I'll call the hypotenuse, which is from the inner corner of the L to the outer corner of the L. Right? Board Member Hoffmann — No. From the outer corner to the outer corner. Mr. Harding — This is showing the overall length, the longest part of the L, at 270 feet. The width of the main body, excluding the balconies, at. 64 feet, so those are about 10 foot wide balconies so that is about 80 feet. Board Member Hoffmann and Mr. Harding discuss the width of the building. Board Member Hoffmann — I think we need to correct the numbers in the environmental statement to reflect this. The figure is on page 3.i. So I think it should say, what did you say? 164 feet instead of 80 for the width? Mr. Harding — Sure. ii 0 I Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure I agree. That is not the width. Board Member Hoffmann Whenever you widest point and the longest point. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006, measure any object, you measure at the Chairperson L Wilcox - Well, if you look ' at the question again. The question says the longest dimension so we know that the length of one side of the L is 285 and on the other side of the L is 164. The width, to me, is the width of the building from front to back, which is 80. Board Member Thayer — Right. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, well think about how we measure signs then. We do it from the outermost point to the outermost point in either direction and we inscribe it in whatever rectangle. Mr. Kanter - Well that's because the sign law tells you exactly how to measure it because there has always been questions about how to measure it. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but it seems to Lme that saying the width is 80 feet is misleading in this case because the space that the building takes up is 164 foot wide in that one dimension and that is the one that is interesting to know and that is the one, actually, which, where it was very hard to see from the photographs, just looking at those balloons what the building was going to look like because you had the balloon only in the southeastern corner and one in the northwestern corner .and one couldn't judge that distance that would face you as' you come in or as you look north from the existing built up area. Mr. Harding - I agree with you that .a more appropriate placement of the balloon- may have been out on the leading edge, however, the purpose of the balloons were to give the consultant who did the simulation work an orientation to create the images. So these images are true to what will occur because they used that balloon to coordinate the location of the back corner of thatL building. Board Member Hoffmann Well, I still think, in the future, if you do this again, it is more helpful to have a balloon in each corner. Attorney Barney — You may not want to do this again. Board Member Hoffmann — Let's see what was the other thing. Chairperson Wilcox — Brought to you. by the Town Attorney. 12 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 Mr. Harding — We are going lowrises on the next phase. Board Member Hoffmann — One of the photos, its the photo taken from Route 13 and it says no view of the balloons, but it would have been helpful to have an arrow indicating where they might have been seen had they been seen on this. Mr. Kanter — The photographer couldn't even tell. It was.:. Board Member Thayer — They couldn't find it. Board Member Hoffmann — That is the kind of thing .I think the developer should try to figure out and tell us about so we know where to look, otherwise it is not very useful to USE Chairperson Wilcox — It is useful. You can't see them. It may not be as. useful, but it is useful. Board Member Hoffmann — It is more useful to know where one would have looked for that because driving by there on a clearer day than the day when these photos were taken, I guess it must have snowed off and on or something, one can see better and then one could take this picture and go back and look and try to imagine what the - building would look like. I am just trying to point out things that would be helpful. Mr. Harding — I will pass all those comments on the O'Brien Gere, who I believe, are the ones who did the balloon work. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, no matter who did it, they are not the ones ultimately, responsible. Mr. Harding — I agree with your very good comments and I will pass them along. Board Member Hoffmann -.Let me see if I have other comments here. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a question if you want to let me jump in while you look. David, you would go over the accessibility of the site to TCAT buses. I know back in February there was a letter from TCAT asking you to double check to make sure that they could turn adequately in the site. Mr. Harding — I have that somewhere in my file. Sue, I don't know if you have that more readily accessible yourself. Ms. Ritter — The letter itself? Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 Mr..Harding — No. The documentation that I submitted in response to that letter and what I did is I took the standard turning templates for, I believe a 40 foot design vehicle, which correlated with a ladder truck and overlaid those on the... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm talking about the bus service, not the fire service. You just said ladder truck. Mr. Harding — Oh, sorry. Well, interestingly, the two have an interchangeable turning radius. They have a ,very similar turning radius so. the analysis was appropriate to both vehicles, but that would make the turn into the driveway here. We have. a 24 foot wide drive with traditional 34 foot radius curves coming back into the road that is a NYS DOT standard turning radius. The bus would come up and make its first turn into this land here and we have provided a very generous island that. allows them to do that and not get hung up on the curbs. They would come in.'An front of the overhead canopy that would extend out from the main entrance. so residents would be able to move' from the building right into the bus without being exposed to the elements. Then it would be able to proceed around that corner at a dimension that we widened out these two isles to 26 feet isles so that it gave us an ability for the bus to make that turn without doing any jockeying once it came around. Once you get back up here, we again provided a generous turning radius on that curb that allows you to get back on there and shoot on out. Chairperson Wilcox — Do we know for a fact that TCAT has seen the revised plans and is comfortable with them? Ms. Ritter No. I'm not positive. Mr. Kanter - I think we also need to get a response from TCAT that they are officially are going to extend their route to go into the development. So we need to get all of that as part of final site plan. Chairperson Wilcox — It would be nice to have them double -check it. I would hate to get a letter from.:.David, you wouldn't have an issue with that for sure? Mr. Harding - Not a problem. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Two more things that I wanted to mention. It has to do with the visibility of this and because of not having been here to see the balloons.. I yself and because of the pictures, I'm not sure that from Route 13. you wouldn't see this building. In the drawing you show a lot of white areas on these pediments that 14 come up and extend a little bit into the roof area to be painted white or what was the plan? Mr.. Harding — You are talking about these? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 They are very light.. Are they going Mr. Harding - I think that they appear white in that image just because of the copy quality, but the idea is to use the unit color similar to what they have right now out at the phase I and phase II areas. I believe that they are light tans and light green color schemes. Board Member Hoffmann — It just looks to me like there is. an awful .lot of light color. here, which would really stand out on a bright day from across the lake. Mr. Harding — We can certainly, as part of final approval, bring in a materials board ..to .show you exactly what will be used on this .building. We have done that on the previous projects. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and if you would consider making them, those larger areas at least, a little darker than you have them shown here. Chairperson Wilcox- Hold on. Jon? Mr. Kanter — I was just going to say that I was able to go out and drive around to all these points when the balloon was being flown and you will not be able to see., this building from Route 13 across the lake. Board Member Hoffmann — It is because there are trees? Mr. Kanter It is because of a combination of trees and the topography. I had binoculars with me when I was there and in going from various points along Route 13, taking a good bit of time, I was able to determine, at least, that the balloons being flown were not visible at all from across the lake at Route 13. Board Member Hoffmann - Well, I am relieved to hear that, but my other question was I understand that there are trees. I know that there are trees because when we first walked this property, it is a very wooded property, but are those trees going to remain, the ones that are east of this proposed building,.are they going to remain when the rest of the property is developed into those patio homes and other homes to the east of this one? Mr. Harding — Are you referring to these trees? is. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, .2006. Board Member Hoffmann — .Well, all the. development to the east of this building. Mr. Harding - The existing vegetation to the east of this building consists of two types of trees and the trees that you see highlighted in this dark green scattered throughout the internal portion of the site and starting up over at the south edge of the Town lands for the future park as well as the band of trees along Linderman Creek and a row along the back property line to .the Oak Wood .Lane are a taller more mature trees that are essentially going to stay with the occasion where you might need there is one out in the middle of the proposed roadway, but this concept plan was developed with the idea of maximizing saving those trees. The rest of the vegetation that occurs out on site is a scrub shrub tangle of young trees and brambles and it is characterized by vegetative height of approximately up to 30 feet, fairly young. The lands used to be farmed years ago. This is a succession growth that has moved in. We don't plan on saving that type of vegetation. That needs to be cleared as part of the general development for the lots for these patio homes. The trees that will remain, however, though, are going to continue to offer the same type of view interruption. Those are the ones that are taller and blocking those more distant views. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I am glad that the larger vegetation will stay, but I would. think that even some trees that are 30 feet high, you might want to save because they are going to grow up faster than anything you can plant as long as they are not interfering with major... exactly where the houses are going to be an so on. Mr. Harding I will invite you to go take a walk back there. It is almost impassible: The only thing that can really get through there are deer, but it is not the type of attractive vegetation that.you might typically think to see in a developed area. Board Member Hoffmann — No, I understand,. the underbrush obviously should go, but I thought you said, maybe I was wrong, I thought you said some. of them are 30 feet high? Mr. Harding — The underbrush has grown to that height. It is very dense in there. Some of it has grown that high. In general, it is more on the 15 to 20 foot high range, but there are some other ones. If you recall, when we developed the phase..I and phase II areas where we were able to save trees because of the way that grades were working out and we weren't cutting too much into their roots or filling over them, we did save them. Those areas were a little more open in character than the area that you are talking about now. I think those were farmed to a little bit longer point in time. We value trees as .much as you do and the more that you can leave in place, the less that you have to buy to replace them. That is how we go about designing these projects. 16 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, . 2006 Board Member Hoffmann.— Well, I am just concerned that whatever trees that help . screen this development, all of it, what you have already, what is going to be built, from the other side of the lake, as much as you can save the better because that is one of the things that we value is to see the wooded hillsides. There have been some developments, Deer Run is one of them, where it is very noticeable and not very attractive because the houses are built. high up on the ridgeline and there are very few trees there. Mr. Kanter — That is one of the main differences of this location is kind of midway down from the_ top of the. ridge, down to where the existing development is. Board Member Hoffmann — It certainly helps. Anyway. Board Member Mitrano — I move the motion. Board Member Conneman — I just want to say that Eva has answered my questions that I have from the previous time. I would like to see a panel, even though you may not be able to. see this. It would be nice to see something that isn't white. because white really shows up. In a number of developments that were built long before I was on this board and they could have been much better had they not been quite white. So I would love to see a panel. Mr. Harding — I have made a note of it and we will bring you in a nice tan or a similar muted color. Chairperson Wilcox — Good idea. Tracy, I have a motion. Board Member Thayer — I'll second it.. Chairperson Wilcox — I believe Rod already seconded it. You're all set, Sue? Ms. Ritter — All set. Board votes on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -124: SEAR, Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Livin Community, Preliminary Site Plan and Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Rezoning, Tax Parcel No. 27 4- 13.12,. 27 -143.163, Conifer Drive, __AND Site Plan Modification for Linderman_ Creek Avartments, Phase 11 8 111 for development of an emergency access, Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.18, 27 -1- 13.17, Cypress Court MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Howe. 17. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. WHEREAS: 1 a. This action is consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding the Zoning Change, and a height variance from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board for the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit independent living rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9.0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase Il and 111, Tax Parcel No.'s 27443.12 and 27443.162, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves construction of a +/- 80,555 square foot, three -story building, with an. 82 -space parking lot, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities. The project also includes a secondary "emergency only" access drive to NYS Route 79. The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property are proposed for future development phases, over a period of years and depending on market conditions. The proposal also requires a rezoning request , for the 9.0 +/- acres from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey, Agent, and 1b. The proposal also includes consideration of Site Plan Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and 111 to allow construction of. a secondary "emergency only" access drive for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community project: The proposed modification would allow emergency access from the proposed senior apartments onto Cypress Court (the existing private road for Linderman Creek Apartments Phase ll and Ill), and involve construction of a short driveway segment from Cypress Court through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase 11 and 111 site, to Route 79, on Tax Parcel No's. 27443.18 and 27443, and 2. This is a Type I Action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Code Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review, for the proposed+ actions including subdivision approval, site plan approval, rezoning by the Town Board, a height variance, and site plan modifications for the previously approved Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and Ill, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated November 14, 2004, has referred the petition to rezone Tax Parcel No. 27443.12 to the Planning Board for a. recommendation, and 4: At its meeting on February 22, 2005, the Planning Board established itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above- referenced actions, after receiving no objections from other Involved, and ffa Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 5. At its meeting on February, 22, 2005, the Planning Board determined that there was inadequate information with which to make a finding regarding the significance of potential environmental impacts, and 61 Revised materials have been submitted, and the Planning Board,. at a meeting held on December 20, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Part ll of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, a Project Description, Market Analysis Summary (October 12, 2004), the Site Impact Traffic Evaluation (Dec. 2004), Geotechnical Evaluation (Dec. 2004), excerpts from Drainage Report for Linderman Creek Subdivision (December 29, 2004), Balloon Test Analysis and visual simulation Photos No. 1 - 15 (115105), NYS DEC Water Quality Certification Permit (5111105), Nationwide Wetland Pennit 12 and 14 (August 5, 2005), site plan and architectural drawings including, Demolition /Erosion A Sedimentation Control Plan & Details (L 1 -7), Layout Plan (L -2), Grading Plan & Details (L -3), Stormwater System Plan & Details (L -4), Planting Plan & Details (L- 5), Details (L -6), Profiles, Sections & Details (L -7) all dated 12/29104 and revised 1113105, and site utility plan.. and details, building floor plans and elevation drawings, Boundary and Topographic Survey (December 12, 2003), Conceptual Sketch Plan (SK -1) dated September 8, . 2004 revised 12129104 and 1113105, Preliminary Subdivision Plat (1113105) revised 1113105, a draft . Local Law regarding the proposed rezoning of the site, and revised drawings for Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and 111 including Site Plan and Details (L4), Enlarged Site Plans. and Details (L -2) and Fire Truck Access and Analysis (L -3) each dated April 15, 2005, and other application materials, and 7. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval, height variance, and Site Plan Modifications. 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 actions as proposed and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows:. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally. NAYS: None The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of.the meeting at 7.59 p.m. 19 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary Site .Plan Approval, Preliminary Subdivision Approval and a recommendation �to the. Town. Board regarding a zoning change for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community proposal consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit independent living rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on an 9.0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone. The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property is planned to be developed into a residential subdivision in the future. The proposal involves a +/- 80,555 square foot, three -story building, an 82 -space parking lot, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities. The project also includes a secondary 'emergency only" access drive to NYS Route 79. This secondary access will utilize the western -most portion of the private road constructed for the completed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase III and II projects, (the west end of Cypress Court), to provide a connection between the senior. apartments project site to the north and Route 79 to the south. This will require construction of a short driveway segment from Cypress Court, through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III site, to Route 79, thus requiring Site Plan Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III project, on Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 43.18 and 27443.17. The proposal also requires a rezoning request for the 9.0+/m acres from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to site plan review and subdivision, and recommendation to the Town Board regarding rezoning? Board Member Mitrano — I'm cool. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:59 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox- Carol or Stacey, would either one of you wish to make a statement? Stacey Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County Stacey .Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins. County, 950 Danby Road, Suite 102, Ithaca. Just by way of update since last year when we were here, the market study to get ready for the application has been revisited and is being updated .and I believe you had information about that that you have seen. I just wanted to point out that the rents structures as they stand right now are slightly lower than we .had proposed last J FM Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. year and we are still working on the budgets and everything, of course, but we are. doing everything we can to make the affordable units, well the whole thing as affordable as possible, but there is a build in for a mixed income component, which the State finds desirable in their application scoring and also just here and there around Tompkins County in talking to folks I have been hearing also is desirable around here. I could say more, but I won't unless you need me to. Chairperson Wilcox - Any questions of Stacey? There are none. Thank you very much. Ms. Crawford — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:01 p:m. Chairperson. Wilcox — I have a motion and a second. Attorney Barney — This motion is for the approval of the site plan, preliminary, .recommendation to the Town Board. and subdivision. We were having a little bit of discussion over a couple of provisions of the local law and I am not quite sure that we are prepared.to resolve them tonight. Carol, are you? I've looked at the email that you sent to Sue today. I am still not convinced that we need to .change it. I think probably it is something that I ought to talk to Susan Jennings about. Would that be the appropriate person? Ms. Oster — Yes. Attorney Barney — Okay. Why don't I try to do that tomorrow? The issue is over. how we define the income structure and the maximum rent that can be charged. We have a two- pronged test in this local law if you recall from reading it through. One is regulated or determined by the Internal Revenue Service and the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal, but should they go haywire and allow things to get somewhat higher than what we would normally put in, we have put in 35 % of the applicable income that would be applied to the unit. What Carol and Susan are putting out to me is that they determine these incomes applicable to the unit now are not based upon the actual median family income. of the family. Its dependent a little bit on how many people are actually in the unit. I need to work that language out a little bit. The language we have here is the same language ... and the first two phases of Linderman Creek are governed by. So I am a little hesitant to change it too much because it has some impact on the other projects as well.. With that thought in mind, if you will give us the authority to work this out, we will try to have it ready to go to the Town Board. 21 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that the only, as far as you know right now, everything is subject to change, but are there. any other potential stumbling blocks other than rent and how it might be allowed? Attorney Barney I don't think so. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. All right. One of those areas that I am least concerned about is how much the exact rents are and what may or may not be allowed. Are we comfortable with that. Anyone have an issue? Okay. Do we have any changes that we need to make to the resolution as drafted other than the date from December 6 to December 20th? Ms. Ritter - I don't know of any at this time. Mr. Harding — Curbcuts. Chairperson Wilcox — The issue was ensuring that curbcuts, necessary were provided so that access to the recreational Something to that affect. Is that legal enough, Mr. Barney? Attorney Barney — That's all right. as appropriate and areas is afforded. Mr. Kanter — Basically is was curbcuts for the walkway at places where ADA accessibility is necessary. Attorney Barney — So we will want to add a "j ". I think if we could on that part relating to the local law, which would be the first resolved. Actually I think we could probably actually spell out...(not audible) ... okay I think. that is fine the way it is. Mr. Kanter — Also just for the record, note that this also includes the site plan modification for the emergency access. Chairperson Wilcox — To the Linderman Creek parts 2 and 3. Yes. Mr. Harding — If I may, this is also making a referral to the Zoning Board for the height variance. Chairperson Wilcox = With our recommendation. Yes. Ms. Ritter — It also allows the less than number of parking spaces required in the zoning ordinance. Chairperson Wilcox — Correct. 22 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 Board votes on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2005 -125: Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Livin Community, Preliminary Site Plan and Subdivision Approval and Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Rezoning, Tax Parcel No. 27-1- 13.12, 27 -1- 13,163, Conifer Drive, AND, Site Plan Modification for Linderman Creek Apartments, Phase_ II & III for development of an emergency access, Tax Parcel No. 27=1"13.18,27w1=13.17, Cypress Court MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: la. Ib. This action is consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a Zoning Change, and height variance from the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Conifer I/illage Ithaca Senior Living Community, consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit independent living rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9.0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Tax Parcel No. s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -I - 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves construction of a +/- 80,555 square foot, three -story building, with an 82 -space parking lot, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities The project also includes a secondary "emergency only" access drive to NYS Route 79. The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property are proposed for future development phases, over a period of years and depending on market conditions. The proposal also requires a rezoning request for the 9.0 +/- acres from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /App_ licant; John H. Fennessey, Agent, and The proposal also includes consideration of Site Plan Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III to allow construction of a secondary "emergency only" access drive for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community project. Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III were granted Site Plan Approval on April 16, 2002. The proposed modification would allow emergency access from. the proposed senior apartments onto . Cypress Court (the existing private road for Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III), and involve construction of a short.driveway segment from Cypress Court through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III site, to Route 79, on Tax Parcel No 27 -1 -13.18 and 27 -1 -13, and 23 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. 2. The proposed actions, which include subdivision approval, site plan, and site plan modification approval by the Planning Board, rezoning by the Town Board, and height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6:NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148, Environmental Quality Review, and 3. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated November 14, 2004, has referred the petition to rezone the above - referenced parcel to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and 4. Having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in a resolution dated February 22,:2005,: established itself as Lead. Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - referenced actions, and 5. The Planning Board, after holding public hearings at a meeting held on December 20, 20051 has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Part II of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed other application materials, including a Project Description, Market Analysis Summary (October 12, 2004), the Site Impact Traffic Evaluation: (Dec. 2004), Geotechnical Evaluation (Dec. 2004), excerpts from Drainage Report for Linderman Creek Subdivision (December 29, 2004), Balloon Test Analysis and visual simulation Photos No. 1 - 15 (115105)1 NYS DEC Water Quality Certification Permit (5111105), Nationwide Wetland Permit 12 and 14 (August 5, 2005), site plan and architectural drawings including, Demolition /Erosion & Sedimentation, Control Plan & Details (Ll -7), Layout Plan (L -2), Grading Plan & Details a3). Stormwater System Plan & Details (L4), Planting Plan & Details a5), Details (L- 6), Profiles, Sections & Details (L -7) all dated 12129104 and revised 1113105, and site utility plan and details, building floor plans and elevation drawings, Boundary and Topographic Survey (December 12, 2003), Conceptual Sketch Plan (SK4) dated September 8, 2004 revised 12129104 and 1113105, Preliminary Subdivision Plat (1113105) revised 1113105, a draft Local Law regarding the proposed rezoning of the site, and revised drawings for Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III including Site Plan and Details (L -1), Enlarged Site Plans and Details (L -2) and Fire Truck Access and Analysis (L3) each . dated April. 15, 2005 and other application materials, and J . 6. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval, and Site Plan modifications, and height variance, and 24 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 7. Based on the above, the `Planning Board, at its December 20, 2005 meeting, has issued a negative determination of environmental significance with regard to the proposed rezoning, Site Plan Approval, Subdivision Approval, height variance, and Site Plan Modification, and 8. The Planning Board, after holding another public hearing on February 3, 2004, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the above - referenced materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that: a. There is a need for the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community project in the proposed location, and more particularly, that the Market Study prepared by the applicant adequately demonstrates that there is an unmet need for the proposed project, and b. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be adversely affected by the proposed rezoning and project development, and C The proposed rezoning is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, which designates the project site as appropriate for "Suburban Residential" development, and in addition, is adequately served by public water and sewer facilities, is proximate to the City of Ithaca, and is served by public transit, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town Board enact a proposed local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance by rezoning a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12 from MDR Medium Density Residential to MR Multiple Residence, which is proposed for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, consisting of a seventy-two (72) unit independent living rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9.0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III as shown on the "Preliminary Subdivision Plat" dated January 13, 2005 revised 11/3/05, prepared by C. T. Male Associates, P. C, and "Layout Plan" (L 2) dated December 29, 2004 revised 1113105, prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates, Landscape Architects and Planners, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 25 1. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 1006 That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -13.17 totaling +/- 29 acres, into two. parcels, including a +/- 9 acre parcel for development of the Conifer Village Ithaca . Senior Living Community apartment complex and +/- 20 acre parcel proposed for future residential development as shown on the drawing entitled "Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Conifer Village Ithaca." (DWG No. 05466), dated January 13, . 2005, prepared by C T. Male Associates, P. C, conditioned upon the following to be completed prior to the granting of Final Subdivision Approval, unless otherwise noted: a. Rezoning by the Town Board of the proposed project site as.. described above prior to consideration of Final Subdivision Approval by the Planning Board; and b. Submission of draft easement language allowing emergency access for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community development to. utilize Cypress Court and to :utilize. other portions of the existing Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III on Tax Parcel Nos 27 -1 -13.18 and 27- .1- 13.17; and C Submission of draft easement language providing access, to the Town of Ithaca to all storm water management facilities, and sewer and water mains, and indication on the Final Plat of the location. and dimensions of all such easements to be conveyed to the Town; and d. Approval of easements guaranteeing access of the large remaining parcels to Conifer Drive, by the Attorney for the Town, prior to.signing of the Final. Subdivision plat by the Planning Board Chair; and e. Evidence of the necessary approval by the Tompkins . County Health Department on' the final plat, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair; and f. Before construction of any improvements anywhere on the project site is commenced, requirements of the Final Site Plan Checklist shall be met, and Final Site Plan Approval granted by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board; and g. Submission of a revised subdivision plat that correctly aligns the extension of Conifer Drive within the road- right -of -way; and h. Completion of the new extension to Conifer Drive and required utilities, and completion of the existing Conifer Drive with the addition of six more 26 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 inches of "crusher run" to the road base followed by an asphalt covering, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and Town Highway Superintendent, prior to the issuance of a building permit; and i. Prior, to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, the Town Board grants approval for the Town to accept the conveyance of Conifer Drive (extension and existing segment); and j. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the conveyance of the above referenced road to the Town of Ithaca, and k. No building permits for future phases or development of the remaining large parcels located north of Conifer Village Ithaca. Senior Living Community and Linderman Creek Phase I shall be issued until the access road, extending from Conifer Drive is reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer; and 1. Submission of evidence of inclusion of a deed restriction for the wetland mitigation, required by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Nationwide Permit No. 12 and No. 14, showing /describing the required 0.72 acres of unmowed, vegetated upland buffer along the north side of Linderman Creek; and m. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an original or mylar copy of the final plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to filing with the Tompkins County Clerks Once, and submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, consisting of a seventy-two (72) unit, +/ 80,555 square foot, three -story apartment building, with an 82 -space parking lot for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9.0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, on Tax Parcel Noss 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.162, as shown on drawing and details including Demolition /Erosion & Sedimentation Control Plan & Details (LI -7), Layout Plan (L -2), Grading Plan & Details (L -3), Stormwater System Plan & Details (L -4), Planting Plan & Details (L -5), Details (L- 6), Profiles, Sections & Details (L -7) all dated 12129104 and revised 1113105, and site utility plan and details, building floor plans and elevation drawings, Boundary and Topographic Survey (December 12, 2003), Conceptual Sketch Plan (SK -1) 27 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 dated September 8, 2004 revised 12129104 and 1113105, and other application materials, conditioned upon the following to be completed prior to the granting of Final Site Plan Approval, unless otherwise noted: a.. Rezoning of the proposed project site by the Town Board; and b. Preparation and submission of final design and construction, details of all proposed structures and improvements, including drainage, and storm water management facilities, roads /driveways, parking . areas, curbing, walkways, sewer and water facilities and other utilities, design of the play area, and sedimentation and erosion control measures, for review and approval by the Town Engineer; and c. Submission of final details of size, location, design, and construction materials of all proposed signs and lighting (including any building wall mounted lights and proposed recessed ceiling porch, lights), , including the proposed entrance sign; and d. Submission of final, detailed building elevations and floor plans including descriptions of building materials and colors, and accurate dimensions of buildings, including building heights; and e. Provision of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from other county, state, and /or federal agencies and obtaining the necessary curb -cut and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation, prior to issuance of any building permits; and f. Submission of a revised site plan modifying the placement of the two stormwater management facilities, identified on the plans as "Proposed Detention Basin'; outside of the Conifer Road right -of -way; and g. Submission of a stormwater . "Operation, Maintenance, and. Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of Ithaca, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of a building permit, and h. Obtaining the necessary height variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals, and i. Documentation from TCAT that bus service will be extended to the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community and that access accommodations for buses on that site will be adequate, and Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 j. Provision of curb cuts necessary for ADA access on the sidewalk on the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED: 1. That the provision of the emergency access will be adequate to serve Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, but that no further development on the remaining portions of the Conifer property, beyond the senior apartments, will be allowed without the installation of a permanent, secondary means of access, and that this emergency access will be removed once a secondary means of access is provided to the site. BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Site Plan Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III project, to allow construction of a secondary "emergency only" access drive for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community project. The proposed modification would allow emergency access from the proposed senior apartments onto Cypress Court (the existing private road for Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III), and involve construction of a short driveway segment from Cypress Court through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III site, to Route 79, on Tax Parcel Nos 27 -1 -13.18 and 27 -1- 13.17, as shown on drawings and details entitled Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II & III /Conifer Village Senior Apartments Emergency Access, including: Site Plan and Details (L- 1), Enlarged Site Plans and Details. (L -2) and Fire Truck Access and Analysis (L -3) each dated April 15, 2005, and other application materials, conditioned upon the following to be completed prior to the granting of Final Subdivision Approval, unless otherwise noted: a. Provision of the necessary curb -cut and road work permits from the New York State Department of Transportation, prior to issuance of any building permits; and AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby authorizes a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, pursuant to Sec. 270 -227 of the Code of the Town of Ithaca, from the +/- 96 parking spaces required in Section 270 Z27, 'to. the +/- 82 parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan, finding that such reduction will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, will leave adequate parking for all the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the F1 Planning Board Minutes . December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 . project, and will not otherwise adversely affect. the general welfare of the community, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives the conditions relating to the reduction in parking spaces outlined in Section 270 -227 (A) (3) of the Code of the Town of Ithaca. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SEQR Ithaca College School of Business, Danby Road.. Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Fred Vanderburgh, Ithaca College Fred Vanderburgh, Construction, Planning, Design, Ithaca College, Ithaca New York. To my left if Dave Herrick. David works for TG Miller, Engineers and Surveyors, Ithaca New York. To his left if Rick Couture, Physical Plant Director, Ithaca College. And to Rick's immediate left if Carl Sgrecci, Vice President Finance and Business Affairs, Ithaca College. What I would like to do at this point, I guess, is turn it over to David. David is the civil engineer for the project with Stearn. Stearn is not with us I tonight. I guess, I told Carl outside. It is kind of a sustainable thing, you know, being sustainable to save_ as much money as you can by not lining him up if you can get through this without him. We are going to start out by being sustainable this evening. So with that and because it is site plan approval, preliminary, they were engaged in other things tonight so I'll David to take it from here. Mr. Herrick Thank you, Freda Again, David Herrick, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors, 203 North Aurora Street, Ithaca. While we don't have the architects, I wouldn't suggest that my presence means we're cheap, but we are accessible. . I would like to just begin by briefly environmental review and I can certainly tal not totally qualified to speak to the building aspects of sustainable design, but I think it initiative to come up with this building right describing the project in the context of ce as much time as you would like. I am itself and not fully versed yet in all of the is fair to say that with such an effort and from the design through construction and 30 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 into maintenance it will be. sustainable. You can conclude that the environmental issues . should be minimal and that is what we have with this project. When Fred came to you earlier in, the year at sketch plan review we had a 42,000 square foot building. Through costs considerations we are down now to approximately 36,000 square foot building. Other elements of the initial plan that you had reviewed included pretty extensive landscaping program between Job Hall and the new school of business. That has been scaled back again for budgetary issues, but we will be looking at transplanting as many of the existing trees that are our there as possible. Then introducing as part of the sustainable concept, a large area- of lawn panels that will be converted. into native ground cover. We are still working with a landscape architect to put. that planting plan together and to specify the different plantings and we will have that for you at final, but the emphasis is to enhance stormwater objectives with converting your typical lawn panels into native ground cover areas. The site is on the western portion of e lot. There is roughly 62 parking spaces now out in front of Friends and Job and that is where the building will be sited. It will be considerable reduction in the impervious area by reducing or eliminating the parking, minimizing. the extent of additional paved walkways and as I mentioned before, adding native ground cover and lawn panels. The four -story building is split.. There is a fair portion that is a two -level with a garden roof on top of the second level and that is located, I'll approach the board here. The area that will have as the vegetated roof is located here in front of Job Hall and that is the two -story level. The four -story level with the large atrium will be located in front of Friends Hall. As you know, Job Hall is primarily administrative or entirely administrative. Friends Hall is an academic building. It has a few administrative related facilities, but principally, classrooms are in Friends and the four -story of the building will be constructed in front of Friends. We did provide illustrations of what the. viewsheds .are from different portions of campus to address view impacts. You can see that Job Hall will principally will, look over to the north across the garden roof and will still maintain views off to the northwest and even from Friends Hall you'll have views off to the northeast. So those were principle view corridors that the college understands are :significant to the campus and will be maintaining. Thos are illustrated in the packet as figures 1 and 2. In eliminating the 62 spaces at a lot, there is no plan at this time. to have to reconstruct or to provide additional facilities on the campus. The loss of the spaces will be handled by moving either to m lot or o lot, those spaces that were originally provided. There maybe a need to reorganize some of the parking further to the west, if there is to be visitor parking for admission purposes at Job Hall: The traffic implications then are minimized. We will be providing access for emergency vehicles from the remaining streets up to what is shown as the connector bridge between Job and the new building. We will work out those details with the fire department. Fred has met 31 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. with Tom Parsons and has discussed what their concerns might be in terms of emergency access and we will have that finalized for you when we comeback for. final. The stormwater management concepts here, first of all, to reduce impervious area,.add the garden and something new to me that I haven't experienced before will be a rain water harvesting program, which will collect the roof runoff from the hard portions of the roof or the non- vegetative portions, temporarily stored in an underground tank and then utilize that harvested water for wastewater, for urinal, toilet flushing, non - potable uses. That essentially will capture most of those elements that we are concerned with as contaminants and roof runoff and actually be processed ultimately at the Wastewater Treatment plant. So we have from the stormwater management perspective very minimal impacts and actually reducing the amount of impervious areas that drain through the chapel pond. Chairperson Wilcox — You'll eventually be out of a job, won't you? Mr. Herrick — Well, I don't think so. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think so either. Board Member Mitrano — I think it looks great. Board Member Conneman — The green roof only goes on a part of the building? Mr. Herrick — Yes. Board Member Conneman — What percent of the building will have a green roof? Roughly. Mr. Herrick — It is roughly 3800 square feet of rooftop and I think that the best drawing to look at that illustrates that is drawing L1.3, which is the last drawing in your packet. It identifies the areas where the garden roof is proposed. Mr. Vanderburgh — (comments not audible, not speaking near microphone) Board Member Thayer. — That lower part is two- stories? Mr: Herrick — Yes. .Chairperson Wilcox — So again, the two -story now is shown on my left. J 32 Planning Board Minutes . December 20, 2005. Approved January 3, 2006 Mr. Herrick — In terms of the building materials, we have a collage of glazing, wood . panels, then the aluminum panel. and llenroc that are proposed to be used and Fred can, through the elevations here, share with you where they are going to be placed. Mr. Vanderburgh — This is the north elevation, the elevation towards the lake. At the bottom, the colors don't match here with the colors that are here and some of these colors, some shades may change depending, but this is a precast stone water table panel, is what they call that. That will be this bottom ribbon that you can see here that runs horizontal along the bottom. It is actually the shelf that the llenroc will sit on. It will be the supporting shelf for the llenroc. They are trying to stay with warm colors. We are trying to work with warm colors throughout the project. This is a native to this area stone that will come up next so it will random. It is called llenroc. I'm sure you are familiar with that. It is Cornell spelled backwards. That is actually up here on quarry on Dolse on Ellis Hollow Road. Many of these composite, whether they are rain screen panels, which you see in some of these other areas or some of the building facade will be a metal panel, very durable, very maintenance free panel that is done with a kinar finish, guaranteed for 30 years not to wear or tear or rip at the seam and those will be placed in these areas that you see that show up in the gray panel. Most of this facade will be class, an important feature to any lead certified building is daylighting. They want daylight in every room in the building. This building is laid out so that every room will have natural light in it. So there is a tremendous amount of glass in the facade of this building on all sides and every elevation.. We will go to the next elevation here in a minute, but these are what are proposed for our glass. It is a double - glazed clear glass. It looks green with the white background in it, which most .glass does if you put it up against the light surface. That will be the glazing and then this is the aluminized anodized finish that goes on the frames of the window that will have thermal breaks in them that will not allow the cold air or the heat, depending upon what time of year it is, to penetrate. the inner envelope of the building. So that is that site.. Are there any questions on.this before I move on? Board Member Hoffmann — What is the brown material? Mr. Vanderburgh — I'm sorry. I missed that didn't I? This is called a wood phenol panel. This is very popular in Europe and it is very sustainable in the fact that this is veneer and it can be used with native species that we have here. Then on the interior of it, what they do is they either take paper or fabric fiber, remnants from any kind of mills and they use that for the bond in there, much like you would put mesh in concrete. Then they take polymers with resins and they mix them together and under pressure they pressurize the wood panel. to this. material and it has a chemical reaction and sets up under this pressure that creates a very durable panel that is light weight, can be cut with a saw, and most of the material is either renewable or recycled in the process. This is used a lot in Europe. As a matter of fact, I think Germany; the 33. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 architects were telling us it may be mandated over there as an exterior material on buildings. Chairperson Wilcox - How long should it last? Mr. Vanderburgh — Forever. I mean it is impermeable once it goes on there. You never have to finish it. It is finished. It is done. Board Member Hoffmann — Is it maintenance free, too, then? Mr. Vanderburgh — Yes.. There is another phenol coding that goes on the outside of it and it works as a rain screen. So it gives a warm feature and it is very natural. Chairperson Wilcox How long has it been used in Europe? Mr. Vanderburgh — 20 years. Board Member Talty - What are the characteristics of the glass? If the building is going to be so much glass, I understand how the draft and you have taken that away, but is it thermal paned or? Mr. Vanderburgh — It is hermetically sealed: It is doubled paned and you can go to triple glazing and we looked at that, but we thought that our money was better used in the envelope of the building and the wall structure and how we did that with mineral world to come up with an ... we've got an, air space. We've got these panels on the outside then we have an air space and then we have mineral world. We have another air space and then we have our interior finish. When we looked at the budgets it was very cost prohibitive for us to go to triple glaze windows. The savings wasn't large enough. When they did the modeling for energy savings on the building it didn't by going to the triple glaze, the dollar values just didn't pay out on it. I kiddingly in the beginning I said that economical good sense was part of leads into this. It is part of the sustainable being so we didn't feel that it was a good use for our money. But this is .:a low a so the UV rays do not come in. It lets light in, but it knocks that heat down in the summer and with it being hermetically sealed it also will keep the cold out. But the daylighting payoff from that.sunlight coming in and all those kind of things are going to pay huge dividends in our electric bills, but the difference between triple and double glaze didn't show the cost savings that we wanted as far as the heat went. Board Member Howe - So there is not a solar heating...? Mr. Vanderburgh — Curtainwall and let me get to that. A lot of this building, David talked about a lot of the components with the natural turf out there, I mean the natural plantings and that kind of thing. It is going to be interesting for Ithaca College because 34 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 I think it is very ... we've always been primp and proper. All the grass is cut to the right height and all the flowers look the right way and everything is planted in rows: Then when. you get to how nature does things, it is a different pattern. So to have that incorporated in the campus, it becomes a real teaching tool for the students there because they can see the difference. I mean this is what happens when you spray and mow and do these kind of things and this is what happens when you don't. So I think it will be interesting to see that component on campus and see what the reaction is to its We talked briefly with the fire department. The problem that.they have, as you know, is when they have to pull in. When you pull into these spots it is a dead end so they have to back out. So I talked to Tom and we talked about widening this main entrance to Job Hall and actually creating a K -turn area for the fire trucks to turn here. to get out.. He wasn't so concerned with this because it is not as long a distance and we just didn't feel, I mean the fire department would have liked to maybe not have this barricade here, but this is what makes our campus accessible.. You know we. have problems with the topography up there and without this connection .we really hamper the ability for people that are challenged to move back and forth across campus. This upper tier, this will actually. connect to the core of campus where the bottom section of this connecting piece will actually connect to the spine that runs east and west all the way from campus center back through. So we are going to address. some accessibility issues with this project. This is the wall that you are referring to, or I guess I am referring to in trying to address your solar loads. We haven't done all the mechanical sketches yet to date, but I mean we are getting there. We see this not only as being a block so that. people can open their windows during the summer, without having the problem of wind. blowing through and taking everything off their desk and everything, but also, shields us in the _winter from the winter winds and makes that side of the. building, it still will get light and still will be wide open, but it is going to knock a lot of that windsheer off that building, which will lower the, you know take those low temperatures away from them and we won't have as much heat loss there. It will act, with a double pane, and this is also a double pane. It is almost like having four layers and an air space of glass on the south end of that building. What we are hoping to do, there is going to be louvers at the top of this, they are not drawn here, but what we are hoping to do in the summer is actually, heat rises, so we will disperse that out the louvers and let it go. In the winter, what I think we are going to try. and do is capture some of that heat because even on the coldest days, if it is sunny, there is going to be a heat load generated there. Then bring that in through our outside air systems to help temper the air before it comes into the building to help on our energy use. So it will be a very useful tool. It is also. aesthetically pleasing in the fact that when you walk across this, if you look on the front cover of your submission, you will see a picture of what that will look like coming across that bridge from the south side and it is a very pleasing entrance .to the building. This 35. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. connector piece also has doors on it so in the summer these doors will be open. So it will be like an open air space and it should be a very nice compliment to the building and help us out as far as accessibility goes. This also on the end is not glass. This would be a metal panel on the ,ends, on the east and west side. The south side would be the only thing that was' glass faced, but you can see the glass here in .the building. You can see how the stone compliments the metal panels.. Then you have the phenol panels around them to offset. Board Member Hoffmann— That walkway that you. show there. the walls facing east and west? Is that a glass? Mr. Vanderburgh — Yes. It is all glass. Board Member Hoffmann - So you would see through that? Mr. Vanderburgh — Right. The whole building is big on interaction and collaboration amongst people and so it is nice to see people moving through. If you remember on Job Hall, if you go out and look at the face of Job they have these huge arched windows all the way down through so that you could actually see people` traversing through the buildings. They want to have that same kind of connection here. Board Member Hoffmann - My other question is, how do those gray colors that you showed us compare with the gray color of the two towers, the two tall towers that are there now? What is the material on Mr., Vanderburgh — There is nothing there that compares the two towers. The two towers are panelized. If you look at them you will see these pebble panels. They are a concrete precast panel that hangs up there on a concrete structure.,'' I guess the gray, I mean there is some concrete that is about this color, but... Board Member Hoffmann — I guess I'm thinking more, not so much an exact color, but in darkness or. lightness. Is this lighter or darker than those surfaces? Mr. Vanderburgh — I would guess that this is probably' darker, the llenroc Is,, but this is probably lighter. This llenroc is used on our quad dorms. All our quad dorms are llenroc faced. The backside of our campus center is llenroc faced. That.stone has been used a lot: Chairperson Wilcox When you say quad dorms, meaning, which dorms are those specifically? Mr. Vanderburgh - Well, we call them the quads, but they are dorms 1 -10. 36 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 Chairperson Wilcox — So that is the name of the dorms themselves. Mr. Vanderburgh — They are the first dorms that were built on campus. They are just to the east of the campus center, between there and the fitness center. you will see them out in there. They are the older buildings with metal roofs on them. They are well built building fortresses. They are really good buildings. Board Member Mitrano — I think this is addition to our architecture in the Town. proud of it at Ithaca College. very exciting and I think it is a wonderful I can certainly imagine that you are very Mr. Vanderburgh — Some of these colors may change. I mean these pallets have just been together for material only. I know that this gray will be pretty constant. It may be lighter or it may be a little darker. We don't know yet. Once we get our pallets put together. The glass is what it is. The llenroc is what it is. The precast panel is what it is, but this may vary depending on native specie that we are going to use because we are trying to use something that is from this area. Board Member Conneman — You made a statement that says you incorporate other green features in there economically. Is that your decision on solar panels, that they are not economic? Mr. Vanderburgh — We talked about some solar panels. Actually we are working with a lot of different things. We are working with NYCERTA; we are working with LEEDS requirements in order to qualify for this platinum building. There is not much in the way of energy savings that is not touched on. So we have to weigh things on .what they cost and what the benefit is going .to be of them whether it is a percentage on how much you are going to save. As you know, this area doesn't lend. itself well with sun. We don't have a lot of sunlight during the winter and they found during the process and they very well may put some solar panels in the upper part of this double glazed, it is not for sure yet, we have talked about it, if nothing more than a teaching tool that would be used to heat the water say for the hand sinks in the bathrooms. There is not going to be a lot of water usage there and it could work very well for that. It would just be a passive system, which doesn't require a lot of pumping. So we are looking at ....(not audible)... there is not payback to them. They have been very cost prohibitive to generate electricity with them. But there .area lot of neat features in the building, like the daylighting and the daylighting controls. When you are in that building, if the sun gets high in the sky your daylighting control in your room will actually dim your lights down or shut them off. Board Member Conneman — I appreciate what you did. You've just. said that solar panels are economic and I agree with you. 37. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006, Board Member Hoffmann — I think it is very exciting, too. I had a slight concern that. the building might be visible from a distance from West Hill and East Hill. If you decide to go for aesthetic reasons for a lighter color, I would be a little concerned about the building showing up too much because of that. I understand that the lighter color in this metal material might have some environmental advantage. Mr. Vanderburgh — It has better reflective qualities. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but if it is just for aesthetic reasons then I would prefer to see you go to a darker color than a lighter one because a very light building if it sticks up on the hillside shows up much more and it doesn't matter how attractive it is, it may not look so good with a certain light on it. Mr. Vanderburgh Right. We still have to look at this palette and there are a lot of trains of thought to that. You could line up to be a beacon and standout and show people that this is what we are doing or you could hide it into the.terrain. We haven't got that far with it yet and I'm sure. when we come back to you again we will have more ideas on how we are going to have this building blend in and where it fits and what our theme is going to be for it. This is going to become our new front door. This is really where students are going to come and what parents are going to see when they pull in so it's got to have some wow. I really think, and not only that, but I think that the sustainable part of it, I mean I think you want it to speak for that. I mean I think it's got to be soft and blend in, too. So I mean I hear you. Board Member Mitrano blends in well with the white it is not going to with a lot of.rain it look! in gray and it looks like the surrounding terrain. - I have to say that that didn't strike me. I think the color landscape over a number of seasons when we have, a lot of contrast sharply and when we do have our beautiful summers > like it will blend. And unfortunately, most of our time is spent it will go very well with that. It seems to work very well. with Mr. Vanderburgh — That is certainly the plan. The landscape, as David talked about, is not going to encompass a large part of the campus at this time, in this project. It will not spread very far from the footprint of this building because we want to see what is going on with our master plan and where we go from there. We don't want to put a lot of trees and habitat and shrubbery and stuff in that is going to have to. be removed at another time for utility changes. Board Member Hoffmann — I want to point out something to the rest of you on the board. Do you remember that once when we talked about lighting that I mentioned the fountain at Ithaca College and how it was lit and you weren't sure, all of you, quite where it was? It is that blue rectangle there next to the performing arts center. It's big and it's beautiful when the fountains are going. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 Mr. Vanderburgh — There will be some lighting in this project. The lighting will be LEEDS recommended type lighting. The lens on that and the reflectors will throw a 15M foot diameter at 9 feet. Now you've got to remember if we take those. poles higher, the shed of that light pattern will be larger. But at the recommended 9 400t height, it does a 15400t diameter. Chairperson Wilcox - Nine foot high? That is an unusual height. Mr. Vanderburgh — Well, usually most of your walkways are 9 foot. Chairperson Wilcox — I was thinking 10 to 12 or something like that. Mr. Vanderburgh Well, it depends on where you are at, but most of the ones on campus are 9 foot to the lens. Board Member Mitrano I also want to compliment the attention to accessibility. None of us are getting any younger and we may think of this as something for a student.in a car accident or medical disability,or whatever, but I think it draws attention to all of our aging processes. Mr. Vanderburgh — We even took it farther than ADA requirements. We actually went to the universal design, which is even more stringent than that ADA requirements because ADA: really goes after ;challenged, really heavily challenged folks and the universal could be age related where handles are placed right or push plates aren't right or pulls on doors are too heavy and that kind of thing. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions with regard to parking? Fine with me. Board Member Thayer — We're happy. Chairperson Wilcox - Height? Board Member Mitrano — I'm good. Chairperson Wilcox - Dan, since you are here, do you want to make any comments on stormwater management? Mr. Walker — Well, they are reducing impervious surface so they are going to reduce runoff. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. 39. Pianning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3. 2006. Board Member Thayer - I'II move SEQR. Board Member Conneman - I'II second. Board votes on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 426: SEAR, Pre /iminary Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Ithaca Co / %ge School of Business, Ithaca College Campus - North of Job and Friends Ha//, Tax Parcel No.'s 4141 30.2 & 4141 30.4 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Conneman. WHEREAS; 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College School of Business building located north of Job and Friends Halls on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca. Tax Parcel No. s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a new +1- 36;500 square foot building which will include new classrooms, faculty offices, conference rooms, and an atrium for the School of Business. The project will also include new lighting, walkways, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and a +/- 3,780 square foot green roof. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, 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 a Height Variance, and 36 'The Planning Board, on December 20, 2005, 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, plans entitled "Topographic Map" dated 9115105, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. "site Section Looking East (A -1.0), "North Elevation / South Elevation" (A -1.1), "East Elevation / West Elevation" (A -1.2), "North Elevation / South Elevation (rendering)" (A -1.3), "East Elevation / West Elevation (rendering)" (A -1.4), "Preliminary Site Plan" (C1.1), "Preliminary Utility Plan" (0.2), "Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" (C1.3), "Preliminary Materials & Layout" (L1.0), "Preliminary Grading Plan" (L1.1), "Preliminary Planting Plan" (L1.2), "Preliminary Planting Plan - Floor 2" (Lj.3), dated 11/18/05, prepared by T G. Miller, P.C., and Robert A. M. Stern Architects, and other application material, and Planning Board Minutes . December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 4. 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 RESOL VED: 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 RESOL VED: 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 provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617.12. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 8:42 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College School of Business building located north of Job and Friends Halls on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 =1 -30.2 and 41 -1- 30.4,. Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a new +/= 36,500 square foot building which will include new classrooms, faculty offices, conference rooms, and an atrium for the School of Business. The project will also include new lighting,. walkways, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and a +/- 3,780 square foot green roof. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicants Fred Vanderburgh, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:42 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions of Ithaca College or their agents with regard to the site plan or the special permit? 41. Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006. Board Member Talty — I just want to say that I appreciate being able to see all your, drawings. A lot of the folks the come before us, we are squinting or there is too much on the board.. These are very easily read and I appreciate that. Chairperson Wilcox - .Usually we give David a chance to talk about utilities and all that, do we care at this point? Nope. Okay. Board Member Conneman — Minimal. Mr. Kanter - I just want .to mention that I did get a call from Tom Parsons from the Ithaca City Fire Department late this afternoon and he did confirm that he met with Ithaca College representatives. He says that prior to final site plan approval he will need to work out some details regarding, we are talking about accessibility; his concern is accessibility of the fire trucks and equipment. So he said that should be workable, but there still is a little bit more to go on that. He also will be looking at possible locations of fire hydrant in the area, but other than that, he seemed to be okay with it. Chairperson Wilcox — And Fred you have an expectation that by widening that walk they will be able to back up on that walk. Mr. Vanderburgh That is one option. What I asked Tom to do, I told him to go back and take a look at it. He went back up to the site and he was going to familiarize himself better with the drawings.; I gave him a set and he was going to the ,site and then when he gets back to the department and talk to other people about what he has found through his survey, they were going to evaluate that and then send us a letter. I told him to put it in writing as to what he thought his recommendations would be on the building and site and then we would address them per point. Chairperson Wilcox — You expect to be able to find a solution? Mr. Vanderburgh — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Which would require minimal changes to the site plan? Okay. Mr. Vanderburgh — Like I said, we really don't want to take that connector piece out. I mean that really solves a lot of problems with accessibility on campus and I understand his concerns, but... Chairperson Wilcox — And your sense is that the fire department is willing to work with you to try to come up with a site plan that solves both accessibility issues. Okay. 42. Planning Board Minutes . December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board, with none, he closes the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. Board Member Mitrano - Move it. Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Tracy. Seconded by the Chair. The board votes on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2005 -127; Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Ithaca 'College School of Business, Ithaca College Campus - North of Job and Friends Hall, Tax Parcel No. 's 41 -1 -30, 2 and 41 -1 -30.4 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. WHEREAS; 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College School of Business building located north of Job and Friends Halls on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. . The proposal includes the construction of a new +1- 36,500 square foot building which will include new classrooms, faculty offices, conference rooms, and an atrium for the School of Business. The project will also include new lighting, walkways, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and a +/- 3,780 square foot green roof. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent, and 2. 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 Height Variance, on December 20, . 2005, made. a negative determination of environmental significance, after having 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, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on December 20, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Topographic Map" dated 9115105, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. "Site Section Looking East" (A -1.0), "North Elevation /South Elevation "(A -1.1), "East Elevation/ West Elevation "(A - 1.2), "North Elevation / South Elevation. (rendering)" (A -1.3), "East Elevation / West Elevation (rendering)" (A -1.4), "Preliminary Site Plan" (C1.1), "Preliminary Utility Plan" (C1.2), "Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" (C1.3), "Preliminary. Materials & Layout" (L1.0), "Preliminary Grading Plan" (L1.1), "Preliminary Planting Plan'' (L1.2), "Preliminary Planting Plan. - Floor 2" (L1.3), 43 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 dated 11118105, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., and Robert A.M. Stern Architects, . and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the construction of the Ithaca College School of Business finding that the standards of Article "IV Section 270 200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, with the exception that in Subsection G., the proposed building height would exceed the height permitted in the Medium Density Residential Zone (Section 270 -70), therefore, this Special Permit is conditioned upon receiving the necessary variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals in regards to Section 270 -70, and AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements .for Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan. Checklist; having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the construction of the proposed Ithaca College School of Business located north of Job and Friends Hall, as shown on the plans titled "Topographic Map dated 9115105, prepared by T. G. Miller, P.C. "Site Section Looking East" (A -1.0), "North Elevation / South Elevation" (A -1.1), "East Elevation / . West Elevation" (A -1.2), "North Elevation / South Elevation (rendering)" (A -1.3), "East Elevation / West Elevation (rendering)" (A -1.4), "Preliminary Site Plan" (0.1), "Preliminary Utility Plan" (Cl. 2), "Preliminary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan" (C1.3), "Preliminary Materials & Layout" (LI.0), . "Preliminary Grading Plan" (L1.1), "Preliminary Planting Plan" (L1.2), "Preliminary Planting Plan Floor 2" (L1.3), dated 11/18/05, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C, and Robert A.M. Stern Architects, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of a final landscape plan and planting schedule for the roof garden and surrounding the building, including existing vegetation to be retained, prior to F/nal Site Plan Approval, and bc submission of a lighting plan and cut sheets for all proposed exterior light fixtures (including wall and canopy lights), prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and Planning Board Minutes . December 20, 2005 Approved January 3,. 2006 ce submission of building designs including finishes, colors, and other usual building details, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and d.. submission of building floor plans, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and e. granting of the height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and f, submission of project details, including but not limited to all utilities,, walkways, driveways, and g, submission of materials showing the size, location and design of any proposed signs, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and he submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and the Notice of Intent for NYSDEC, and water and /or sewage system approval_ from Tompkins County Health Department. A vote on the motion resulted as follows; AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SEQR Alden / Baer 2 -Lot Subdivision, 734 Elm Street Extension & J PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 734 Elm Street Extension, Town- of. Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.224, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the currently vacant +/m 4.699 -acre parcel into two parcels of +/- 2.0 acres and +/- 2.699 acres for future residential development. Barbara Alden Guttridge and Ellen Baer, Owners /Applicants. These agenda items were postponed at the request of the applicant. Approval of Minutes November 29, 2005 and December 6, 2005 45 December 6, 2005 Planning Board Minutes December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Conneman, RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the November 29, 2005 and December 6, 2005 minutes as the official minutes of the Town, of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.• Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.. NA YS: None. ABSTAIN; Hoffmann The vote on the motion was carried OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox raises the concern about his term and term expiring at the end of the year and that they would January 2006 meeting. Attorney Barney explains that acc law, a person remains in office until. the Town Board another person to that position. Board Member Conneman's not be reappointed until the ording to the public officer's reappointments or appoints The board discusses the start time of the January 3, 2006 meeting and decides to start the meeting at 6:30 p.m. The board discusses the TGEIS process and holding the second scoping session when Cornell is out of session. The board. determines that the public will have and has had plenty of opportunity to submit comments on the scoping document and will be able to comment on. the final scoping document again before the board adopts the scoping document. Mr. Kanter gives the board an overview of the January 3rd agenda. The board discusses parking at the La Tourelle site and the fill sitting on the site. Mr. Smith informs the board that Mr. Wiggins has submitted plans to address parking problems. Also discussed are temporary storage facilities, called PODS, and how zoning would apply to them. we Planning Board Minutes . December 20, 2005 Approved January 3, 2006 AD30URNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the December 20, 2005 Planning Board meeting at 9:14 p:m. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Coates Whitmore Deputy Town Clerk 47 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, December 20, 2005 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:051P.M1 SEQR Determination: Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, Conifer Drive. 7 :05 P:M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site,Plan Approval, Preliminary Subdivision Approval and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a zoning change for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community proposal consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit independent living rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on an 9.0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone. The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property is planned to be developed into a residential subdivision in the future. The proposal involves a +/ 80,555 square foot, three -story building, an 82 -space parking lot, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities. The project also includes a secondary "emergency only" access drive to NYS Route 79. This secondary access will utilize the western -most portion of the private road constructed for the completed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase III and II projects, (the west end of Cypress Court), to provide a connection between the senior apartments project site to the north and Route 79 to the south. This will require construction of a short driveway segment from Cypress Court, through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of the Linderman Creek ...Apartment Phase II and III site, to Route 79, thus requiring Site Plan Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II.and III project, on Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 -13.18 and 27 -1- 13.17. The proposal also requires a rezoning request for the 9.0 +/- acres from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey, Agent. 8:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Ithaca College School of Business, Danby Road. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College School of Business building located north of Job and Friends Halls on the Ithaca College campus, .Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of anew +/- 36,500 square foot building which will include new classrooms, faculty offices, conference rooms, and an atrium for the School of Business. The project will also include new lighting, walkways, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and a +/- 3,780 square foot green roof. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent. 8:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Alden / Baer 2 -Lot Subdivision, 734 Elm Street Extension, 8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 734 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.224, Medium Density Residential Zone. The.proposal involves subdividing the currently vacant +/- 4.699 -acre parcel into two parcels of +/- 2.0 acres and +/- 2.699 acres for future residential development. Barbara Alden Guttridge and Ellen Baer, Owners /Applicants. 8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 9. Approval of Minutes: November 29, 2005 and December 6, 2005. 10. Other Business: Discuss possibility of starting January 3�a meeting at 6:30 p.m. 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 ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, December 20, 2005 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, December 20, 2005, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y.; at the following times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Preliminary Subdivision Approval and a recommendation to the Town Board regarding a zoning change for the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community proposal consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit independent living rental . project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on an 9.0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27- 1- 13.162, Medium Density Residential Zone. The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property is planned to be. developed into a residential subdivision in the future. The proposal involves a +/- 80,555 square foot, three -story building, an 82 -space parking lot, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities. The project also includes a secondary "emergency only" access drive to NYS Route 79. This secondary access will utilize the western -most portionl of the private road constructed for the completed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase III and II projects, (the west end of Cypress Court), to provide a connection between the senior apartments project site to the north and Route 79 to the south. This will require construction of a short driveway segment from Cypress Court, through a previously disturbed but undeveloped portion of the Linderman Creek . . Apartment Phase II and III site, to Route 79, thus requiring Site Plan Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase II and III project, on Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 -13.18 and 27-1 - 13.17. The proposal also requires a rezoning request for the 9.0 +/- acres from Medium Density Residential to Multiple Residence. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Ithaca College School of Business building located north of Job and Friends Halls on the Ithaca College campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2 and 41 -1 -30.4, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a new +/- 36,500 square foot building which will include new classrooms, faculty offices, conference rooms, and an atrium for the School of Business. The project will also include new lighting, walkways, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and a +/- 3,780 square foot green roof. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Fred Vanderburgh, Agent, 8:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at.734 Elm Street Extension, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 28 -1- 28.224, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the currently vacant +/- 4.699 -acre parcel into two parcels of +/- 2.0 acres and +/- 2.699 acres for future residential development. Barbara Alden Guttridge and Ellen Baer, Owners /Applicants, 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. Dated: Monday, December 12, 2005 Publish: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 r Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 f I I TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: December 20, 2005 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION �\ l n i jut / Q� �, ra �to a 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, December 20, 2005 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: December 12, 2005 December 14, 2005 �•dna. Qo2� Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th day of December 2005. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York . No. 01CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County 20 Commission Expires December 261 ©�