Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-12-20FILE < <�
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 ©�