Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-01-03FILE REGULAR MEETING DATE �! i TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairpersons Eva Hoffmann, Board Members Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Members Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member, Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Christine Balestra, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED George Conneman, Board Member; Dan Walker, Director of. Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner. OTHERS Bruce and Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road, Nancy Schuler, East Hill, Brenda Smith, Cornell University; Fay Gougakis, 406 Utica Street; Jonathan Miller, Forest Home Improvement Association; Annette Marchesseault, Trowbridge & Wolf; John Yengo, 1147 Danby Road; Scott Tobey, 903 Wyckoff Road; Doug Pokorney, Hayts Road; Ron Knewstub, 180 Calkins Road; Frank Santelli, TG Miller, Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Elizabeth Sanders, 16 The Byway;. Karel Sedlacek, 15 Fairway Drive; Susan Brock, 306 East State Street; Patricia Fain, 133` King Road West; Allan Chambliss, 14 Middaugh Road; Tony Egner,,Egner Architectures Gordon Nickerson, 522 Sheffield Road. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting .duly opened at 6:33 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 23, 2005 and December 28, 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 28, 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. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3006 Approved. SECOND PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Consideration of the Draft Scope outline (dated November. 15, 2005) for the proposed Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) and the associated transportation- focused Generic Environmental ` ..Impact Statement (t -GEIS) being jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. The t -GEIS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will evolve in response to the feedback obtained from the t -GEIS process, and may include recommendations for transportation demand management, multi -modal transportation strategies, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes. Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge. Copies of the Draft Scope outline are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street,: Ithaca, NY (607 -273= 1747), and on the website for this project: www.tgeisproject.ora. Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 6:34 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - Ladies and gentlemen, as you know, we had our first public scoping session two weeks ago. Unfortunately we started late, ran late. We thought it appropriate to have a second one. For those of you who come to these meetings often our normal start time is 7:00 p.m. We have purposely started this meeting at 6:30 p.m. in order to accommodate the members of the public who either could not attend before, were able to attend and could not stay, or those people having reviewed those materials may have had nothing to say before and have a statement to make now or have additional comments to make. We ask that if you have made comments previously that you not repeat them this time. We either have your statements or what you said as part of the minutes: Having said that, I do not place time limits on public speaking sessions here. That means that it..is your responsibility to stick to the topic,.. stay on point, and having said that, I will not call on anybody in any particular order. I ask that you raise your hands and when you do I will call on you and we will be very glad to hear what you have to say. Kathy, would you like to make a statement ? - I'm sorry; I should offer you that opportunity first. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects Thank you. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge and Wolf Landscape Architects, 1001 West Seneca Street. I will be just very brief. Again, I just wanted to, again, remind the board as well as the public regarding the primary purpose of this project. And that is to identify strategies to encourage alternatives to single occupancy vehicle trips by the Cornell: population. We are looking at moving people to campus, not necessarily cars. This project is seeking global solutions that will achieve reduced dependence on a. single occupancy vehicle. This is not an evaluation. of a specific project or is a traditional traffic study. Rather, by proactively looking ahead and emphasizing alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle, the intention is to, avoid many of the 2 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved traditional traffic approaches such as road widening, adding turning lanes, or adding a traffic light. So again, we really want to emphasize that we are trying to ` encourage alternatives to the single occupancy vehicle. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Kathryn. Ladies and gentlemen, the public hearing is open. Faye Gougakis, 406 Utica Street Good evening. My name is Faye Gougakis. I live in downtown Ithaca, Fall ,Creek, 406 Utica Street.. I am here again because I am deeply concerned with the lack of addition, inclusion of the downtown City of Ithaca, which is largely and tremendously impacted by people coming in and out of the City, with major employers being Cornell and Ithaca College. I find it very ironic to hear a statement right before `me as to what this traffic study implies. I don't know why we are here today because if it is only for Cornell's purpose, to get people to try to eliminate a one person vehicle, then basically this whole study doesn't mean anything. They can do that by themselves. Okay? I urge you that this study needs to be broadened; otherwise it is a waste of time. I have spoken already to somebody on Common Council. I am going to the City of Ithaca's Common Council meeting tomorrow. I am going to urge the Mayor to make a public statement along with the Common Council about this. Downtown Ithaca is not included in this study.. I think the. reason that it is not so important to Cornell is because I don't really think that this study is really going to do much, to talk about the effects of the areas that they are listing here. Okay? It is .a very single targeted, you know, plan that they are going after. So I live downtown. I walk downtown. I ride a bicycle downtown and the speeding has gotten worse. It is scary to walk across the street. We have now the Ciminelli project. It is nice that Cornell came downtown, but that means 300 more cars, more of an impact. So if we are serious about doing this study, we have to deal with issues of speeding, with the issues of people using cell phones, the issues of the typical traffic study. Basically I am emphasizing this again because I was pretty outraged that after this meeting last time there was basically nothing in the local media about this concern and let me just add that Joanne Cornish, who is the Deputy Planning Commissioner of the City of Ithaca, was here and she talked about the very same things. The exclusion of downtown Ithaca, the speeding, and the cell phone. Other individuals who spoke last time talked about speeding in their neighborhoods. So to not discuss this in a serious way, to eliminate downtown Ithaca shows very, very bad faith. So I am basically asking for this whole thing to be changed and to include downtown Ithaca and to include other serious traffic problems that needs to be studied because Cornell and let me end with this. Cornell is a huge impact to our City and I t 3 take pride that I live in the City of Ithaca. are a huge impact. 1. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006. Approved. Otherwise I would not be here. But they And what they said a couple of minutes ago. is pretty, actually very insulting to the City. of Ithaca and other people, other parties involved. Basically they are saying, well we just care about how people go back and forth to Cornell and to wherever they are going and that is it. And we are trying to reduce people from driving by themselves. That is basically what I heard this time and last time. Like I said, I'm hoping that the Mayor of Ithaca and other Common Council people will be coming forward and addressing this issue.. Why they haven't done so already I don't know. But I have also spoken to somebody else in the traffic department in Ithaca, who also is very, very concerned about this. So maybe they aren't coming forward, but there is a lot of concern on how this is playing out. So anyway, thank you for your time. Jonathan Miller, 4 The Byway I am Jonathan Miller. I live at 4 The Byway in Forest Home. I am the President of the Forest Home Improvement Association and I .have about a minute_ and a, half of a. statement, maybe two or three. First we would like to thank the Planning Board for the opportunity to comment on the draft scope of the Town of Ithaca Cornell University Transportation Focused GEIS and appreciate, especially, the chance to have a second hearing, which gave us time to sit down with the document as a neighborhood and really hash some of the things out, read it closely and comment and debate it internally. I speak for the residents of Forest Home when I say, that we are very concerned about the document under review and a source of that concern is simple. The stated purpose of the study is , to "address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increase in population traveling to Cornell We applaud that. It is hard to imagine a .more pressing issue for those of us who live near the University. Yet, every mention of neighborhoods, roads, or intersections in the draft is in relation to their impact on the flow of traffic and not vice versa.. We are not reading between the lines when we say this. That is what is written in this draft. The current draft outlines an effort to identify, predict and find ways to mitigate the transportation problems faced by Corn ell's students, employees, suppliers and service providers as the University grows. It does not outline an effort to identify, predict, or mitigate the problems that traffic creates or for that matter the problems that certain mitigation measures may .create for the neighborhood surrounding Cornell or for the broader community. Tonight we are handing you a set a recommended changes (attachment #1) that are intended to remedy this. They are the product of much discussion among neighbors and many hours of work. We have tried to make the document itself very easy to follow. It is based upon the draft itself with annotations. Bruce Brittain will guide you through some of the details shortly, I assume. Please note that these EA I Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved . recommendations are endorsed by the representatives, not just of Forest Home, but of. Collegetown, Cornell Heights, Ellis Hollow and University Hill, all of whom have signed the cover memo that I will deliver to you in a second. We thank you in advance for considering this carefully and we look forward to working with the Town and Cornell in a truly inclusive forward looking process. Thanks. Bruce and Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Road Mr. B. Brittain - I feel I need to point out that I have a PhD in Engineering from Cornell University. Doug has a Masters from MIT in technology and policy with a focus on transportation related issues. So this really is up our alley. While we worked with Forest Home, worked for Forest Home, and live in Forest Home, working on this document we tried to approach it professionally taking into account viewpoints of Cornell and other neighborhoods besides Forest Home. What I would like to do is quickly go through the changes that you see here. We have done the strikethrough and bold. The additions are in bold and the strikethroughs are proposed deletions. So if you are ready, the first paragraph, we have added a sentence at the bottom. "'A major objective of the TGEIS is to develop ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods on their way to and from Cornell University." This is not stated verbally, lets go ahead and put it in writing in the document. Third paragraph, added an intro sentence. "The TGEIS will not recommend ways to accommodate an increase in traffic flow through residential neighborhoods, but will instead explore and recommend ways to limit this traffic and reduce its impacts." Again this has been stated verbally, lets put that in writing. The next sentence we are proposing striking out. These are things that the TGEIS won't analyze. Striking 'visual resources ", "air quality ", "and historical and archaeological resources ". Those need to. be studied. Those are traffic impacts. That is part of what it means to look at the impact of traffic on neighborhoods. At the end of that paragraph adding a sentence, "Neighborhoods will be active partners not only in assessing the impact of current and anticipated scenarios, but also in proposing and selecting among mitigation strategies Reassurance for the neighborhoods who is going to be choosing the mitigation measures. Chairperson Wilcox - Before you go on, I have scanned ahead and noticed the amount of material that is either new or has been deleted. Are you going to reference every line that you have added? Mr. B. Brittain — It actually goes fairly quickly, but yes. That was our intent. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to take 20 minutes. 5 Town of Ithaca Planning: Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved. Mr. B. Brittain — I know, but I think it will take less time to explain this quickly as we go through, but thank you. Page 2, beginning of the second paragraph changing "reduce" to "avoid or compensate for Trying to make this a more positive statement, not just reducing how big things get, but I think we can make a positive change.. Adding, "the purpose to ensure that the livability..." again, clarifying the purpose. This has been said verbally. The next sentence, "TIMS may include recommendations for..." we added in traffic calming,. diversion, and relocation. Under zoning, we have changed that for campus land. I am assuming that zoning changes.were not intended residential neighborhoods. Then the. final sentence, "specific mitigation measures will be selected..." again that is the Planning Board should be the one who decides and not Cornell. Lets make that clear. The bottom of that page, we can summarize that. Really, that gets spelled.out later, but just looking at various measures of Cornell's growth and using historical relationships to estimate growth of proposed projects as they come up. Page 3, first full paragraph, at the bottom of the paragraph adding, "decreased use of single occupancy vehicles ". The way that ended was the goal is increased use of alternate modes. It isn't per se. The goal is decreased use of SOVs through alternate modes. Later down, we add 7 through 11. This is relationship to existing plans, 'the Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan, Tompkins County Travel Survey ". This is the 1988 origin and destination study. Tremendous amount of information. Add that in. The "Cornell University Employee Commuter Studies ". This past summer they did a study. They have done them before. This is vital information for this project. That should be included. Plus there are studies for .Campus Development, Transportation, Parking Access. Cornell has plans. I think you, the board, need to know what those plans are to be able to judge what is going on.. Page 4, adding 6 through 10. We are under_ the heading of, "Existing Single Occupancy Vehicle Reduction Programs ". Free bus passes for students, van - pooling, these are things that are already going on. So the way it was introduced before these were introduced just under Section .5, solutions, but these are already going on. 3.1.4., this said it will not study weekend or weekday, nonpeak hour traffic. We changed that to, it may not study it, but lets also seek to limit. Simply displacing a vehicle from rush hour doesn't make it disappear. We want to keep the focus on evening rush. hour traffic, but not to the exclusion of the other impacts during the day. The rest of that page, page 4, the level of service studies looks at how long it takes a driver to get through an intersection. That may be of interest, but it's of .minor interest. It doesn't deal with livability of neighborhoods. or impacts on neighborhoods. So we were really temped to drop this section, we left it in in a spirit of compromise. If the report gets too .long, I would think this would be the first place to cut. We left it in. We decided not to be cutting. M9 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 . Approved The top of Page 5, we added Bryant Park, the whole neighborhood around Belle Sherman: We also added Pine Tree /Snyder Hill/ Honness. I don't know if that functions as one neighborhood or three, but there it is. Someone before mentioned East Ithaca. The East Ithaca neighborhoods, has been mentioned, the City, West Hill. I don't know where you want to draw the boundaries, but we need at least this much and add more if you wish. Accident data was an oversight, 3.1.4.6. 3.1.5.2., contemplated parking facilities. We have heard that Cornell is planning on putting up parking garages in. the City near, the Town border. That will change commuting patterns and I think that is something that you need to be aware of. 3.1.6., Neighborhood Livability. This missing section; this is the purpose of the study, is to look at neighborhood livability issues, is missing, we stuck it in. There are several things. 3.1.7.; Growth of Cornell and its Traffic, another. missing section. It should be possible to just take a look at a variety of measures that are just listed there of Cornell's growth and. then correlate that with traffic growth and come up with a predictor equation. Then you should be able to say this many square feet causes this much traffic, or this many students or ... so I, think that for your planning that would be a critical thing to know. A project of this size will cause this much growth. This information _exists. It just needs to be pulled together in one place. Page 6, we have finally gotten into Section 4. We added this new section. We took it in as 4.0. It should be 4.1, but it would have changed all the numbering, but Cornell's growth and looking at different ways to look at Cornell's growth and then, well, lets just look at say, 4.0.1.1, increase in automotive traffic generated by Cornell related households. We've got a, commuting trips to Cornell, which is 2 trips per day. But then b, these are the other trips generated by Cornell related households. If a new household comes to Ithaca, the typical single family detached home,. 10 trips per day. Two of those are your commuting trips. The other 8 are to school, shopping, and if we are going to be looking .at Cornell related. household traffic impacts, we have to look at all 100% of those. We can't just look at the 20% that are commuting and disregard the other 80 %. So we specifically stuck that in. The same with transit vehicles. Service and delivery, if there are more households, there is more shopping, there is more, there will need to be more deliveries made by trucks in the area. So look at all of those effects of traffic growth. 4.1., we added the sentence, "actual growth and impacts (and appropriate mitigation measures) will depend on individual projects." That is just In there as a reminder that these hypothetical growth rates are just hypothetical. The actual impacts will depend on actual growth. We added two more possible scenarios, 5 and 6. Cornell has been growing, if you look at gross square footage, the last 100 years Cornell has grown 3% per year. So lets go ahead and look at that one. We added scenario 6 as a worst case, or a best case depending upon how you look at it. But I think if you do any scenarios, look at a big one. It is beyond historical growth rate, but lets see what the effect would be. At the bottom of the page we added .b, we are down now looking at impacts. Number "a" was looking at the impacts on sidewalks. We also need to look at the impacts on pedestrians themselves. 7 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved. If walking is a safe, enjoyable activity, people will do it no matter how wide the sidewalk is. Same thing top of page 7, bicyclists. We can't just look at the bicycle facilities; we. have to look at the impact on the cyclists themselves. Further down that page, 6 through 10, we have added, again, this is similar to before, impacts on existing programs. We need to be complete, what are the existing programs. 4.2.4.4., this is the general section.. is impacts on vehicular circulation. So we have added there, "including limits to through - traffic inherent to residential neighborhoods ". So neighborhoods don't make good through4raffic roads. The school bus. will be stopped in the morning and that just stops traffic. There are garbage trucks, mail trucks. There will always be problems with trying to get cars through residential neighborhoods. 4.3., neighborhood livability, again, this is a major omission. If we are looking at impacts, we need to look at the impacts of neighborhood livability. Again, commuting trips, other trips, same format as before. Transit, service, delivery. Continuing onto Page 8. Getting down into Section 5, mitigation and strategies, we added the word "potential ", to be consistent with other sections and also we don't know what will come out of this so lets make these potential improvements. We added "d. description of development of light -rail service ". I personally don't hold a lot of hope for trolley, but a few years ago, people movers, Cornell was talking about we need people movers. So who knows what will come out of .this study or come out of years ahead, but lets not preclude light rail. A little further down, number 11, "fewer work days per week, without reducing hours ". This is another way of, and that actually will reduce traffic, not just reschedule it to other times of the day. The County has been experimenting with this with 4 10 -hour workdays. Page 9, large block. Again, this was the missing section, a major omission. If the purpose in the study is to address impacts on neighborhoods. then what are the impacts on neighborhoods and how can they be addressed. Similar format as before, looking at automotive vehicles, ways to reduce the number and the impact of remaining vehicle. Same for transit, service, delivery and construction. Reduce the number of them; reduce the impact of those remaining vehicles. Finally, parking. The potential measure to reduce Cornell parking in residential neighborhoods. Onto .Page 10, no changes on Page 10. Onto Page 11, we added one intersection, Caldwell Road and Route 366 Intersection. We could add more and we could subtract a lot. It is missing all the major intersections on campus. It is missing major intersections downtown, maybe we should add them, but on the other hand maybe we could eliminate this whole section of looking at level of service analysis for intersections because I think it is really just peripheral to this study. So I hope that didn't take too much time, but I went through it quickly. If you have specific questions we are happy to answer them or:.. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Board Member Mitrano — What kind of engineering is you doctorate in? Mr. B. Brittain — I started in mechanical engineering and picked up ag engineering and ag safety and went into human factors. Then recently I have. been doing transportation. Board Member Mitrano — What kind of technology? Mr. D. Brittain— Mechanical engineering is my undergrad. Mr. B. Brittain — But it was transportation engineering policy. Mr. D. Brittain -.But it is essentially training to be a policy analyst. Board Member Hoffmann — I wanted to thank you very much for taking the time to think through this so carefully as you have done, obviously, and organizing your thoughts and putting it in writing. That makes the work that we have to do so much easier. So thank you. Mr. B. Brittain — It forced us to really focus on this and what was here and what was missing and what is the best way to present it and it seemed like this was the best way. Mr. D. Brittain — And it made us realize.1.(not audible). .Board Member Mitrano — Let me ask a question, Kathy began with a statement and I jotted a little bit of it down someplace. She said that this study has a very. singular. focus, to reduce single occupancy vehicles to campus. What would your reaction be if, notwithstanding this very thoughtful and careful work as Eva has just complimented you on, is that they don't want to study the impacts on neighborhoods, they just want to study how to reduce the number. of single occupancy vehicles going to and from campus? Mr. B. Brittain Well, that would change ... I think if you go back to the positive environmental declaration that said the purpose was to reduce impacts on neighborhoods. So that quote, I think ]on read that quote earlier. Address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increase in population traveling to Cornell. So that is how this process started. So that is what we based this on. I think reducing single occupancy vehicles is a very lotable goal, but unfortunately the way that this, was written, and it's a subset of this, but the way that the scope had been written that was not in there. So what was in there was looking at getting vehicles to campus and reducing the delay times. at intersections to get vehicles... So what has been stated verbally and what. was written are two separate 91 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved. things. We tried to pull the verbal announcements plus the pos dec announcement and make this scope follow those. Board Member Mitrano — So in essence, you are urging Cornell to either broaden, depending upon if you are going to take one set of statements, or to make sure that they include all of these areas whether they were or were not stated in the previous presentations or documents that they have offered on this issue? Mr. D. Brittain — We are proposing that they fulfill the purpose of the GEIS and have come up with what we think would be a way to do it. And we think that without these changes it would not fulfill its stated purpose. Board Member Mitrano Who's doing GEIS? Cornell? Who is doing this? Chairperson Wilcox — We as a board decide what they do. Board Member Mitrano _ We as a board decide what they do. Chairperson Wilcox — They do the work or their consultants. Board Member . Mitrano — And even though this is not a project as everything, else, say on our agenda tonight, with a specific outcome. So...? Chairperson Wilcox — Kathryn might make a closing statement depending on what she has heard this evening, but they will develop strategies. They are going to compile information and strategies and mitigation measures so that when they have a project, a specific project, they have a toolbox of mitigation measures and strategies and things like that that have already been studied and evaluated. That is my take on it. Board Member Hoffmann — The difference between the typical environmental impact statement we do for a project, and this one, is that this one is a generic environmental impact statement, which means, you know, it covers a lot of things that are not set, but which one could imagine happening. You pointed out ... you brought up something, which puzzled me a little bit.. I noticed that what Ms. Wolf said or read this evening was pretty much exactly what she said at the December 6th meeting, according to the minutes and the purpose, that she mentions is not in the document that we got on November 15th where it is neither under the purpose of the transportation focused generic environmental impact statement nor under purpose of scoping under scope. It sounds like its been narrowed down. Board Member.Mitrano — My questions are ... (not audible) 10 { Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Before we get into a discussion, I would like to give the public a chance to speak. And we need to have this discussion, whether it happens tonight and we begin it tonight or in two weeks. We will have this discussion. Mr. Kanter — I was just going to say to reiterate what you were saying, we do have a pretty long agenda and also the transportation consultants are not here tonight to provide further answers to questions and feedback. Chairperson Wilcox - Some of the consultants are not here tonight. Mr. Kanter The...Cornell's transportation consultants are not here tonight. So they won't be able to respond to questions or discuss with the board. They will be here and available on January 17th. So I think tonight, if there is time, the board should have some of these general discussions, but again I don't think there is really going to be time to get too far into it. Unless of course, you want to stay until Midnight. Board Member Thayer — No. Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, gentlemen. Elizabeth Sanders, 16 The Byway Ms. Sanders - Elizabeth Sanders. I teach at Cornell and I live in Forest Home and I am an officer of the Forest Home Association. If the document that we have worked with and spent many hours on in my neighborhood it is so different from the way that the purpose of this study was phrased. Maybe they need to give us another document because this one, as my predecessors have pointed out, is really about moving traffic and mitigating transportation impacts, which we took to mean widening roads and maybe taking out houses and making bridges bigger, easing the flow of traffic through. That is not, of course, where we want to go. The way ... (not audible) ... phrased the situation, which also is very different from the way the first speaker put it. Cornell would come...would say okay we are going to build this building, we want to do this and here is our kit bag of ,mitigation tools. That is not really where our neighborhood would like to go either because that accepts as given that there must be a lot of building and spreading out of facilities and for every facility there has to be hundreds of new parking spaces. I understand that you recently just pretty much granted Cornell all their new parking spaces it needed at East Hill Plaza and there is already a huge parking lot there. I would propose from my vantage point and a lot of people that I have worked with, for example the Red Bud faculty and student working groups over the summer, struggling with Cornell to pull it into the 21St century. What we would like to see is really a new vision that doesn't just assume ever - increasing amounts of traffic, ever more concretization. There is an adage that a lot of people on this campus know about 11 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved that I learned about this summer from transportation planners, which is if you build it they will drive. If you build new road, if you build new parking lot, more people will drive. So you are never going to get around the problem of more driving and of global warming,. which is something that we really have to think about. I think our administration would probably... Chairperson Wilcox — Could I rein you back in a little bit? Ms. Sanders — Yes ... No.,'I think... look... we have to consider the big picture. The more driving, the more global warming. We are seeing already the impacts of global warming.. The more that we get rid of green space here, let me put it in more concrete terms then. Many economists are recognizing the economic services provided by the environment. The green space that soaks up water. The trees. that absorb carbon. The cooling effect of leaving green space. We really have to keep those big values in perspective. We can't just let the Cornell administration. come to us and say, hey, we are going to lay down more concrete and we'll just say, okay, well, could you reduce it from 240 to 235 spaces? We have to ask hard questions about limiting automobile driving and having smaller scale public transportation, not huge buses going around empty. Encouraging walking and biking. There is nothing in that document that encourage walking or biking. As a biker and walker who almost never uses a car and has never had a Cornell parking space, I can tell you that I have fallen.on my bike. I have been side swiped. I have no cartilage in my right knee. In the Red Bud faculty. working group, there were 4 bikers... Chairperson Wilcox — Ma'am, I've got to rein you in, please. Ms. Sanders — This is about safety. We have to consider that.... Chairperson Wilcox — Ma'am, please be considerate of the people who also wish to speak tonight. Ms. Sanders — Okay, but I am talking. about very big, very important things that have nothing to do with just moving traffic... Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to know what changes you think should be made to the draft proposed. Ms. Sanders — I would like changes along the lines that the Brittain Brothers have put. forward, which are excellent suggestions. In general I will take the first speaker at her word that we need to encourage biking and walking. We have to make it safer. There are almost no sidewalks in my neighborhood. When you walk, you walk in the street. There is no enforcement of snow clearing from the few sidewalks that exist so when you walk in the winter, you walk in the street. I fell in a pothole and reinjured my ankle 12 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved only two weeks ago because of what little pathway there Was, was completely covered with ice. We really discourage biking and walking around here. We could do so much... more.to encourage those alternatives and would be helping the.global warming and the obesity epidemic and a lot of other big situations. So I think put Cornell's ingenuity to work there. Make this a green campus. Put us really on the map for alternatives to driving .. That is what it is all about. That is what we have to encourage. It is a whole new kind of thinking. Robert Moses is dead and gone much vilified.. We can't just think in terms of an auto - centered world. We contribute 27% of all greenhouse gases. We can't just keep driving like we are driving now forever. Chairperson Wilcox = Thank you. Karel Sedlacek, 15 Fairway Drive Mr. Sedlacek — My name is Karel Sedlacek and I live at 15 Fairway. Drive in Forest Home. My question is basically, how does this process, what are the next steps in this process? You have a full agenda this evening and you have commentary on the documentation. What will be your next steps and what will be the next opportunities . for the public to reengage with the process or is it a process that now flows forward without further public commentary or how does this work? Chairperson Wilcox — I'll start because I don't have the SEQR cookbook in front of me. At this point I would anticipate that at our next meeting, two weeks from tonight on the 17th that this board will engage in a discussion of what we believe the scope of the environment impact statement should be or of the environmental impact study should be. Cornell, I believe or their representatives, will present a revised draft - scoping outline at that meeting or before that meeting so that we can read it and prepare. It will include the comments the public has made. It may include changes based upon public comment. It may potentially include. explanation why certain ideas the public has brought forth shouldn't be included. We will discuss that amongst ourselves. We will discuss it with the University employees, consultants who are here and we will make a decision to ... whether that happens in two weeks or it happens at the following meeting .in February, we will make a decision that' finalizes the scope, if you will, of the environmental review that they will do. Then they will set off to do their homework and to do the work that they said they would do. Mr. Kanter — Then there would be public hearing opportunities during the actual environmental impact statement process as that develops. Normally the situation is when the draft generic environmental impact statement is completed that will be circulated to interested parties and made available well before the scheduled public hearing and again there could be one or more public hearing opportunities at that point. Again that is up to the board to determine how that will work. 13. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — I cannot overstate the importance of these public hearings on the.. scope of the document. I would: speculate that our legislators in New York when they came .up with the SEQR requirements, regulations realized that one of the potential issues with an environmental impact statement is is that the public could come in during the preparation and continually ask for more things to be studied whether it was an attempt to actually investigate potential issues or a .means to stall the project through expanding its scope and its cost. Hence, these public scoping sessions to come up with the items to be studies and to prevent the continual addition of new items to the list of issues to be studied. That is why ... given the importance of this study; this,is why we decided to hold two of these public - scoping sessions instead of the normal one. Board Member Mitrano — Refresh my recollection, though.. If there is any particular project that comes forward Cornell is not exempt by virtue of this study from having to do an environmental impact statement for that particular project. Chairperson Wilcox — That is correct. Mr. Kanter — For the record, it wouldn't necessarily be an environmental impact statement. It would be an environmental review. So it may range from a short environmental assessment form to the long. form to an environmental impact statement. Board Member Mitrano — As happened before and will happen again.- Mr. Kanter — Exactly. Board Member Mitrano — So this is a study and this is not about a particular project. Chairperson Wilcox — What is the' most recent one in memory? Southwest Park in the City? Where the City undertook the review themselves. Then as each project came in that provided information as part of the environmental review for each one. Mr. Sedlacek — Ms. Mitrano brought up a question. The difference between an environmental .impact study and a generic one and I understand that there are these reviews that are small or different sized scopes. So the question I have is, after we scope this and after we do this study., what is binding out of this study upon either the City or Cornell? Chairperson Wilcox — Nothing. Mr. Kanter — Well I think there are a number of ways of answering that. It is dependent totally on whatever the study ends up recommending and what this board and other involved agencies end up accepting. There could be recommendations 14 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved coming out of the study that would say well we know that this level of growth is occurring, xyz improvements will need to be made over a certain number of years... That maybe something that the City and the Town and other agencies may wish to buy into ahead of time with Cornell's agreement and come up to that understanding, but that is only one.:. Board Member Thayer — Recommendations, but nothing binding. Mr. Kanter — Well, it could be binding if it ended up in some kind of intermunicipa1 university agreement, which is one possibility, but that is not a given. That is only one of many possibilities with this kind of study. Board Member Mitrano — But its prospective and if I understand it correctly in its broader sense it is really about the institution looking forward to projecting demographic changes and seeing how and what ways they contemplate their own development, they could begin to plan for those changes at least in this particular area. Mr. Kanter - That is right. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, this is Lstill a public hearing. Is there someone else...? Faye, I will give, you a short chance to speak again once everyone else has spoken. You were very good this evening. Anybody else wish to speak, being none, Faye. Keep it short, please. Ms. 'Gougakis — I am actually very good, but you don't know me well enough. Most people don't know me well enough, but thank you. I was wondering how was this decision made with just the Town and Cornell in the study. Why wasn't the City of Ithaca a key player in this? Because there is grumblings, you see. Like I said to you before, there are a lot of people not coming forward but I know, because I've spoken to them and there is a lot of concern about the City not being a key player.. So that's one and then I want to ask you one more thing. Board Member Mitrano — It's a good question. Mr. Kanter — If you want my own opinion on the matter, we think Cornell is very much involved in the study. Chairperson Wilcox — The City of Ithaca. Mr. Kanter — The City of Ithaca. They are involved in the process. There are several City representatives on the resource committee, which is a group separate from this board, 'which "is assisting the Town and Cornell in putting the parameters of the study together. There were a number of early discussions with the City. At some point going 15 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved through the State Environmental Quality Review Process, one agency had to act.as the lead agency. That doesn't .mean that this board is acting at the exclusion of any, or all other agencies. Part of the whole reason for these. public meetings at this early point is to get that kind of input into the scoping process. So to the extent that we are hearing from the City is the extent that they will be involved in this part of the process. Board Member Mitrano — Could one of you explain what the lead agency concept .is all about when we run into these intedurisdictional issues? Mr: Kanter — Well, the. Town of Ithaca being the lead agency for the generic environmental impact statement means largely that the Town of Ithaca is very much affected by anything that Cornell does and by growth of Cornell. It doesn't mean that the City or the Town of Dryden or the Town of Lansing or the Village of Lansing are not affected because they are and very much so. So I think the idea of the study is that it really is a regional study and it needs to look at what is going on in a number of communities, but one entity, one agency had to formally take on the environmental review process and that is what this board was asked and agreed to do. Again, I hope that there aren't misperceptions that that means that other areas will not be looked at because again, this is the time to really decide what the GEIS will look like. That is why this board really needs to think hard about all the comments that are being made in terms of neighborhoods, in terms of geographic areas that are affected. Board Member Mitrano — We .have done this before. This concept of a lead agency. Is that correct? Mr. Kanter - It is part of the State Environmental Quality Review Act that we abide by and hopefully most other communities in the State do as well. Some not as well as we do. Attorney Barney — It is basically mandated when you have an action that involves multiple jurisdictions. One gets designated and its principle responsibility for the environmental review. Chairperson Wilcox — Before you begin, I'm just trying to remember who was here two weeks ago from the City. I know Joel Zumoff was here. Joanne Cornish. They both made statements. Board Member Hoffmann — Jane Marcham. Chairperson Wilcox — Jane Marcham also. made a statement. Well maybe we haven't seen the mayor, she might be very busy but we certainly have seen other representatives. 16 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Ms. Gougakis — I spoke to a common councilperson earlier this afternoon and we were talking about this and she is very concerned about it and she says do you know when the cutoff is. I didn't know that this meeting was happening until I heard it on the radio this morning. I called the Ithaca Journal and I said why wasn't it in the paper to remind people because it is important. Now they said that they had something last week, but anyway, it is the holiday. You. have to understand it is a holiday and Joanne Cornish is not back yet. I called the City to see if she was going to be here tonight and they said she is coming in on Thursday. The common councilperson I spoke to today said to me can people still submit something. So that I am not sure when the cutoff is. Could someone like the council people or the mayor, I would think that you would listen to her if she did. say something, but the thing is I can't speak for these people. I know if I was an elected official this would be a very big concern for me. Why they are not present, I don't know. But I . know that Joanne was here at the last meeting and she asked you the same question I have. Why isn't downtown Ithaca a focal point? I am going to keep stressing that and I am going to go to them tomorrow night and say the same thing. The other thing is, Like I mentioned before, I walk downtown and I ride my bicycle and downtown has gotten really bad. I know people who tell me, I don't get on a bicycle, it is crazy to get on a bicycle, it is dangerous. So the situation is getting increasingly dangerous so this needs to be a widened study. Everybody who spoke tonight spoke very well and they are basically asking you the same thing. I don't know if I mentioned this to you last meeting, but I had approached one of the people at Cornell and I forgot her name right now it was during the Red Bud Woods issue. I said to her that I was concerned about cell phone use and we have a large young population. You see a lot of people with their cell phones. I said to her is there any kind of educational outreach on this, aside from the speeding, which was also brought up at the last meeting and Joanne talked about that as well. She said that they took .my suggestion and they are putting out a handout that New York State doesn't allow cell phones in the packet that they give out to all the students. They are going to do that, I don't know this semester or in the fall. The reason that I am giving this example to you is there has got to be more than that. You can't expect to put a little flyer in their ,handout and leave it at that. I know that the City needs more traffic police. I know that the City needs more help in enforcing speeding, enforcing cell phone use. Where is that money going to come from? Board Member Mitrano — Not from us because we don't give out money. So many of these things maybe you should make a list of what the particular issues are...(not audible) Ms. Gougakis — Well I think that Cornell should be a player in that, don't you think? Board Member Mitrano — I think that you should address .those bodies particularly about that issue. 17 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Ms. Gougakis — But I have. Board Member Mitrano — It is not our...(not audible). Ms. Gougakis — But I have. I'm a broken record in this town.. These issues are not new for me. I've been before many boards talking about the speeding and the cell phone use. Board Member. Mitrano — Well, we can't help you on that Ms. Gougakis - No. No. We fail to realize what I am talking about here. Board Member Mitrano — We are talking about the scope and we have stated clearly that this something that we are going to have to be' very clear about and Cornell is going to have to be clear about. What is the scope of this study? Ms. Gougakis. — Well, they have a very narrow scope as we saw today and at the last meeting. We need as a government body saying to them you are a major impact in our neighborhoods and you can't just come to us and say well, we are only going to do this small thing. Board.Member Mitrano — Okay. We have heard that this evening. Thank you. Ms. Gougakis — So anyway. I believe in dialog and I really do. And I believe in getting things done and not just talking. I really believe in the power of making things better in this town because it. can happen. It just really needs serious cooperation.. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Faye. , Ms. Gougakis - Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. I am looking around. There being no one else. Mr. Kanter — Fred, before you close the hearing, do you want to just refer on the record to Michael Koplinka- Loehr's email? Chairperson Wilcox - Sure. Go ahead. Mr. Kanter — County Legislator, Michael Koplinka= Loehr, sent us a message, well actually the date is January 1, 2006. Basically reiterating what we have heard a lot of the comments being about the impact on neighborhoods. So I won't read the whole thing, but he basically is asking that the scope reflect what we have heard from in En Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved neighborhood groups addressing neighborhood impacts, placing higher priority on moving traffic This is what the perception is that the GEIS is placing a higher priority. on moving traffic than it does on preserving neighborhoods. I think again, that is largely a perception, but we have certainly heard a lot of comments to that affect. So that is what this email message addresses. So we will put this in our files. Chairperson Wilcox, — Elizabeth, you want to make one more short comment? Ms. Sanders - Faye's comment about cell phones. There is one very simple solution. to that problem and that is for the University to ban. freshman and sophomore students at least, if not more than that, from bringing their cars to campus, which many other universities do in the country. When I first came here, I know when I was a student here without a car; students were prohibited from bringing cars. Freshmen were prohibited. That rule went by the board, but that would keep a. lot of drivers off the road. It would diminish. traffic and it would do a lot about the problem of driving while talking on cell phones and it wouldn't cost anything. It might cost Lansing a few tax revenues that then would go into the City of Ithaca. I assume that we would all be glad to have that happen. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. So you played the game of going last and you won? Susan Brock, Attorney Ms. Brock — No. I just wanted to... Chairperson Wilcox — Name and address. Ms. Brock Susan Brock. 306 East State Street, Ithaca.. I am the attorney for the Planning Board on this project. I just wanted to further address* Tracy's .question about, what the impact of this GEIS will be. on future, specific projects at Cornell. Under the SEQR regulations, depending upon the outcome of the GEIS it is possible that no further SEQR review will be done for specific projects. Let me just read you from the regulations what it says about that. It says, "no further SEQR compliance is required if a subsequent proposed action will be carried out in conformance with the conditions and thresholds established for such actions in the Generic EIS or its findings statement ". We don't know at this point what the GEIS will look like or what the findings statement will like, but if in fact they contain conditions and thresholds and a subsequent specific action is then proposed, which falls within them, no further SEQR compliance is required. Board Member Mitrano — That is helpful, Susan. Thank you. i Ms. Brock — Now if a subsequent proposed action is either not addressed in the GEIS or is not adequately addressed in the GEIS. and that subsequent specific action will not 19. Town. of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved . result in any significant environmental impacts, then a negative declaration would be. prepared. So you would do your environmental review and you can neg. dec. it. On the other hand you may have to prepare a supplement to the GEIS if in fact the subsequent action. is going to have one or more significant adverse environmental impacts and it wasn't adequately addressed in the GEIS. So there are a whole range of possible uses and outcomes from the GEIS and I didn't want you to think that this was really just a document that is being prepared and put on the shelf and every future action that comes in will automatically go through an environmental review. It is very possible that will be the outcome, but we don't know for sure: Board Member Mitrano — I think that is very helpful because the reason I was asking was actually to go back to what seems to be the theme of this evening's discourse and that is what is the scope of this. If I was Cornell listening to that and I wanted to make the fullest use of this study, knowing that I could potentially use it in the future such that I wouldn't have to go through an environmental study, I would want to broaden the scope according to some of the suggestions that were made this evening. So thank you for bringing that up. I think it gives incentive and motivation and a little bit broader context as to what the use of the study will be. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Susan. I appreciate it. I've got to bring this to an end, but go ahead. This is what happens when you let someone speak twice. Board .Member Mitrano - Your fault. Not anyone else's. Chairperson Wilcox — I know, but as I said, I would rather listen to you now than have you complain that we didn't. Mr. Sedlacek - Sure. My only concern about that is that I was hearing something that sounded a little bit circular in terms of implication and that. is that you are right that they would want to broaden the scope. However, if we don't broaden the scope now is how do we determine that we need to do a supplement later on without doing an environmental impact statement. It .sounded like there was a precondition that was Missing in that that could be a loophole that Cornell could use potentially and I guess I don't know of the history of these things and how they play out in reality and so I guess I just ask that question. Chairperson Wilcox — It usually comes back to this board and whether we see, an issue that hasn't been appropriately studied as part of our environmental review. Mr. Kanter That is also, we have said several times that this board's finding statement at the end of the process will be really important because that is where you go back and make these decisions. That is why, also, that any of the involved agencies who are taking the study seriously, their finding statements that they will be responsible for 20 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006. Approved themselves will also be very important and they in fact .could say that they find this. study is not relevant to them and therefore will not make any specific findings relevant. to the. study. That is fine. Then they don't buy into anything. But obviously, that is not what we hope happens. Chairperson Wilcox - It is a wonderful point. We, the Town, we this board will make a set of findings. None of the other municipalities need to adopt our findings. They may certainly come up with their own findings and adopt their own. Potentially they could even be contrary to ours, but they will have access to the same material and. then will make their own determination. Board Member Hoffmann We have done something similar when the City has been the lead agency and we have been an involved agency. I think it had something to do with the development in the Southwestern part of the City. Chairperson Wilcox — Source Cooling? I'm thinking Lake Source Cooling. Board Member Thayer — We were. Who was the lead in Lake Board Member Mitrano — Do you have to remind us of that this evening, Fred? Chairperson Wilcox — It was something:..I remember sitting here going:.. Mr. Kanter — There was the North Campus Housing Residential Initiative where the City was the lead agency and we were an involved agency. Chairperson. Wilcox — That's right because a significant amount of the project was in the City. Ms. Gougakis — In regard to the loophole, I think it is very important to have something in writing. Chairperson Wilcox — You are assuming that this board would allow a loophole to exist and I think that this board has a wonderful record on environmental reviews. I think if you have sat here, well remember, it is this board that does the environmental review. It is this board that makes the determination and I have seen this board spend an hour on environmental review and five minutes on the site plan because we consider it so important. So with that I will close the public hearing and thank you very much. Public hearing is closed at 7:40 p.m. 21. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Given the time, do we want to put off discussion until the next. meeting in two weeks? Board Member Mitrano - Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — Kathryn, you all set? You have everything that you need? Very good. You got more than you need. You are going to earn your money. Thank you all ladies and gentlemen and if you are going to continue your discussions, please have them in the hallway and we will close the door and we have other business. SEQR Fain 2 -Lot Subdivision, 131 West King Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:42 p.m. Chairperson .Wilcox — Mr. Schickel is not able to be here this evening at the last minute. I got a call from Jon Kanter. He asked me if I thought it was possible for this board to proceed without him being here and I thought it was something that we could proceed with, though, we couldn't guarantee what if any action we might take this evening. So I am assuming that we have all read the materials provided by the applicant and the cover letter provided by Jon Kanter. Do we have any questions with regard to environmental review of this two -lot subdivision? Board Member Mitrano — No. Board Member Thayer — No. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to suggest. some changes to the short environmental assessment form if I may. Number 9, will the proposed action lead to a request for new public water and I believe the answer to that is yes. I'm sorry. It is a subdivision that is all it is.. Yeah I've go to go back to... Mr. Kanter — Well, even the fact that they are building a house will not lead to the request for a new public water supply. It will be hooking up to the existing water line that is already there. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Moving on to item number 10. Present land use in the vicinity. Park, of course, and open space, given that it boarders on what I believe is now New York State land even though it shows on the plat as being Auble land. It now boarders on New York State land. Mr. Kanter — And I did confirm on the new assessment rolls that it .is owned by New York State. 22 Town of Ithaca Planning Bnard Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox - Finally, number 11. is . does this proposed action involve permit. approval from any other governmental agency. Do they need a Health Department permit for the septic system? Again this is a subdivision even though we know they are going to build a house. Mr. Kanter —.On a single lot I don't believe they need the permit for a septic. Attorney Barney — Do they have to build a septic system? Mr. Kanter = I believe so. Attorney Barney — Yeah, they do need Health Department approval. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. So we can put Health Department in there. Board Member Mitrano — I was a little confused. Is there where the foundation is already there? Mr. Kanter There is a foundation being built now. Yes, it is just under construction. Chairperson Wilcox — We should point out that the subdivision was filed with the County and that the lot was sold to Schickel Construction company and they came for a permit, a building permit, and that was when it was determined it never received appropriate subdivision review by this board. Board Member Talty moves the motion and Board Member Howe seconds the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -001: SEAR: Preliminary and Final Subdivision AoorovaL Fain Two -Lot' Subdivision, 131 West King Road, Tax Parcel No's, 37 -1 -13,11 and 37 -1 -28 MOTION made by Board Member Ta/ty, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 133 and 131 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, s 37 -1 -13.11 and 37 -1 -28, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves reafrmatlon of these two existing lots (vacant lot - 0.889 +/- acres, existing house lot 1.0 +/- acres), which were previously subdivided but did not receive Planning Board approval. Schickel Construction Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant, and ` 23 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval,. and 3. The Planning Board on January 3, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by the Town Planning staff, a survey map entitled 'Survey Map Showing Lands to be Conveyed by Patricia Fain, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York, " prepared by T. G. Miller, P. C., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 11/1412005, and other application materials, and 4. The Town planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed. Subdivision Approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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; neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form, nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7:45 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 133 and 131 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37443.11 and 37 -1 -28, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves reaffirmation of these two existing lots (vacant lot - 0.889 +/- acres, existing house lot - 1.0 +/- acres) which were previously subdivided . but did not receive Planning Board approval. Schickel Construction Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and invites members of the public to address the board. 24 Town "of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, j006 Approved Attorney Barney — I think before you start I should let you know that our office represents.Mr. Schickel. Chairperson Wilcox — Since you are listed on the plat here as one of the certifiers.:. Attorney.Barney People they are being certified to. We represented, still represent Mr. Schickel. Not specifically in connection with the sale. of this lot, but we represent him. Patricia Fain, 133 King Road West Mrs. Fain. — I am Patricia Fain, 133 West King Road. We are the original owners of the lot and I didn't realize situation until I got this from the Town. I just want to state 28 years ago is when my mother gave us the house and the lot and it was divided at that time. At that time we did have a lawyer. We did have it surveyed. We did record it with the County and since then we have been paying separate taxes on that lot for 28 years. We didn't realize at the time, it was some fowl up with the lawyers or somebody that it had to go before the Planning Board. So that is why we are here tonight or we would have never sold it or tried to sell it if ...so we really apologize to Mr. Schickel for what he has gone through. I am sorry that it was never picked up before this time, even though we mortgaged it through the bank here and remortgaged it, no one has ever picked it up and we have paid.four or five times to have the abstract done and. the search done. So I apologize to have to come so late to you for this approval, but this is something that happened 28 years ago. Thank you. Board Member Mitrano — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? With no other persons to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the, public .hearing at 7:48 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox Boy, it is hard to yell at her. She gets up here and apologizes. I appreciate it. Thank you for coming. Board Member Mitrano — That's fine. Lets just do it. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to yell at her anyways. Board Member Talty moves the motion and Board Member Thayer seconds the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -002; Pre liminary and Final Subdivision Approva /, Fain Two -Lot Subdivision, 131 West King Road, Tax Parcel No's. 37 -1 -13.11 and 37 -1 -28 25 11 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved: MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS; 1. This action is consideration of Pre liminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 133 and 131 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, s 37 -1 -13.11 and 37 -1 -28, Low. Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves reafrmatlon of these two existing lots (vacant lot - 0.889 +/- acres, existing house lot 1:0 +/- acres), which were previously subdivided but did not receive Planning Board approval. Schickel Construction Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Subdivision Approval, has on January 3, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part 11 prepared by the Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 3, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a survey map entitled 'Survey Map Showing Lands to be Conveyed by Patricia Fain, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York, "prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 1111412005, and other application materials, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL VED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of subdivision ' control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the. Town Board, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed two -lot subdivision located at 133 and 131 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, s 37 -1 -13.11 and 37 -1 -28, Low Density Residential Zone, as shown on a survey map entitled 'Survey .Map Showing Lands to be Conveyed by Patricia Fain, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, State of New York, " prepared by T.G. Miller, P, C., Engineers & Surveyors, dated 1111412005, subject to the following conditions: 26 a. Submission for signing by the Planning Board three dark line prints of the subdivision plat, all licensed .surveyor who prepared the survey, Tompkins County Clerks Office, and submission plat to the Town of Ithaca Planning Departmen certificate of occupancy, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 . Approved Chair of one mylar and signed and sealed by the prior to filing with the of receipt of filing of said t prior to issuance of any The Planning Board finds that there is no need for any parkland reservation created by this proposed subdivision, and hereby waives the requirement for any parkland reservation. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SEQR Namgyal Monastery, Danby Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Allan Chambliss, 14 Middaugh Road Mr. Chambliss - Allan Chambliss, 14 Middaugh Road, Brooktondale, architect. Chairperson Wilcox - I assume you have a presentation to make. Mr. Chambliss — A short one. Then we will move to the civil engineering, which is the main thing that has happened since sketch plan review. The project is essentially the same that you saw at sketch plan review. It is a group of five buildings, three residential buildings, and one public building around a shrine in the central courtyard. This is the current state of the renderings. Not very much changed since the last ones saw. It is located as it was before on the site, well back in, settled into the woods. There has been virtually no changes to ... only minor changes to the architectural layout. The configuration is the same. The footprint is the same. It is around 13,000 square feet. The heights are all the same, all under zoning limitations. So that the main thing that has happened since sketch plan review has been sliding around a little bit in the site to make sure that we avoid any mature growth, mature trees, optimizing road location along the same lines. So Frank Santelli is here 27 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of. January 3, 3006 Approved. form TG Miller to sort of talk through the engineering work that has happened. While that is going on, here are small scale prints that you can pass around and look at. It. might be easier to look at. Frank Santelli, TG Miller Engineers and Surveyors Mr. Santelli - Frank Santelli and I am with TG Miller Engineers, 203 North Aurora Street. I will try to walk everybody through the infrastructure required to. service the development at the top of the hill. Here is Danby Road. The driveway is approximately 1200 square feet. The curbcut on . Danby Road is, right now there is sort of an existing farm entrance off the road. There is an existing culvert so that is one reason why we have located the start of the driveway there. Also for topographic reasons further towards town it is quite a bit steeper and lets see. Also for sight distances we believe that this is about the best location we can find to come .off the highway. There is a an existing water channel that starts up above the property and crosses where this driveway goes and then goes under Danby Road and continues down to .Buttermilk Creek. Now this is a protected stream and we will need a permit to make. that crossing at this location. The.next sheet shows essentially the main driveway in plan and profile. The first section, we are proposing to pave. The rest of this up to the parking area. would be a gravel surface. The profile indicates maximum slope of about 7 to 8 percent for the main part of the driveway. It gets close to about 9 as it approaches the parking lot. Utility extensions or utilities in general, this will be a. major culvert. I think a 42 or 48 inch equivalent storm culvert here. We are proposing gas along the drive corridor. Water and sewer within easements to be dedicated to the Town. Currently. the existing sanity line and water line run on the property within easements along Danby Road. So. this will be an 8 inch, water main and an 8 inch sanitary main that would be dedicated within easements to the Town. These drawings show two possible alternatives for providing electric telephone and cable television. .One thought was to come overhead along the north property up to the site and then underground to the .facilities. Another possibility was to run underground pretty much the whole way from Danby Road. Now I think there was some comment in the staff review or the draft resolution relative to the electric and telephone and the preference obviously is underground.. I assume that that is from a visual, aesthetic point of view. Mr. Kanter — Yes. Mr. Santelli — The layout we have adjusted somewhat. The concept basically is the same as you saw from the original sketch plan. There is an old hedge row that runs north and south approximately along this alignment here and there also is another former hedgerow that runs approximately along this corridor east /west. So we tried to adjust the parking lot to the west of that hedgerow and also north. of this hedgerow. mej Town of Ithaca Planning Board- Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved The idea is that we are trying to save as many of the mature trees as we can. So we are going to have to punch through here and here, but generally speaking, the idea is to save as many of those hedges as we can. There are some really nice old oak trees and it is mainly oaks, but some really nice trees, mature trees. So that is ... some of the thought that went into laying this out. This loop is ... has been designed sufficient to handle bus traffic if need be. The idea being they would drop off here and then the pavements are generous enough to allow a bus to turn around up there without any trouble. Then this loop also has been designed, this is only 16 feet wide and more for the use of the occupants and then also' for fire department access. We have talked to ,the fire department. Actually we met with Tom Parsons. Mr. Kanter — We actually just received an email from him about 10 minutes before the meeting. I have copies for the board. Mr. Santelli — I think the meeting was generally positive. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll just read the last paragraph of what he wrote since .you, haven't seen it. I Chairperson Wilcox reads the email. Mr. Chambliss — The two spec_ ific items that he requested. Right now we have a hydrant out in this location that he requested.. He wanted a second hydrant within 500 feet of the first just for redundancy in case there was a problem with either of the hydrants. We are figuring out where that will happen, but that will be shown on the next go around. Also he requested that this rear access road be widened out: In talking it through since it is a gravel surface road, it will just be a prepared sub base. The road will still be 16 feet wide, but with broad shoulders so they could if they needed to put a piece of equipment and drop their feet there. Chairperson Wilcox — What is he talking about? 75,000 pounds. Mr. Chambliss — Yes. That is the design load. That applies especially to a sort .of culvert entrance. Mr. Santelli — There are four handicap spaces, which I believe is I one extra than required by ADA. Before we go any further, this would be the ADA access route from the parking facility to the buildings. The next sheet is a similar view showing the grading and the utility work. The water and sewer are going to end about in here and again the Fire Department is probably going to want a second hydrant and we will work that out with Dan to make sure he is happy with how we lay the water system out 29 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved What else can I tell you? I guess there was some question... this loop will be. more of a road -type system. There will be roadside swales on the loop. This is a gravel surface.. Now these other trails that we are showing in the woods are probably more at grade. There is really no grading associated with them. Those will be minimal if any grading. Basically clearing and putting trails in. I think there was something in the staff comments relative to the grading. The. bathhouse, I believe, which really shouldn't. require any special grading, I would think except maybe immediately, adjacent to that building. Generally speaking, we probably aren't going to show any grading for that.. The same for this outdoor activity field. Really this is just an existing meadow that will be used probably mowed, but not graded for any..:its not really going to be graded out like a soccer field or anything. I think the last one we want to show you is the stormwater. This is the erosion and sediment control plan. This project standard, projects of this scale will require a permit with the DEC. We plan on filing a notice of intent for the general permit available through the DEC, and the stormwater design is in conformance with the current standards for stormwater. I think there was watershed maps in the report we're really not changing any. of the watershed boundaries. There's a boundary that sort of runs, this culvert here, drains really very little, there's just a very small portion of this site that actually drains to this culvert. Most of our drainage really goes down, it does show up here, and there's a .culvert, right near the, just uphill from Sam Peter's and right at Mickey Herzing's convenience store there. Near the corner of King Rd. What's that? Big AI's, OK. That's — so our drainage really sheets across the property down to the State highway and is picked up in roadside. ditches along the highway down to that culvert which eventually goes to the same place this one goes, which is Buttermilk Falls. It actually doesn't go to the falls; it goes to another gorge that is just north. It goes through the park, but it doesn't go over the falls actually, if, you believe it or -not. It empties down near the parking .lot of the State Park. But what we're proposing really, is we're collecting as much of the impervious surface we can here, the Parking lots especially. This will all drain in a roadside swale along the north side and then to a, essentially a wet pond to the lower end here. And we worked with Lane, and we talked about putting something closer up to the site, and then we ended up down here, mainly, one of the main reasons was we were able to pick up most of the roadway. Board Member Mitrano — Is that where that.., you know if you're going into upper Buttermilk, and there's that walkway that you take where the water's going under, that's the one that doesn't go over the falls? Mr. Santelli - That may be it. That may be it. I tracked it all the way down to the bottom of the hill there, but I'm not .sure what it does up there. 30 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Board Member Thayer — So the loop around the building is just to let people off. and then go back to the parking lot, or, isn't that.in... Mr. Santelli - There will be, these are the monk's quarters here and there will be parking for the monks here, but basically this will be closed off most of the time. Board Member Thayer_ - So it's not vehicular traffic. Mr. Santelli It's not intended,. other than incidental. When there are events When. students are coming to stay in the facility, they'll be, they'll drop off, they'll drive into loading zones and drop their stuff off, and then go back. and park out here. In general, there will be a pedestrian closure point there. Board Member Thayer. Pedestrian walkway then. Mr. Santelli That's all I've got. Unless there's questions.. Board Member Mitrano _ Looks very nice. Chairperson Wilcox Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — OK,. you mentioned that buses would be able to get around in the .parking lot, and I imagine you might have buses with visitors coming from other places, or are you talking about the.TCAT buses? Mr. Chambliss - Well, in the first instance, it's really to provide for the fire trucks as well, and it's conceivable that there would be events or that there may be a reason for TCAT to expand their route there, but there is nothing planned at the moment, either . for a TCAT route there . or for buses specific to the facility to serve there. Board Member Hoffmann = So you haven't talked to TCAT about doing this? Mr. Chambliss - No, no. Board Member Hoffmann — I know that there are times when they are ready to go into a site, but. then there are other instances where they would rather not, so I was wondering. Chairperson Wilcox = They may not have the ridership... Mr. Chambliss - Exactly. Chairperson Wilcox - Ridership counts may not be sufficient. 31. Town of Ithaca Planning. Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Mr. Kanter — Actually the. TCAT route that goes down Danby Road and goes all the way into the Danby south. "of there, is fairly limited, it only runs I think it's about .5 times a day on weekdays and only 2or 3 times during weekends. So, it is a limited run... Board Member Mitrano — How far does it go, Jonathan, out to the Town Hall? .Mr. Kanter. Yeah, it goes at least to the Danby Town Hall. Chairperson Wilcox ;Floor is yours, you all set? Board Member Hoffmann — That was the question I had now, the other thing I'll take up later. Chairperson Wilcox - OK, I wanted to ask., about the difficulties .of architecting these buildings given NYS code and the requirements placed upon you by the religion. Mr. Chambliss - The spaces, there's nothing particularly unique about the spaces in. that regard, it's assembly spaces, dwelling spaces, all designed to code. So there are no particular problems there. The most unique space probably is the shrine building, but in terms of code that boils down to just a small assembly building. . Chairperson Wilcox — You didn't face. ahy. unusual hurdles given the requirements placed upon you in terms of the building look, building construction, materials, et cetera, etcetera versus code requirements? Mr. Chambliss It was always intended that we'd be using western construction techniques but trying to find a way to make it look like traditional Tibetan architecture. One that I can't remember if we talked the last time about construction types specifically, but one of the decisions, that has been recently was to go with an ICF system, and in fact for the exterior walls, insulated concrete forms, and in fact we may try to modify that in such a way that we can get a battered wall on the exterior, but we'll see how that goes with costs and other, considerations. We may try and push things to make it look more like a native Tibetan building, but it's nothing abnormal in terms of western construction techniques. Chairperson Wilcox — My other comment is that I was surprised that you are going to run TV cable up to the building. That's a comment, not a question. Kevin? Board Member Talty — Yeah I was I guess taken aback by the colors of the roofs. Board Member Thayer — Yeah, I was going to ask that too.. 32 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January. 3, 3006 Approved Board Member Talty — Because traditionally, we've, been much more in tune with having more mundane colors, browns and greens. I'm just saying that yel.low was a primary color that I wasn't expecting. Mr..Chambliss - It's a traditional color for temples in Tibet. . Board Member Hoffmann = Will you bring in samples of the color for the final approval? Mr. Chambliss - I suppose we could, we haven't gotten to that point yet. Board Member Hoffmann — OK. I think it would be helpful if we saw what it would actually look like, and the material too. Board Member Mitrano — And we ask that frequently of many applicants, it's not unique to this application. Chairperson Wilcox I remember particularly some red roofs that got built that you could see from one side of the Town across the City to the other side of the Town. Mr. Chambliss - In terms of, I'm not convinced that -the gold roofs will be terrible looking by a long stretch, but I'm almost certain they wouldn't be visible from 96B, they'd barely be.visible from East King Road. Chairperson Wilcox — You'd be surprised in the Town of Ithaca how often you can see things from one hill across to the other hill, more easily than you can see it from a couple hundred yards away given the unique way in which the Town's laid out and the City being the valley. Mr. Kanter — I would think almost more important than the actual color would be the reflectivity of it, in other words if it's a reflective surface, that would be more visible from the surrounding hillside. Board Member Talty - We've just traditionally taken a policy of making it more earthy tones, browns and greens and things of that sort. So it would definitely help bringing in that material to see reflectivity, and often the yellow that is portrayed. in a lot of drawings isn't exactly the same yellow that you would be utilizing. By the way, the other building materials, you could bring in as well, not just the roof. Chairperson Wilcox I just looked over to John. and Jon to my left and asked them to start writing, because that would certainly, should we get to that point, that would be something we want to include in the pardon me, in the proposed resolution. Mr. Kanter — Actually, we'll just be more specific about providing... 33 Chairperson Wilcox - I think we're getting questions with regard to environmental review? Board Member Thayer - I'll move the SEQR. Board Member Howe - Second. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January, 3, 3006 Approved ahead of ourselves. here. Any other Chairperson Wilcox - I have... Who moved it? Larry, seconded by Rod. I wanted to ask the Town Engineer.who couldn't make it tonight at the last moment. Jon, can you add anything, did you have any discussions with him before this evening,. about the...? Mr. Kanter — Yeah, just very briefly, Dan relayed his having looked through the materials and is supportive of the drainage analysis and plans. He did mention the road issue that the Fire Department brought up. I think it's basically the same thing, that you know, the final plan will have to address the need to accommodate the loads of those heavy fire apparatus and other emergency equipment. But that's definitely able to be accommodated. Board Member Thayer - There's no problem with water pressure up there, Jon? Mr. Kanter — No, there doesn't seem too be. And actually there is recently an improvement in that Danby Road looped water system that ended up getting extended over to that... Board Member Thayer — 33` lot subdivision to the south ?' Mr. Kanter — Southview? Westview, sorry, Westview subdivision,... Chairperson Wilcox -..on South. Hill: Mr. Kanter — Just a little bit south of here on South Hill, and that actually does a good bit to help the water pressures in the general South. Hill area. Board Member Mitrano — You mean the one off of King? Mr. Kanter — No, the..: Board Member Mitrano — Or on Danby? Mr. Kanter — On Danby road, but there was actually a portion of a water main improvement that actually started up on King Road that was intended to help the pressure situation with that whole area. E Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of.January 3, 3006 Approved Board Member Mitrano — Anytime you want to put the pump in to help my water pressure, you... I encourage you... [laughter] Mr. Kanter — It may not have helped your area. Board Member Mitrano — It did not. Chairperson Wilcox I have a motion and a second, before I move on, stay right there for now, any members of the public wish to comment on the, environmental aspects of this proposal? You of course will still have a chance to speak when we open the public hearing when we review the site plan, but if you have something specific... yeah? I don't want to ask the- gentleman to leave, do you want to take the, if you would just take that and turn it on and -name and address please. Scott Toby, 903 Wyckoff Road Mr. Tobey - I. spoke at the sketch plan review; and I just want to address the color of the roof. We're probably going to be working with, sort of standard stock colors of whatever, the metal, -it's a metal roof, and it may be hard to nail down that specific color, but I think that's a light brighter than, it's kind of a golden ochre color. We can see what we can do about getting color samples, but it may be dependent on the actual manufacturer that we select at the time of construction, so..: Chairperson Wilcox = Thank you, I appreciate its Anybody else. Motion and. a second with regard to the environmental review. Any discussion over here, all set over here. All those in favor, please signal by saying aye. Anybody opposed? No one is opposed, the motion is passed. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -003; SEOR, Pre /iminary Site P /an Approval Special Permit, Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, DanbY Road Across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10 MOTION made by Board. Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS; 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Namgyal Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -Z -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of multiple buildings (main building, _monks residence, student Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved dormitories, student rooms /apartments, shrine) on the property totaling approximately 13,000 square feet, to house the local Namgyal Monastery branch in Ithaca. ` The plans also include parking for 66 vehicles, five seasonal cabins 'and a bathhouse, a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities.- Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant, and . 26 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on January 3, 2006, 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 "Boundary & Topographic. Map" dated 112012005, "Site Plan" (000), "Main Drive - Plan & Profile" (C101), "Utility Extensions" (C102), "Site Layout" (C103), "Site Grading & Utilities" (C104), "Erosion & Sediment Control P /an" (005), "Details" (C201, C2021 C203), dated 11/18/05, prepared by T.G. Miler, P.C. 'Architectural Plan - Level 0" (A00), 'Architectural Plan - Level 1" (A01), 'Architectural Plan Level 2" (A02), and "Building Elevations" (A10), dated .11116105, prepared by Allan McLane Chambliss, Jr. Architect, and other application material, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT 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. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: . A YES Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, _ Thayer, Howe, Ta/ty. NA YS: None. The motion was declared to -be carried unanimous /y. PUBLIC HEARING 36 Town. of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006. Approved , Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed. Namgyal Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of multiple buildings (main building, monk's residence, student dormitories, student rooms/ apartments, shrine) on the property totaling approximately 13,0.00 square feet, to house the local Namgyal Monastery branch in Ithaca, The plans also include parking for 66 vehicles, five seasonal cabins and a bathhouse, a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant Chairperson Wilcox — At 8:15, ladies and gentlemen, the next item is the public hearing for Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Namgyal Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 =2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of multiple buildings (main building, monk's residence, student dormitories, student rooms /apartments, shrine) on the property. totaling approximately 13,000 square feet, to house the local Namgyal . Monastery branch in Ithaca. The plans also include parking for 66. vehicles, five seasonal cabins and a bathhouse, a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant. Is there anything else you wish to say at this point with regard to the site plan? Questions with regard to the site plan? Board Member Howe — It's an exciting addition. Chairperson Wilcox - Eva? Board Member Howe - I'm just saying; I don't have a question: Board Member Hoffmann There were some dimensions missing on the drawings, like for instance on the elevation drawings,. there were no dimensions for height or width or anything. Mr. Chambliss - Right, 'I had, a call from Mike Smith about that; and it's probably software driven. I haven't gotten to the point of really generating the elevations yet, so it's still in the model stage, but I've gotten far enough with the section, and I have specific information for you on that. The west building, which is the public building, where the main entrance is located, has a dimension of 30 feet 6 inches above the basement slab, which is the greatest of the dimensions that would apply by. zoning, against a 38 foot limit. And the shrine, which is above a crawl space, all the other buildings are above a crawl space.. The shrine is 32 feet 6 inches above exterior grade, M Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved. finished grade, and that's the tallest structure of that type, and that's against a 36 -foot limit by zoning'. Board.Member Hoffmann _ Yeah, I hE have, but it still is useful to have the you would add that the final drawings to know, all the dimensions, not just they are not there, it would be nice to Mr. Kanter —T think that basically - was Chairperson Wilcox — Yup. ,ard you say that it dimensions on the you bring in to the the height. And, wh see them too. on drawing A -10. is all within the code that we drawings, so I would like it if final approval, it's just helpful atever other drawings, where Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, right. And I thought one could add that into the condition C. Chairperson Wilcox —.I think they're working on it in terms of adding the condition, yup, they're working on it. Mr. Kanter — Or even, I just have it as a separate condition. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, but in C it could say "including elevations with. ....dimensions ". Mr. Kanter — We could do that. Chairperson Wilcox — Other comments? I have one question. One more question, and then we'll give the public a chance to speak. In both the materials you presented and in the website that I went and .visited today, I'll quote from the materials:.. "the monastery is the personal monastery of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and our current facility...." Is the Dalai Lama going to come and visit, and if he does... under the assumption that he will visit Ithaca once again in the future, how is this facility going to handle his visit? Mr. Chambliss 7 This is intended has a private facility, so he wouldn't have any public functions in this facility. There. is a suite designed . for him in the facility, it's 'unclear when or, on what sort of schedule, or even if, he would visit, but it is presumed that he would. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, let's assume that he will at some point in the future. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Mr. Chambliss - Right; but in a private capacity, and if he had any events scheduled in this area, they would have a different venues they would be scheduled at Cornell or, IC or someplace that could handle it. Chairperson Wilcox - Do we know what, did he have any public events when he was here previously? Mr. Chambliss - In the early 90's when he was here, he had an event at Cornell, yes. Chairperson. Wilcox OK. A nod of the head back there? OK, OK. All right, and I believe I read also that there was mention of public events still being held at other facilities when this facility was unable to accommodate them.. I'm going to exaggerate, I'm thinking of Woodstock and people coming down the road, and parking all over the place. I am clearly exaggerating. Mr. Chambliss - This facility isn't planned or being designed to handle those sorts of occupant loads. Chairperson Wilcox- We need to give the public a chance to speak. Ladies and gentlemen this is a public hearing, if you wish to address the Planning Board this evening on this particular agenda item you probably know the drill by now. We ask that you come up. We ask that you give us your name and address and we'd be very interested to hear what you have to say. John Yengo, 1147 Danby Road Mr. Yengo — Since your are creating. a special district for this prospect,.. Chairperson Wilcox — We are not. Mr. Kanter — It's a special permit. Mr.Yengo — Would you describe that special permit-to me? Chairperson Wilcox - Well; the town attorney will take that one. Attorney Barney — In zoning you can have certain uses that are permitted, but. only under specific conditions and those specific conditions have to be met to get what is called a special permit, to comply with that type of zoning. This type of activity is permitted by getting a special permit and is a requirement set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, or criteria I should probably say, it's a better word. .W* Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Mr. Yengo — And is the facility that has approximately 66 cars, parking lot, and approximately so many permanent residents there as students, does this special.permit on this 38 acre parcel limit the development of that space to that which is being applied for today? Attorney Barney — Wells they have to get a site plan approval and that's what they are requesting here so they can't modify the site plan further if it's approved without going back to this board. Does it limit them in perpetuity? Probably not. If they have a need to develop or add something to it theycould come back and if they make the case that they need it and it meets the requirements of the statute then they would probably be able to get it. The permits and special approval that are being considered now relate to this proposal as it's presented. Mr. Yengo — And it's placed on 38 acres? That's exactly my point. Chairperson Wilcox Well when you say it's placed on it, that's why I think you're equating it to a, zoning change. Mr. Yengo — Well, I'm not even criticizing the project. I happen to enjoy the fact that they are going there. What I don't want to do is leave it so open ended that it won't be just 66 people. Chairperson Wilcox — I think we can address that. They have come to us for preliminary approval this evening and this permit. Should we grant it they.would have to go back for final approval? They have the approval to build what they are showing. Mr. Kanter — Only. Chairperson Wilcox — Only. And as the attorney John Barney said, should at some point in the future they wish to add more structures, more cabins, more whatever_ they must come back to this board to... Mr. Yengo - Under what auspices, however? Chairperson Wilcox —,Not under the t.special permit, but just under the regulations in the zoning laws for the Town of Ithaca. Mr. Yengo = I'd appreciate it, Attorney Barney, if you'd put only in the permit. Attorney Barney — It goes without saying that it's only what is approved. You can't build anything different. Mr. Yengo - Thank you very much. ON Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — You were the one that got Wally Wiggins to change... Mr. Yengo — Yes I was. I'm surprised this particular owner hasn't said something, but I guess not. Chairperson Wilcox — I think I said it when they were here before for sketch plan. If you look at the potential development on this site, 50, 60, 75 single- family lots, each a duplex maximum build out possibly more versus this... Mr. Yengo — (inaudible) I just don't want to leave it open- ended. Chairperson Wilcox_— Neither do we Mr. Yengo - [inaudible] Chairperson Wilcox - That's right. Neither do we. Would someone else like to speak, as this is a public hearing? And if there is no one back there, I will close the public hearing at 8:26 and bring the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. Board Member Mitrano — I move it. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Board Member Howe — Second. Chairperson. Wilcox Seconded by Rod Howe. We do have some proposed changes. Who's been keeping track of them? Attorney Barney — Between the two of. us, I think we can.... Mr. Kanter = Well, so far I think they could all be incorporated into Condition C with some additional language, one of which would be to include "including submission of scaled dimensions. of building elevation drawings. on Sheet A10 ". And then also somehow we wanted to factor in that the board is requesting that samples of building colors and materials be provided to the board prior to final site plan approval Chairperson Wilcox — Including the roof. l Attorney Barney — [inaudible] finishes and colors for exterior facades, roofs. and other [inaudible]. 41 Chairperson Wilcox — Yup. Board Member Mitrano — Sounds good. Chairperson Wilcox — OK? Board Member Howe— Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Are. we still comfortable with condition F, "submission of evidence that the Fire department has reviewed and approved the proposed plans," given the letter we got? Attorney.Barney - I guess I have a little problem with the Fire Department's letter.:. Board Member Thayer — The way they worded it. Attorney Barney — It says it needs to be constructed for the ability to hold equipment in excess of 75,000 pounds. I don't know what it is that they're driving that weighs more than 75,000 pounds, but how much in excess are they talking about? Mr. Chambliss - He said his biggest unit was a 40 ton unit, so 80,000 pounds would be the maximum. He didn't think that unit would be driven up there. He thought their 25 ton unit would be the one they'd use to get access to the site. Attorney. Barney — I guess the question I have with you is, is it possible to go back to get the letter to say instead of in excess of some number, a maximum of some number, so we are guided by what, for Dan, when he is looking at the engineering aspect of it, what you should be designing for... Mr. Chambliss - Right. Fine. I'd be happy to ask him for that. Chairperson Wilcox — One is open ended unfortunately. OK, very good. Thank you, John. All set with those changes, Tracy and Rod? Board Member Mitrano — Yes, sir. Chairperson Wilcox — OK. Mr. Kanter — One, I know the applicant mentioned that they don't intend to grade the outdoor activity field, so for grading, this is in condition J, we could at least take out the reference, I suppose to the outdoor activity field. CV Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Mr. Chambliss - Would that qualification also apply to the... I mean, the cabins are intended to be on piers, and the bathhouse is intended to be sort of located on grade in a place where no grading would be required. Mr. Kanter — I think for those, I think the board would, and the engineer would at least want to see the actual foundation accommodation for that if there is no grading and what will the foundation type be like. So, maybe we can change that to say something like. grading and /or foundation detail. And, you'll need that for building permit anyway. Mr. Chambliss- - It's not clear that we'll be applying for a building permit for that part of it anytime soon. I just don't have a sense of... Mr. Kanter — Normally, any buildings that the board is approving, even if they are small structures, since this is a grouping of a number of small structures, I think the board would want to see some detail of what the foundation, what the building in the ground will be like. Mr. Chambliss - The detail is fine, the only thing I'm concerned sort of thing that was planned two or three years down the roa place to find out where it fits nicely after living on the site for enough it can be moved around. So, we can provide details describe the intended impact, but it seems kind of premature thought of it, to try and locate it specifically now. about is I think it's the d to sort of walk it into a while, since it's small of the foundations and the way .we've always Chairperson Wilcox — Alternatively, we could remove it from what's being approved, presumably approved this evening, we could remove it, which removed your ability to build it in the future without coming back to the board. Mr. Chambliss - Well, would it be...? Chairperson Wilcox — We're just trying to get some idea, you know... Mr. Chambliss I understand. If we sort of define the detailed parameters of how it would be built without specifically locating it, is that adequate? Chairperson Wilcox — Not really. Board Member Hoffmann — For a site plan, we like to know where things are going to be sited. Mr. Tobey - I guess my question about the... Chairperson Wilcox — Do me a favor, just name again. 43 Town of Ithaca Planning Board- Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Mr. Tobey - Scott Toby again, 903 Wyckoff. I guess with respect to the grading issue, it is a small enough structure, and it is near level enough that it will be located on an existing grade without a change in elevation of greater than maybe six inches at most, so I don't know how we can really detail grading with respect to that. And we can show a detailed footing structure. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, again, if it's clear there is no grading, and if that changes, that would probably have to come back to the board unless it's not a substantial grading change. If there's no grading involved, then I think the footing or foundation type that's going to be used on the buildings and actually, I think we mentioned in here too, what the architecture and style of those buildings would be because there really wasn't much detail, would be probably sufficient at least in my opinion. Chairperson Wilcox — I understand your position. Do you understand ours? . You're asking us to approve something that you can imagine what you can decide to build there. You can paint it... Mr. Tobey - So, as far as the cabins and the bathhouse, if we gave you an elevation with an exterior detail and a cross section of a foundation, that would be sufficient. Chairperson Wilcox — That could be sufficient, I think. Mr. Kanter — With a statement that no grading... Mr. Tobey - No substantial grading in excess of 12 inches or something will take place. Chairperson Wilcox — I think that will work. Attorney.Barney .. Is Mr. Yengo still there? Chairperson Wilcox - He's still there Does that satisfy your condition...? Attorney Barney — I just wanted to read to you a section. This is in the section dealing with site plan approvals. It concludes with the statement, "the owner and applicant shall be, bound by the final site plan as approved by the Planning. Board and all construction and development shall occur only in. accordance with the Final approved site plan unless specifically otherwise authorized by the provisions of this chapter" and there are certain small modifications that can be made without them having to come back. Basically that section, I think, covers what you were concerned with. Board Member Mitrano — So what you see is what you get? .. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Attorney Barney What you see is what you are supposed to get. Mr. Kanter — Which doesn't always happen. Chairperson Wilcox — We all set Jon and John? Mr. Kanter — Yes. Board Member Talty = I have a question.. new facility, where is the current? Where is the current facility? Like this is the Mr. Tobey — 412 North Aurora, about two blocks. Mr. Kanter — Is it true that that facility will -still be used for certain activities? Mr. Tobey — Yes. It will still be used primarily as it is now for a lot of local events and daily functions.. Actually, if you wanted to get an idea of the color scheme involved, you could drive by that house. It is painted with many of the same colors that we might choose to use in this facility. Chairperson Wilcox — May I climb up on the roof? Mr. Tobey — It is because of the; lo) Traditional Tibetan We prefer to use a Board votes on the a slate roof. Hold on. We chose a metal roof for this structure rarer pitch and trying to keep the building as close to the ground. architecture uses a flat roof, which is not as good in this climate. low pitch metal roof. motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -004; Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Nam yal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Danby Road Across From Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 2 -10 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS; . . 1. This action involves consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Namgya/ Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes I he construction of multiple buildings (main building, monks residence, student dormitories, student rooms /apartments, shrine) on the property totaling 45 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved. approximately 13, 000 square feet, to house the local Namgyal Monastery branch in Ithaca. The plans also include parking for 66 vehicles, f ve seasonal cabins and a bathhouse, a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special. Permit, on January 3, 2006, 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 January 3, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, plans entitled "Boundary & Topographic Map" dated 112012005, "Site Plan" (CI00), "Main Drive - Plan & Profile" (C101), "Utility Extensions" (0102), "Site Layout" (0103), "Site Grading '& Utilities" (0104), "Erosion & Sediment Control. Plan *f" (005), "Details" (C201, C202, C203), dated 11118105, prepared by T.G. Miller, P.C. 'Architectural Plan - Level 0'' (A00), 'Architectural Plan - Level 1 " (A01), 'Architectural Plan - Level 2" (A02), and "Building Elevations" (A10), dated 11116105, prepared by Allan McLane Chambliss, Jr, Architect, and other application material, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the construction of the Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, finding that the standards of Article "IV Section 270 -200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, and AND BE IT rFUR THER RESOLVED: 1.. That the Town, of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approva/ for. the construction of the -Namgyal Monastery located. on Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, including multiple' buildings, parking, lighting, trails,.* and stormwater facilities, as shown on the plans , entitled "Boundary & Topographic Map; dated 1120120051 "Site Plan" (000), "Main Drive - Plan & 'Profile" (Cl 01), "Utility Extensions" (002), 'Site Layout" (0103), "Site Grading & Utilities" (C104), "Erosion & Sediment Control Plan" (0105), "Details" (C2011 C2021 C203), dated 11118105, prepared by T. G. Miller, P. Cl 'Architectural Plan - Level 0" (A00), 'Architectural Plan - Level VI (AOI)s 'Architectural Plan Level 2" (AO2), and "Building Elevations" (A10), dated J Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved 11116105, prepared by Allan McLane Chambliss, Jr. Architect, subject to the following conditions: a submission of a landscape plan and planting schedule, including areas, of existing. vegetation to be retained and planting details of the stormwater pond, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and b, submission of final lighting plan and cut sheets for all proposed exterior light fixtures, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and ensure that a# exterior lighting be mounted or installed so that the fixture is aimed downward and that they are fully shielded, and c, submission of building designs (including dimensions of elevations and buildings on Sheet A10) for all proposed buildings, including elevations, finishes, colors, and other usual building details, including samples of finishes, and colors for exterior facades, roofs and other exterior features, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and d. submission of materials showing the size, location and design of . all proposed signs, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and ee submission of site details, including but not limited to the bike rack, retaining walls, and stone pavers, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and f, submission of evidence that the Ithaca Fire Department has reviewed and approved the proposed plans, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and go 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, submission of a 25 foot wide permanent utility easement for the proposed water and sewer mains to be dedicated to the Town of Ithaca, for review and approval by the Director of Engineering and the Town Attorney, prior to issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, and i, 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 Notice of Intent, Stormwater Pollution Prevention. Plan, and a permit for working in Holly Creek from NYSDEC, driveway approval from NYSDOT, and water and /or sewage system approval from Tompkins County Health Department, and 47 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved jo submission of grading or foundation details for the bath house and cabins, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and k.. revision of the Site Plan (Sheet C102) to eliminate the overhead - service lines for electric, telephone and cable, and to incorporate the alternative proposal for these utilities as fully underground utilities aligned along the main drive, prior to Final Site Plan Approval. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SEQR Sokoloff Dock, 1126 East Shore Drive Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Ron Knewstub, 180 Calkins Road Mr. Knewstub — My name is. Ron Knewstub. I reside at 180 Calkins Road, Ithaca NY. We are proposing to build a dock 8 feet wide. I think its 8 feet. Yeah,-.8 feet wide by 75 feet long. It .goes out 60 feet at 8 feet wide and then at 60 feet it widens to 151/2 feet, then goes out an additional 15'/2 -feet. So it is basically.a square deck at the end. I don't know how evident it is in the photographs that you have, but there is a stream that washes into .the lake just to the north of this, where we are siting the dock. The .area is shallow for quite a distance out. It doesn't have a normal slope. The lake bottom does not have a'norhial slope for approximately 30 or 40 feet and then it'starts to drop off at a normal rate. So if you go out approximately 40 feet it is fairly shallow. You can't do much boating 'in that area. Mr. Sokoloff, I think, intends to buy a 24 400t Alport.motorboat, In order, to dock on this dock on one side, you want to dock .on the south side, he would have to come in 24 feet and he would need 2 or 3 feet of water to safely dock there. If you have swells. coming in at 2 feet or 3 feet high, the depth of the water is going to change that much. So it wouldn't be safe to be any closer, say ,than 40 feet from shore in rough conditions. That is how we determined the length for the dock or the requirement for that length. I don't think he had any desire to go further than he needed to. He just felt that this was what he needed. Board Member Thayer — What is the draft of that boat? .• Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Mr. Knewstub — He doesn't own it yet, but they go sometimes 21/z feet. Board Member Thayer!.- And its 7 feet at the end, the depth? Mr. Knewstub — The depth is 7 feet, right. I was out there. today, as a matter of fact, just to sort of double check. The water, is down about 11/2 feet today. At 60 feet was 41/2 feet deep. That is consistent with that slope. As you go north there, it is sort of a bowl to the south of that stream wash there so as you go it gets shallow quickly heading north. You .would have to take a wide angle coming in from the north to this dock. The other thing that I wanted to address that I read, the* concerns from both the Town of Ithaca and Tompkins County about noise and activity out in that neighborhood. There are fairly large properties along that section of the shoreline. This is probably one of the busiest parts of the lake, the southern end. You get more boating activity there than I think just about anywhere. There is a lot of sailing, motor boating, surfing. There are just lots of boats and lots of activity.. I think docks that are out into the lake don't encourage boats coming in actually. I think it does the opposite. It tends to keep people off the shore. That is my general impression. Board Member Thayer = Two questions that I have. 'First of all, why does it have to be 8-feet-wide and why does it have. to have a 15 by .15 L shape at the end? Mr. Knewstub — I think for accessing the boat. Maybe sitting out there. Board Member Thayer — I mean 8 feet is overkill I think. Mr. Knewstub - I think it is for some and for others it isn't, It depends on your use. Board Member Thayer - That is a huge platform out there at 75 feet, 15 by 150 It is a pretty good size... Board Member Mitrano Deck. Chairperson Wilcox — A deck. That's right. . Board Member Thayer A good place for a parry. Mr. Knewstub — Yeah. They'll hang out there. They will probably sit out there and have the boat there. The boat would overhang the end of that for example. The boat would exceed the length of that deck certainly. I mean it is big enough to, put a couple of Adirondack chairs and maybe a small table. 49 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Board Member Thayer — A couple do2en. Mr. Knewstub — I don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — We received a letter from the Tompkins County Department of Planning who reviewed this. Did you see that? Mr. Knewstub — Yes. I did. Chairperson Wilcox — They make the point very well. For example this proposed "dock" terminates in a 15 by 15 deck extending 75 feet into the lake. I mean that is a livingroom: Board Member Thayer — It is. Chairperson Wilcox —'Well, it's ' a small livingroom I or family room. Nonetheless- it is a big space out there at the end of the dock. I'm saying to myself is this a dock or a is it a deck. Is it an extension of the living space and what is its purpose? -Its purpose, I think, is to moor a boat and get access to your boat and I'm not sure its purpose is to sit out there in your Adirondack chairs and enjoy the sunset. Board Member Talty I think it comes back to the last time we were talking about it. Is it a question of should people be allowed to do that and if that's okay? I -mean I have been on plenty of decks like that and its great to watch the fireworks.and things. Or shouldn't it be ?. There is another, dock coming in -front of us. Where do we stand on this? I don't know where we stand. Why not put a 20 by 20 out there? Where do we stand right now? Board Member Hoffmann. — .Well; I can tell you where I stand right now. Board Member Talty — ...where do we stand legally? , Chairperson Wilcox The same place we were last time.. Board Member Talty — I don't. know where we should say yes and no. say yes to one guy and no to the next. . Board Member Thayer — Well, that is the problem that we got. Board Member Hoffmann — In this case there are some differences. I have objections for the very same reasons that I gave last time and I'm not going to repeat it. Town of Ithaca Planning Board = Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox I just want to remind us that we are still doing environmental review. Board Member Talty — .Well, this is part of the environmental review. Chairperson Wilcox.— I agree. I just want to make sure you understand that. Board Member Hoffmann — In addition to the objections that I stated last time in general for docks sticking out into the lake, the location of this one makes it even worse because it sticks- out from a piece of land that juts out into the lake. So it sticks out -so much further than all the other docks that are around there. There is a potential with it interfering much more with traffic of other boats going by there. And as we just heard there is a lot of boat traffic there. A lot of it is probably from the area near the Town Park where there is a marina. Anyway, I don't want to belabor my point any further than that. Board Member Talty - With each one we pass, you know the 'next ... I mean your business is going to flourish. That is where I am going. One guy is going to build a.60 feet, one guys going to build an 8 -foot- wide and the next guy is going to build .a 10 foot wide and then 100 feet out and then with the L and then they are going to come back. Where do we stop? Board' Member Thayer We have no rules. Chairperson Wilcox We have rules. Board Member Hoffmann - We don't have to approve it. Unless I hear some additional reasons than what I heard tonight, which. is they can have a couple of Adirondack chairs. there and' in the papers we got, I'm not voting to approve this. That is .a choice that we all have. Board Member Thayer — This photograph is interesting. Most of the existing docks are 5 feet wide. There is one deck out there that is 20 by 15 north of this particular spot. Chairperson Wilcox — We have an aerial of the shoreline. Mr. Knewstub — Okay. I really think that it sounds like it sticks way out, but it is- a perspective thing. "In your mind it does, but when you are there using it and when you are on the water, it does not give you that impression of being particularly large and for water dependent activity, 151/2 by 15' /2 is ' pretty minimal for accessing boats. From the Army Corps point of view, you can dock 3 or 4 boats on a dock. So if you have one on every side and you have people using the boats and having gear and whatever else, it is water depended activity. This does not seem extraordinary to me at all. If you 51 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved look at the scope of this person's property, it is quite large. I'm sure it cost him a little bit of money and he should be allowed to enjoy it. Board Member Thayer — What was the size of the dock that we approved last time? Mr. Knewstub — I think that was 60 feet. Board Member Thayer — And the width? Mr. Knewstub — The width stayed 8 feet all the way out. It wound up sort. of zigzagging its way out there and it had a deck on the end of 240 square feet. Ms. Balestra — It was originally 70 feet and they reduced it to. 60 feet. There was a 14 by 24 boatlift and there was a 10 -foot wide ... there was a 10400t section. Most of the dock was 8 feet, which is the maximum permitted. So we do allow 8 feet wide. Board Member Thayer — I. understand that. It just seems like overkill. Board Member Talty Actually, I kind of disagree, Larry. Going out on a deck or to a boat launch and you have a narrow space and you have two people walking side by side, lets say a child'or something like that, I think .8 feet is ... you don't want to feel tight like you are going to fall into the water.,*_, Board Member Thayer — Eight feet is legal, so I can't argue that. Board Member Talty — I think that that is the well thought out fondness of the .whole 8 feet decision. I mean that is my personal opinion when I walk out, especially if I am walking out 70 feet. I don't want to be walking out on something that is narrow, especially if you are docking a boat to. the side of it. Board Member Thayer — So I think we are talking about the length because the width is already accepted. Chairperson Wilcox — The total length right now is75 feet. Board Member Thayer — He'has a good point about bringing a -24 foot boat in there that, has a 21/2 foot draft and you get 2 foot waves, you're in trouble if it is shorter, than 75 feet. But where do we stop? Where.do start? Attorney Barney — Well you can't go out further 100 feet. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah.. What happens if Tiger Woods wants to bring his big yacht in? 52 Town'of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes.of January 3, 3006 Approved Board Member Thayer - Well, he could land his helicopter on this deck. Chairperson Wilcox.- He just bought a $40 million property down in Florida. Board Member Mitrano - So it can't go out past 100 feet, John, because of the...? Attorney Barney - I think once you are outside of „100 feet you are in the domain of the Army Corps of Engineers and their navigable waterways. Is that correct? Mr. Knewstub - Yes, I believe so. That is correct. Mr. Kanter - And this had to get Corps of Engineers permit anyway and one of the conditions is to make sure that it doesn't interfere with navigation on the waters. Board Member Mitrano - At any distance? Mr. Kanter - Well, as constructed. We did, just for your information, at the last COC meeting we referred the resolution that this board passed asking the committee to look further into the situation of docks and they were interested in doing that. So. I think that they would like us to provide some more information on inventory of what is out there on the shoreline now, length of docks, widths. Chairperson Wilcox,- Think you will need a boat to do that? Ms. Balestra - I'll be happy to do it. in the summer. Board Member Mitrano - What is the depth at 60 feet? Mr. Knewstub - Six.feet. Chairperson Wilcox - And 7 out at 75. Board Member Thayer - That is what it shows. Chairperson Wilcox —What are: we.comfortable with in terms of length? Board Member Howe - I think it is too long. Board Member Thayer 60: Board Member Mitrano - Yup. R 53 Board Member Thayer — That is what we did before. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin, can I get a feel from you? Board Member Talty I don't know how I feel for me. I really don't. I've got to think, about it. Board Member Thayer —"I think we are all confused. Chairperson Wilcox What about the 15 by 15 L at the end? Board Member Mitrano — For some reason that bothers me, too". Board Member Howe — Yeah. I don't think we need it. Board Member Thayer — Especially on a little peninsula. Chairperson Wilcox - Is that necessary to dock a boat? Mr. Knewstub — Actually, I think it is a good idea. Chairperson Wilcox But you are also talking about Adirondack chairs. I appreciate the fact that you are being candid:.: Mr. Knewstub - The only reason that. I .mentioned that,, which I probably shouldn't. have, is to give -a sense of.the dimensions. If you are going to sit around out the how big is that space. I don't think you could put more than 3 or 4 Adirondack chairs out there and a small table. That was my point. You coul "dn't have a large parry there. _ Chairperson - Wilcox" - We don't want them to have a :large party there. Board Member Mitrano — It's" a deck, not a dock. Chairperson Wilcox - The point is, it becomes a deck not a dock. Mr. Knewstub, — It is water dependent activity.:: He is going to have a "boat there. He is " going to have friends with boats. They are going to come; they are going to dock there and they are going to... Board Member Mitrano — Then you go into the house.. I live on the lake and I don't have deck on the dock. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Attorney Barney - I don't want to be crass about this, but do you get paid by the square foot of the dock that you are putting out there? Mr. Knewstub — I do, but honestly, I really... Attorney Barney_ — So it is a .completely unbiased opinion that we ought to have a very large deck? Mr. Knewstub E Mr. Kanter Is a larger end at the define a dock in that is one of the Attorney Barney eriously, though... function of a dock fishing? Because if it is, you might want to have a dock so that several people could stand there fishing. We don't really our Zoning Ordinance as to what its purpose is supposed to be. So policy issues that you need to struggle with. - However, we do define the dimensions. Mr. Kanter —That's true. Board Member Hoffmann — So that is what we have to deal with. Mr: Kanter - But we are also asking COC to look at it. Maybe they should also be looking at what the_function of the dock should be. Chairperson Wilcox — I have sort of consensus on 60 feet, I think. Board Member Thayer — Well that is what we. approved before. I would hate to go beyond that. Chairperson Wilcox..- [What about the 151/2 by 15 .1/2 L sitting .out. there? In the photograph that. you handed us, there was one bigger. Board Member Thayer, — Yeah there is one 20 by 15 north of there. ,. Board Member Howe — But it is not as long. Board Member Thayer — But it is only 40 feet long and it's in a cove rather than - on a peninsula. But it is bigger. Chairperson Wilcox - I feel that I have 4 votes for 60 feet. I feel comfortable with that. What are we going to do about the 15 by 15? Board Member Thayer — What did we do with the other one? 55 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Going back to what we did last time with the L extension, but that sort of became a zigzag. Ms. Balestra - It didn't turn out to be much of an issue. Board Member Mitrano — But how big was it? Ms. Balestra The overall square footage was larger because it zigzagged and then it took up more space. Board Member Mitrano — I mean at the very end there? Ms. Balestra - At the very end there was a 10 by 24 and a 14 by 24 boatlift. So... Board Member Thayer — That's parallel _rather than extending out. Ms. Balestra — Right. Board Member Howe — Well... tnairperson vviicox — ivo. Board Member Hoffmann - But still this sticks out so much more. into: the lake because of it being out on a peninsula. I don't know, for entertainment, I think a deck belongs on the land part of the property: I think a dock should be for water related things. You can have people-standing along the length of it fishing. It. doesn't have to be at the very end Board- Member Talty — I also have an issue with the maintenance of them. I know that. this is private property and everything; but if you are extending.these things out in the lake, I have seen some shabby decks /docks that need a lot of repair and that is something else where if you start to allow these appendages out into the lake, I mean we have pretty severe winters here. The ice has been. known to do a few things. Mr. Knewstub — I know and our docks seem to survive them. Chairperson Wilcox = All right. We still have our good friends. with Genex sitting out there. They are waiting very patiently. 56 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Mr. ' Knewstub If you do reduce the length, though, I think I would move it a little further to the south. Part of the siting of this was to stay as far away from the north neighbor and far away from the south neighbor and still get that length. So bringing it in a little bit I think we get a little deeper water if we go a littler further south. So I might suggest that. I don't know if that is problematic in any way. It is. already 70 feet from the property line. Board Member Mitrano — That's .fine.. Board Member Thayer - .That's good. Ms. Balestra - As long as- it doesn't.interfere with the southern neighbor dock. Chairperson Wilcox — We still have to deal with the 15 by 15 foot patio at the end. Board Member Talty - That is bigger than this. For sure, that is bigger than this right here. If you want to put some kind of dimension, I bet it is about 12 feet across there. Mr. Kanter — 15 by 15 is a reasonable sized livingroom. Board Member Thayer — That's big. Board Member Mitrano — Give us a number: Board Member Thayer — I like 10 by 10, but I would go 12 by 120 Mr. Knewstub - 12 by 20? Board Member Mitrano — He's not only a salesman, he's a comedian. Chairperson: Wilcox - It just got .bigger, didn't it? Board Member Hoffmann — This is not something for us to sit and. negotiate here.. If you are saying that you want to move it further south, I think the best thing would be if you bring us back some of your drawings that show exactly where it is going to go then. Board Member. Talty — But Eva, he is looking for guidance, too. We give guidance to people all the time. So I think that is what it is. It is not really a negotiations it's more of what the board is demanding what he comes back with. Board Member Thayer — He hasn't showed us exactly where it is going to be placed on the shoreline anyway. 57 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved, Inaudible comments... Board Member Hoffmann — I care about, actually. I think it's the wrong place to put it right at the point that is furthest out into the lake. I understand that there might be other restraints, but that is for you to find. out and tell us about, if you want to move it from this position. Mr. Knewstub — I can tell you right now, move it maybe 10 feet to the south. Board Member Thayer — To the south? Mr. Knewstub - Yes. I wouldn't move it very far. I would just Board Member Hoffmann — But there are no dimensions on this drawing that you gave us. Mr. Knewstub — Which one? The site plan? Board Member Hoffmann — So we can sit here and look at this, but it, doesn't tell. us much. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we can. Mr. Knewstub. - Don't you allow us to put it within .10. to 20 feet of the neighbor? I guess I-am saying as long as we are within the setback requirements does it make a difference to you? Chairperson Wilcox — We do have some dimensions. There is a dimension right here of 208 feet. Right there. So we do have some idea. Board Member Hoffmann — Is'the dock drawn to scale on this drawing? Mr. Knewstub I don't usually trust the scale on these things, but it is 208 feet and divide. that in half so 104 and then.you are 10 feet each side of that: I would say you are somewhere around 80 feet to the north. Board Member Hoffmann — Can you answer me just yes or no? Is the dock drawn to scale on this survey map? Mr. Knewstub Yes. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. Board Member Mitrano — 12 by 12? Board Member Thayer By 606 Mr. Kanter - Here is a suggestion for. the board. to consider. i Zoning Board for some variances depending on-what we end up the. preliminary site plan approval and special permit conditioned to show the new location, dimensions and conditional on getting needed, which we already have in there. Board Member Howe — Sounds good. Mr. Kanter - But we are still on SEQR. 'hey have to go to. the with. You could issue on changing the plans any variances that are Chairperson Wilcox — 15 by, 15, actually, it is 151/2 by 151/2, but 15 by 15 is 225 square feet, 12 by 12 is 144 so we have knocked it down about 1/3. Board Member Mitrano That sounds good. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't want to play let's make a deal here,: either. The alternative is to say no, we don't like this. It is disapproved. Go away and then you have to come back again. We are trying to do a little bit better than that because we would approve something at some point. We are still doing environmental review, but do we have a little bit of consensus around 12 by 12 L? Board Member Hoffmann — But I don't think... Chairperson Wilcox You are. not part of the.consensus because you have already said that you were against it. Board Member Hoffmann — I said unless I hear something other than what I have heard before. Chairperson Wilcox — So we have got it down to 60 feet long and a smaller L, but I don't think we. are getting down 'to where- I even need to think about getting a yes vote out of you. Board Member Hoffmann — What I don't like is we are sitting here and saying it is moved about this much south and we think we are going to have these dimensions and that is not how we do things. 59 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Board Member.Thayer. - Well he is going to show us. Board Member Mitrano — Well that is what Jonathan -was just saying. Board Member Thayer - Jonathan just said that we were going to finalize that. Board Member Hoffmann — If we are going to vote today, are we going vote on everything or..: Chairperson Wilcox — We are voting on preliminary only. Board Member Hoffmann — Oh. Chairperson Wilcox— Similar to what we just did with the Monastery. Board Member Thayer — Right. He is going to come back and show us where it is. Chairperson Wilcox Every dock is going to take two. visits and he gets paid by the hour or the square foot. 60 foot long, 12 by 12 L. Board Member Mitrano — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox Would someone like to. move the SEQR motion? Board Member Thayer moves the motion and Board Member Howe seconds the motion... PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -005: SEOR, Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Proposed Dock, 1126 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed dock located at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile dock, 8 feet wide by 75 feet long with an 1 " to the north 15 feet 6 inches wide by 15 feet 6 inches long. Jason Sokoloff, Owner; Ronald B Knewstub, Agent, and . .e Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved 2. This is: an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 42 The Planning Board, on January 3, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted- by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled 'Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, " date stamped November 21, 2005, and.other application materials, and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: Hoffmann. The motion was declared to be carried. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 9:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the construction of a dock located at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone.. -The proposal includes constructing an open. pile dock, 8' wide by 60' long with an "L" to the north 15'6" wide by, 15'5" long. Jason. Sokoloff, Owner; Ronald B. Knewstub, Applicant Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 9:05 p.m. and invites members of the public hearing to address the board. With no persons interested in speaking, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. 61 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox So we kind of got to 60 feet long, maximum, 12 by 12 L, maximum. Board Member Thayer - And preliminary approval only Chairperson Wilcox — This would be preliminary approval conditioned on Zoning Board, final drawings showing the location and size and I'm not sure what else was in the original resolution. Plus the special permit and any other conditions. that are in here. The Town Attorney and the Town Assistant Attorney are both writing, as I like to say. Thank you. Board Member Talty — Did Jonathan indicate that the Town Board is going to look at this? Chairperson Wilcox. - No. He indicated that the Codes and Ordinances Committee with look at it, which includes both 2 members of this board, Eva and myself, a member of the Zoning Board and 3 or 4 members of the Town Board. It would be up to them, COC, to sort of like the government works for that committee to put something together and present it to the Town Board. Board Member Talty — Work quickly. I don't know what is coming. up on the agenda, but I've go to think that there are more of these coming. Mr. Kanter — Should I mention the third dock that we have coming in? Ms. Balestra — Go ahead. Mr. Kanter — There is another -that will be coming in. We just actually got a draft of the application to look over on the east shore. The applicant was originally thinking about_ a 70400t dock, I think about. After I told them all the requirements in the zoning he revised his submission and it conforms in all respects to the zoning. 30 feet length ... and maximum 300 square feet of surface area. Now, of course, that is that one situation and that applicant: was willing to abide by and not that they have a choice; they have to abide by the Town's regulations unless they are waived. . Board Member Mitrano — Unless they get this guy to come in for them. Mr. Kanter — Apparently his location on the shoreline was such that a 30400t dock would accommodate what he wanted to do. He is also proposing a mooring for a sailboat out a little bit farther. Board Member Thayer — You can't bring a sailboat in. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January3, 3006 Approved Mr. Kanter — No, you can't. Mr. Knewstub — Does he have a dock builder? Mr. Kanter — Its probably not you. Chairperson Wilcox. moves the motion and Board Member Thayer seconds the motion. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to make a comment about why I feel especially unhappy about thinking of approving this motion and that is the further resolved, all the points a through i on the second page, which I feel doesn't fit the situation at all. Ms. Balestra — Those are the special permit requirements. Board Member Hoffmann — I know, we still have to feel that it is true if you are going to vote for it, it seems to me. Chairperson Wilcox — Attorney Barney, changes? Attorney Barney Paragraph 1, add after the phrase special permit for the project, modify to reduce the overall length. to 60 feet and the L area 12 feet by 12, subject to_ the conditions listed to 2,.3, and 4 below. 60 would be put into the blank that is there. 3 would remain the'same and 4, final plans shall be submitted showing the revised dock size and the relocation of the dock approximately 10 feet to the south. Chairperson Wilcox — You are proposing to move the dock roughly 10 feet to the south? Mr. Knewstub — I think right now, yeah. Chairperson Wilcox = That's fine. We are not holding you to it other than... Attorney Barney — We are using the word approximately so... I Chairperson Wilcox — You have to come back and show us the exact location. Board Member Hoffmann — If one looks at this drawing, which I realize this.is a drawing on top of an old survey map, it is not a new survey map, if this is drawn to scale as we heard, this is 8 feet wide so moving this 10 feet to the south is not very far. Board Member Mitrano — No, of course not. Chairperson Wilcoxx — Attorney Barney, any other changes? 63 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Attorney Barney - Any time the words "and final" show up, you have to remove it.. Board Member Hoffmann— And to me that doesn't seem far enough if you can move it. He might be able to move it even further south and get it even shorter. Board Member Mitrano — That is what I am curious about. I am very curious about what you just said with respectlo this third application because part of the reason why I, have. been willing to make what seemed like extraordinary extensions in dimensions given our codes, is necessity. So what you are saying to me, you said to this guy that this is what these things. are and he went back and figured out how to_ do it within those dimensions. Mr. Kanter — Again, I would just caution that that is his situation and that is what he felt he could live with at his shoreline area. I wouldn't extrapolate it too much. Board Member Mitrano — Because of the irregular shoreline? Attorney Barney — It's the fall off, too. Ms. Balestra — If I understand correctly, his solution is to build a dock that conforms, but also have a, mooring for the boat farther out. Mr. Kanter — That is one thing that I think COC will have to look at There are so many variable conditions along each side. The west side is totally different from the east side that it is going to be very difficult to have one set of standards. Board Member Mitrano — Can't you have criteria then? I think that would more helpful given we have these variations: Mr. Kanter -That might be one thing to look at. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, are those changes acceptable? Board Member Thayer Yes. Board Member Talty — I. have a question on safety. When they go out, how far do they have to go out before it is lit? Like do you have to have some kind of light out at the end of these? Mr. Knewstub —.No. There is no law requirement. Mr. Kanter — There is actually in our zoning ordinance. MOA Attorney Barney — 100 feet. Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Mr. Kanter - That has to do with the navigability issue. Mr. Knewstub — May I say one thing? It is in reference to her extraordinary extensions, where I really, I feel that the dimensions that you have come up with are extraordinarily limiting. So that what makes this seem like an extraordinary extension because of your arbitrary 300 feet? Board Member Mitrano I` think that is right and I think we have been working very hard in a very unclear situation to try to come up with something without the ... (not audible)... My recommendation is that rather than having footage is to have criteria. Mr. Knewstub - I agree with you. Board Member Mitrano - If we have criteria. where we cart accommodate people's needs with respect to the watercraft that they use and why they need the dock and we also need a definition of what a dock is for so that we know that we are not building whole new structures out on the water. Attorney Barney — We have said that in the ordinance for . docks that they are not supposed to be dwelling units. So there are some limitations on what can go on a dock. Now. whether it is a fishing dock or... Board Member Mitrano — So what we are trying to do is be able to accommodate_ your customers: Mr. Knewstub — They are the ones that I would be concerned about, the people that buy the boat and use the dock. . Chairperson Wilcox - You have to come back at some point after the Zoning Board. Mr. Knewstub — I am getting to be comfortable here. Mr. Kanter - We were just going to mention that for the Zoning Board application, which we have already received, that would need to be revised in order to submit it to the Zoning Board, Mr. Knewstub — Right. I understand that. Board votes on the motion.. 65 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved PS RESOLUTION NO, 2006-006; Preliminary Site Plan Approval & Syecia/ Permit, Proposed Dock, 1126 East Shore Drive, Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -5.2 MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer. WHEREAS; 10 This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed dock located at 1126 East, Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront . Residential 'Zone; The proposal includes constructing an open pile dock, 8 feet wide by 75 feet long with an "L" to the north 15 feet 6 inches wide by 15 feet 6 inches long. Jason Sokoloff, Owner; Ronald B Knewstub, Agent, and 20 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review. with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit has, on January 3, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The. Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 3, 2006, has reviewed . and accepted plans entitled 'Jason Sokoloff, 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," date stamped November 21, 2005, and other application materials, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; .10 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements .for Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor. the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the construction of a new dock located at 1126 East Shore Drive, as shown on the submitted plans, modified as required in conditions 2 and 4 below, . subject to the following conditions: a. Granting of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, in particular, the requirements of Section 270 -45 (A)(1)(b)[6] regarding the width of the dock and Section 270 -45 (A)(1)(b)[8] regarding the 66 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 30.016 Approved maximum allowed surface area, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and b. That the applicant maintain the NYS water quality standards listed in the letter from the NYSDEC dated November 7, 2005, and the specific permit conditions outlined in the Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED: 1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the project modified to reduce the overall length to 60 feet and to reduce the area at the end to 12 feet by 12 feet, subject to the conditions listed in 2, 3, and 4 below, determining that.• a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in harmony with the general purpose of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code and the specific purposes, are being promoted, and be the premises are reasonably adapted to the proposed use, and such use will fill a neighborhood or community need, and C the proposed use and the location and design of proposed structures are consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, and d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood .character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, .and e, operations in connection with the proposed. use will not be more - objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations, illumination, or other public nuisance, than the operation of any permitted use in the zone in which the use is located, and f, community infrastructure and services -are of adequate capacity to accommodate the proposed use, and g, the proposed: use, facility design, and site layout comply with' all . of the provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code with the exception of Section 270 -45 (A)(1)(b), Subsections [6J, [7J, and [8] regarding maximum width, length, and total surface area, and to the extent considered by the Planning Board, with other regulations of the. Town, and with the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and 67 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 . Approved he the proposed access. and egress for all structures and uses is safely designed and the site layout provides adequate . access for emergency vehicles, and /a the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole is. not detrimental to the health, safety. and general welfare. of the community, and j. * the lot area and access are sufficient for the proposed use; and k, natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with good engineering practices, and existing drainageways are not altered in a manner that adversely affects other properties, and 1. to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site plan review set forth in the Town of Ithaca. Zoning Code, and 2. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes the' length of the proposed dock to exceed the 30 -foot maximum length, pursuant. to Section 270- 45(A)(1)(b)[7J, with the condition that said dock shall not exceed 60 feet, and 3. That this Special Permit is further conditioned upon the approval of the variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals as referenced in condition 2.a. of Site Plan Approval in regards to maximum width and surface area, and 4. Final site plan shall be submitted showing the revised dock and the relocation of the dock approximately 10 feet to the south. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS Hoffmann. The motion was declared to be carried. SKETCH PLAN Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed addition at the Genex Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The : proposal involves constructing a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities. Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent. --,68 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 9:16 p.m. Tony Egner, Egner Architectural Associates Mr. Egner — My name is Tony Egner and I am principal in Egner Architectural Associates, LLC at 408. West State Street, Ithaca New York. I have with me owner's representative, Gordon Nickerson.. Gordon Nickerson, 522 Sheffield Road Mr. Nickerson — Gordon Nickerson, representative for Genex, 522 Sheffield Road, Ithaca NY. Attorney Barney - Tony, what is your address again? Mr. Egner — 408 West State Street. We moved, John. Attorney Barney — Your label here is still back at 310 West State Street on your plans. Mr. Egner — Well we are still at 310, too, but our basic office is at 408. Attorney Barney — Thank you. Mr. Egner — I walk back and forth.. Attorney Barney — Healthy. Mr. Egner But: you should change that. Attorney Barney — All your documents printers. Is that on one of ours? have 310. You may want to change your Chairperson Wilcox Moving right along, Attorney Barney. Mr. Egner By golly, they do. Anyway, they won't next time. Basically what I' have tried to do is give you more information than what we are required to in your ordinance. I have reviewed it with. Jon.. We have also reviewed the proposal with Dan Walker and John Andersson at the Health Department. I think the documents that we gave you are pretty self - explanatory. The site plan shows a building of approximately 115 feet by 86 feet, which is approximately 10,000 square feet. It is an addition to the production center II, which we did in about 1989 and relates. directly to the work that Genex is doing in production of semen on that part of the building. Then ... will be doing research on refining the semen and defining the kinds of semen that are the most productive. The purpose, of course, is to improve the agricultural input for the entire country and the world. .• Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved. We have given you an indication of the parts that are there, the 127 acres and which is only a part of the 1100 acres that Genex owns in the area. The rest of it being across Sheffield Road. I also showed you the existing_ site plan and showed you what kind of renovations we would be making to the site plan. Essentially, we would be building .a new building to the west of the existing building and moving the service drive to the west of the addition. That is about all I have to say unless you would like me to answer some questions. Chairperson Wilcox — How is business? Mr. Egner — Fair. Improving. Oh, their business? Chairperson Wilcox — Genex doing well? Monsanto in the name, how did that happen? Did they buy the company? Mr. Nickerson — No. We are just working with them. Chairperson Wilcox — As far as I am. concerned it is an agricultural use. It's a nonagricultural use, but nonetheless it's an agricultural use. Mr. Kanter — Although this element. of it has a research base element, to it. Besides agricultural production, there is definitely a research aspect. Chairperson Wilcox Agricultural research. You mentioned that in your cover letter about zoning consistency and the comp plan. I don't have a problem with it. The issue. of not having, can.you move the microphone over to Mr. Nickerson so we can pick him up? The issue of not having public water, how has.that impacted you? Mr. Nickerson — We really have been under the public water .regulations ever since we build the PC2. You mean the public water supply? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Mr. Nickerson — There are issues with water, on the hill. We have 6 existing wells right now for that one PC2 unit, which supplies us enough water to meet our needs. We are planning:on one more for 2006. Certainly we would like public water up there for sure, but we have an adequate supply at this time and to meet our needs in the near future. Chairperson Wilcox — I am _thinking of when Peter Trowbridge was here representing for the horse facility and I just want to get a feel here. Roughly how many bulls are on the property any onetime? Mr. Nickerson -70n our 127 acres, there is about between 100 and 125. 70 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved . Chairperson Wilcox. - Say 100. What are they worth a piece? Mr. Nickerson — The bulls? Chairperson Wilcox— Yes. $100,000 a piece? Mr. Nickerson — I would say on average about $6,000. They are our younger bulls at that facility. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I'm just trying to get a value. I'm trying to think of given the value invested in those animals, I am concerned about the water supply and everything. else, but you have. got to be more concerned about the water supply than I am. Mr. Nickerson — Absolutely. Chairperson Wilcox - Given your investment and:.. Mr. Nickerson - That has been a concern. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Late hour or is it that...? Board Member Mitrano — I move the motion. Chairperson. Wilcox —There is no resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — Jon Kanter, you mentioned something about sprinklers might-be needed and, there is a problem with water pressure already out there, but is that something that can be worked out, do you think? Mr. Kanter — I think you can address the applicant on that because we have talked about it a little bit. Our sprinkler law, apparently, would require sprinklers in a facility like that, but I will let Tony answer that. Mr. Egner — Last time we went through the same kind of a decision because that was just about the time the sprinkler law came into affect. At that time we had in . the building besides. the animals about 6 people. We also had an assembly space, which would congregate anywhere from 50 to 70 -some odd people. At that point, we put in an independent system, a Halon system, which is no longer in use and that space has been converted to office and facilities along with the Genex stuff that we have there. So there is no longer an assembly space. At this point that building Halon system is down and actually they are selling it. So the question of sprinklering is still there based upon the law that was put into affect, but we don't have that total level of people any 71 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January.3, 3006 Approved more. So we will have to go for another variance, which we had last.time to not put in a sprinkler. system.. If we went through the process last time, it would have cost at that point over a quarter of a million dollars to put in the necessary storage tank to put water in for the animals and people at that point. Mr. Kanter — Could you describe what a Halon system is? Mr. Egner — A Halon system is, you took this room and you said okay I can put 100 people in here. The Halon system is an inert gas that you don't want to stay in the room more than 30 seconds. 30 seconds and you have to get right out of the room. So once the alarm goes, we have to have enough exits directly to the outside so that the people could get out of the room. So it's a dangerous gas and it is now off the market. There are other ways of doing it now. Board Member Hoffmann — But. what was it used for. I didn't understand what was its purpose when you had it. Mr. Egner — Halon is a fire suppressant.. So it would do the same thing to you as it would do to the fire. Board Member Hoffmann.— All right. I understand why you don't have it.any more. Chairperson Wilcox — They were used for computer rooms, weren't they, .where you don't want water. Mr. Egner — Early on they were also used in computer rooms because of that. That was because of potential electrical fires, particularly when computers were on raised floors and, you never knew what kind of things were going on.. The, worse problem with electrical things is mice and. rats and stuff. so you get a concealed space and that is where we used the Halon. Board Member Talty — Now they do what? What's the alternative? Mr. Egner — Now there are other alternative gases. Chairperson Wilcox Any other questions, comments, concerns? Mr. Kanter — Are people comfortable with the parking figures that Tony provided? I think it demonstrates, that.the amount of spaces there now are for a past, intense use and seem to be adequate for what will be there for this addition. Chairperson Wilcox — We just don't want people parking in the grass, parking on the road, parking in the driveway. You know what I mean. 72 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved Mr. Kanter — I did want to ask Tony to just briefly discuss longer -range plans for the property. Mr. Egner — I'll have Gordon back me up on this because the guys out in Wisconsin will have to back him up. At this point, as you may see on the site plan for the original production center 2, we show 2 terraces, which were anticipated for more open bull barns. So. they were able to be terraced like that and it was anticipated then that the center would develop further on that basis. It was also anticipated that, their headquarters would be on this site some day, but then they were bought out in an I utfit in Wisconsin. So the headquarters are really out in Wisconsin now and the thought of adding more animals here is now a moot point. In other words they are not going to expand the animal supply here any more. Chairperson Wilcox — Does this addition accommodate new jobs? Mr. Egner — At least 20, yes. Chairperson Wilcox The rest are being lighting, drainage, when you get to that point you have a. good idea of what we need. All set? You have been very patient. Mr. Pokorney — (comments not audible) Side discussion. with Mr. Pokorney. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have enough input from us? Okay. Then we're all done. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 9:31 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Re appointment of George Conneman to the Planning Board PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -007: Re- appointment of Planning Board Member, Recommendation To Town Board MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. . RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board recommends to the Town Board that George Conneman, whose term is expiring on December 31, 2005, be re- appointed as a member of the Planning Board. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES .• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. 73 Town of Ithaca Planning Board Minutes of January 3, 3006 Approved NAYS. None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Approval of Minutes December 20, 2005 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -008: Approval of Minutes: December 20, 2005. MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty. . RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the December 20, 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, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty, NA YS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann The vote on the motion was carried. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Kanter gives the board an overview of the agenda for the January 17, 2006 Planning Board meeting.. The board discusses the process of the TGEIS project. Board Member Talty provided the board with pamphlets on PODS, which. were discussed at the December 20, 2006 meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the January 3, 2006 Planning Board meeting at 9:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Carrie Coates Whi -more Deputy Town Clerk 74 To Town of Ithaca Planning Board Re Recommended Changes to Draft t -GEIS Scope Date January 3, 2006 We would like to thank the Planning Board for the opportunity to comment on the draft scope of. the Town of Ithaca - Cornell. University transportation- related GEIS currently under review. While we have a number of specific recommendations, our basic concern is simple. The stated purpose of the study is to "address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to, an increasing population. traveling to Cornell." Yet every mention of neighborhoods, roads or intersections in. the draft is in relation to their impact on the flow of traffic, and not vice versa. _ . Our recommendations are intended to remedy this. They are the product of much neighborhood discussion and many hours of work. We thank you in advance for considering them carefully, and look. forward to working with the Town and Cornell in a truly inclusive, forward - looking process. Sincerely, Name Organization Signature vVL'1R_91 ;i) it A J.` s. ,v,� .1- -i-t�C c� ".. t•l 1. t' /� �; 7's j.. i,�l -" r' � r t r tV 6 O�1�a'E�L --� r r Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) For Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) Introduction and Background Purpose of the Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) The purpose of the transportation - focused GEIS is to identify, examine and evaluate Cornell University's transportation- related impacts and possible mitigations for hypothetical Cornell University population growth scenarios, over the next decade. The GEIS is ,a tool available I under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, commonly referred to as SEQR. Unlike a project - specific Environmental Impact Statement, a GEIS is flexible enough to explore hypothetical or alternative scenarios. A major objective of the t -GEIS, is to develop ways to reduce the number of trips by motor vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods on their way to and from Cornell University. Purpose of Scoping and the Scope Scoping is the process by which the Lead Agency, the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca in this instance, identifies the significant issues related to the proposed action which are to be addressed in the draft GEIS. Where possible, the content and level of detail of the analysis, the range of alternatives, the Mitigation measures needed to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts, and the identification of non - relevant issues are included in the scope. (See 6 NYCRR Part 617.2 (af)) Scoping is not intended to be a forum for discussion of the merits of potential solutions. The Scope is an outline of what will be addressed in the GEIS. What the t -GEIS Will Not Address The t -GEIS will not recommend ways to accommodate an increase in traffic now through residential neighborhoods, but will instead explore and recommend ways to limit this traffic and reduce its impacts. The t -GEIS will not analyze , storm water, wetlands, plants and animals, air ttality housing, or utilitie , . The t -GEIS will also not analyze specific future projects. Tbeir impacts will be evaluated on a project -by- project basis as specific project proposals are brought forward and undergo site plan review and SEQR. To the extent that the completed t -GEIS addresses transportation.-related. impacts of future project proposals, it will be used as part of their individual environmental reviews, but project - specific information on transportation will still be supplied. Neighborhoods will be active partners not only in assessing the impact of current and anticipated scenarios, but also in proposing and selecting among mitigation strategies. Further Information and Process' for Public Input The following opportunities are provided for public input. Web Site: The project web site will be updated regularly with information, public documents, and all public meeting dates, times, and locations. Questions and comments can be sent via the web site as well. bttp://www.tgelsproject.org. Public Meetings and Hearings: All meetings of the Lead Agency, the Planning Board._of the Town of Ithaca, are public meetings. The. Lead Agency will also conduct public hearings to obtain input during the scoping phase, at the draft GEIS phase, and at the final GEIS phase. The Planning Board gives public notice of its meetings and hearings. Public Comment: In addition to comments received at public hearings, written comments can be submitted to the Lead Agency during announced public review periods and will be recorded as part of the public comment. Stakeholder lout: A comprehensive list of stakeholder groups is being identified by Cornell. Stakeholder groups will. be contacted to contribute to relevant aspects of the study. For example, Cornell or the project consultants could ask stakeholder groups to participate in surveys and focus .groups. Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) For Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) Preliminary Draft Scope Prepared by t -GEIS Project Team Nevernbei 15, 2005 January 3, 2006 1 d - I. Executive Summary IA Summary of Impacts and Mitigations Matrix ]I. Description of the Proposed Action This transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) is being written pursuant to the New York State and Town of Ithaca Environmental Quality Review laws to study Ten - year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) which will identify, examine and evaluate Cornell University's transportation- related impacts and possible mitigations for hypothetical Cornell University population growth scenarios, over the next decade. For purposes of this project, the term Cornell population is not limited to people who are resident on the. Cornell campus. It is largely the people who live off campus and travel to Cornell (primarily staff, faculty, and graduate students) who affect transportation in the community surrounding the campus. Travel to the main campus will be analyzed in order to understand transportation impacts on the community from an increase in the Cornell population. The main campus for the purposes of this study is illustrated in Figure]: Area of Hypothetical Population Growth for t -GEIS. TIMS will outline ways to reditee avoid or compensate for adverse transportation impacts of potential Cornell University population growth over the next decade. The purpose is to ensure that the livability of the residential neighborhoods surrounding the Cornell campus is not compromised by the growth of the University. TIMS may include recommendations for. 0 transportation demand management; multi -modal transportation strategies including pedestrian, bicycle, transit, rail and parking, access and circulation modifications, including traffic- calming and .diversion of traffic from residential neighborhoods; relocation or modification of existing or planned. traffic- generating University ,facilities; arrd zoning changes for campus land; and other possible measures. TIMS will be updated in five -year cycles. The specific mitigation measures to be implemented will be selected by the affected municipalities, in consultation with the impacted neighborhoods. During the preparation of the t -GEIS the public and-municipal agencies will have full opportunity to review the draft t -GEIS and provide comments about. the transportation impacts of a range of hypothetical Cornell population growth scenarios, their possible mitigations, and alternatives. The t- GEIS will provide, a context for a comprehensive evaluation of the transportation impacts of potential Cornell population growth over the next decade_ The mitigations sections of the t -GEIS, in particular, will inform and shape TIMS. The t -GEIS will also assist the lead and involved agencies in environmental reviews of the transportation- related impacts of individual Cornell. projects in the future. To this end, traffic counts taken during the last thirty'years will be correlated with various measures of Cornell's size during this same time period, in order to indicate how traffic volumes and number of truck deliveries are a function of: number of Cornell employees and commuting students; gross square footage (gsf) of building space on campus; number of on- campus residents (students and families); and other relevant measures. These historical relationships will be used to help estimate the traffic impact of each individual Cornell project proposal during environmental review. 2.1 Project Purpose, Need and Benefits 2.1:1 Background and History 2.1.2 Cornell and Public Need for the Proposed Action 2.1.3 Objectives 2.1.4 Benefits III. Existing Transportation Systems and Knoww?lanned Transportation Initiatives As the population that travels to Cornell increases, existing transportation systems will be affected. This section will include a description of the existing transportation systems used for accessing the campus. In Section IV potentially significant traffic impacts will be analyzed for three hypothetical Cornell population growth scenarios, plus the no- growth in population scenario. Practicable mitigation measures that can be used to avoid or minimize some or all of these potential impacts will be identified and discussed in Section V. Connectivity to alternative modes of transportation including pedestrian, bicycle, and transit will be analyzed with the goal of increased use of these modes, and decreased use of single occupancy vehicles. . Pre - existing traffic counts will be used where possible. The study will examine: 3.1 Existing Transportation Systems 3.1.1 P. 3. Relationship to Other Current Long -Range Transportation Planning Efforts A. Adopted Plans 1. Local municipalities' plans • Town of Dryden • Town of Ithaca • Town of Lansing • Village of Lansing • City of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan and Amendments (Area Studies) 2. Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan 3. Cayuga Lake Waterfront Plan (LWRP) 4. ITCTC 2025 Long Range Transportation Plan 5. ITCTC .2005 — 2010 Transportation Improvement. Program 6. Town of Ithaca Transportation Plan (pending) 7. TCAT Strategic Plan B. Planning Studies 1. North Campus Gateway 2. ITCTC Northeast Subarea Transportation Study (NESTS) 3. ITCTC NESTS Transit Planning Project (NTTP) 4. ITCTC Freight Transportation Study (FTS) 5. ITCTC Transportation Trail /Corridor Study . 6. TCAT Service and Fare Consolidation Study . 7. Forest Home Traffic Calming Plan (pending) 8. Tompkins County Travel Survey 9. Cornell University Employee Commuter Studies 10. Cornell University's plans and studies for campus development 11. Cornell University's plans and studies for transportation; parking and access 3.1.2 Relationship Between Land Use and Transportation in Tompkins County 3.l .3 Single Occupancy Vehicle Trip Reduction Programs 1.1.3.1 Pedestrian Circulation a. Description of existing and known/planned pedestrian facilities providing access to campus 3.1.3.2 Bicycle Circulation a. Description of existing and known/planned bicycle facilities providing - access to campus W 3.1.3.3 Transit Service a. Description of existing bus system b. Description.of existing Park and Ride programs c. Description of existing paratransit service 3.1.3.4 Transportation Demand Management Programs (TDMP) a. Description of existing.TDM programs at Cornell University 1. Zone 1 Privileges 2. OmniRide 3. Occasional Parker 4. RideShare 5. Guaranteed Ride Home 6. Free bus passes for students 7. Van- pooling 8. Telecommuting 9. Flex -time 10. Parking Restrictions 3.1.4 Vehicular Circulation The t -GEIS will focus on weekday p.m.- peak -hour, worst -case traffic and will not study but will also seek to limit weekend or weekday, non- peak - hour- traffic. Intersection analysis will be done for p.m. peak -hour trips only, which typically.yield the highest volume (worst -case) traffic, although in certain instances analyzing a.m. peak -hour traffic also will be appropriate. Intersections will be sorted by corridor to see if any would yield substantially redundant information within the same comdor. 3.1.4.1 Description of existing vehicular circulation on corridors that provide access to the Cornell campus. 3.1.4.2 Description of existing traffic conditions at intersections that meet the following criteria: a. the intersection . is on a major approach roadway providing vehicular access to the campus, and b. the intersection is signalized or has STOP sign control along the major roadway in the direction of approach and/or departure from campus, and c. the intersection is generally within one mile of the main.campus boundary, and d. Comely population growth is estimated to increase the future year volume of traffic on any approach of an intersection meeting the above criteria by. I . -15% or more, or 2. 10% or more for any intersection a local government, county government, NYSDOT, ITCTC, or other member of the Resource Committee has. demonstrated is at existing Level of Service (LOS) C or D, or 3. 5% or more for any intersection a local government, county government, NYSDOT, ITCTC, or other member of the Resource Committee has demonstrated is at existing Level of Service (LOS) E or worse. List of intersections to be evaluated according to the above criteria is shown in Table 1. List of Intersections to Be Evaluated According to Criteria. Locations of intersections listed in Table l are shown relative to the area of hypothetical population growth for the t -GEIS in Figure 2: Intersections to be Evaluated According to Criteria and Figure 3: Intersections to be Evaluated According to Criteria, Enlargement. 01 11.4.3 Description of existing service and delivery vehicle. traffic 3.1.4:4 Description of Cornell commuting traffic in.surrounding residential neighborhoods: • Belle Sherman/Bryant Park • Cayuga Heights • Collegetown • Comell Heights Forest Home • University. Hill • Varna Ellis Hollow • Pine Tree Road /Snyder Hill Road/Honness Lane 3.1.4.5 General description of existing traffic conditions and mitigation strategies for special events 3.1.4.6 Description of existing collision data for corridors that provide access to the Cornell campus 3.1.5 Parking 3.1.5.1 Description of existing parking for students, faculty, staff, and visitors a. On- campus b. Off - campus 1. On- street and off - street parking 2. Residential parking permit programs, meters and other regulations 3.1.5.2 Description of contemplated University parking facilities. 3.1.6 Neighborhood Livability 3.1.6.1 Description of existing traffic impacts to surrounding residential neighborhoods. Characteristics to note and measure include: • Neighborhood demographics • Housing density and set -back • Vehicle speeds and volumes • Percent trucks and buses •Collision data • Cornell- related parking • Pedestrian activity and presence of pedestrian facilities • Roadway width and gaps in traffic • Sound level at shoulder /walkway and at median house set -back • Air quality /pollution • Streetscape aesthetics and, historic character 3.1.7 Growth of Cornell University and its Traffic 301.7.1 Measurements of Cornell's growth during the past_ 30 years will be collected and presented, including: • Gross square footage (gsf) of building space on campus • Number of Cornell employees and the distribution of their home addresses • Number of commuting students and the distribution of their home addresses • Number of on- campus resident students • Number of on- campus student families • Number of on- campus parking spaces • Number of transit buses serving campus. - • Number of truck deliveries and their travel routes to campus • Number of construction vehicles accessing campus • Traffic counts on campus • Traffic counts in residential neighborhoods surrounding campus • Traffic counts at the periphery of the Area of Hypothetical Population Growth P. IV. Population Growth Scenarios and Transportation Impacts (Note: The impact analysis will include short -term, long -term and cumulative impacts:) 4.0 Traffic Implications of Cornell Growth 4.0.1 Estimation of traffic increases based on size (gsf, number of employees, etc.) of proposed Cornell developments 4.0.1.1 Increase in automotive traffic generated by Cornell- related households (faculty, staff, students) ^a. Commuting trips to Cornell b. Other trips generated by Cornell - related housebolds (see ITE Trip Generation Manual) 4.0.1.2 Increase in transit vehicle traffic a. Transit. buses serving campus b. Transit buses serving other household trip needs 4.0.1.3 Increase in service and delivery vehicle traffic a. Deliveries to Cornell campus b. Deliveries to area businesses serving Cornell - related households 4.0.1.4 Increase in construction vehicle traffic 4.0.1.5 Increase in off - campus parking in residential areas 4.1 Hypothetical Cornell Population Growth Scenarios Over the Next Decade: Hypothetical Cornel population growth scenarios will be studied for the main campus. Actual growth and impacts (and appropriate mitigation measures) will depend upon individual projects proposed by Cornell. 4.1.1 Scenario 1: no growth; population remains the same as it currently is 4.1.2 Scenario 2: population increase of 0.1 % per year (approximately 300 persons over the next 10 years; based on historical Cornell population growth from 1990 - 1999) 4.1.3 Scenario 3: population increase of 0.5% per year (approximately 1,500 persons over the next 10 years; based on 30 -year historical Cornell population growth from 1975 -2005) r 4.1.4. Scenario 4: population increase of 1.0% per year (approximately 3,000 persons over the next 10 years; based on historical Cornell population growth from 1980- 1.989) +4-5 4.1.5 Scenario 5: population increase of 3.0% per year (approximately 9,000 persons over the next ten years; based on historical Cornell gsf growth from 1900-2000) 46,1.6: Scenario 6: population increase of 5.0% per year (approximately. 15,000 persons over.`' the next ten years; based on worst case scenario, beyond historical growth rates) 4.2 Transportation Systems 4.2.1 Relationship of Each Hypothetical Cornell .Population Growth Scenario to Other Current Long - Range Transportation Planning Efforts 4.2.2 Hypothetical Cornell Population Growth Scenarios and Relationship to Transportation and Land Use 4.2:3 Impact of Each Hypothetical Cornell Population Growth.Scenario on Existing Single Occupancy Vehicle Trip Reduction Programs 4.2.3.1 Pedestrian Circulation a. Description of the transportation- related impact on pedestrian facilities providing access to campus b. Description of the transportation- related impacts on pedestrians themselves (safety, air quality, noise, aesthetics, etc) p-7 4.2.3.2 Bicycle Circulation a. Description of the transportation- related impact on bicycle facilities providing access to campus b. Description of the transportation- related :impacts on bicyclists themselves (safety, air quality, noise, aesthetics, etc) 4.2.3.3 Transit Service a. Description of the transportation - related impact on the existing bus system b. Description of the transportation- related impact on existing Park and Ride programs c. Description of the transportation- related impact on existing paratransit service 4.2.3.4 Transportation Demand Management Programs (TDMP) a.. Description of the transportation- related impact on existing TDM programs at Cornell University 1. Zone 1 Privileges 2. OmniRide 3. Occasional Parker 4. RideShare 5. Guaranteed Ride Home 6. Free bus passes for students 7. Van- pooling 8. Telecommuting 9. Flex -time 10. Parking Restrictions 4.2.4 Impact of Each Hypothetical Cornell Population Growth Scenario on Existing Vehicular Circulation 4.2.4.1. Description of increase in traffic on corridors serving the Cornell campus 4.2.4.2. Description of impact on traffic conditions for intersections meeting criteria in 3.1.4.2 Intersection analysis will be done for weekday p.m. peak -hour trips for the hypothetical population - growth scenarios. In certain instances analyzing a.m_ peak -hour traffic also will be appropriate. Intersections will be sorted by corridor to see if any would yield substantially redundant information within the same corridor. 4.2.4.3. Description of impact on service and. delivery vehicle traffic 4.2.4.4. Description of impact on surrounding residential neighborhoods, including limits to through- traffic inherent to residential neighborhoods (stopped school buses, etc) 4;2.4.5. General description of impact on traffic conditions and mitigation strategies for special events 4..2:5. Impact of Each Hypothetical Cornell Population Growth Scenario on Parking for Students, Faculty, Staff and Visitors 4.2.5.1. On-campus. 4.2:5.2. Off - campus a. On- street parking b. Residential parking permit programs, meters and other regulations 4.3 Neigh borhood'Livability 4.3.1 Impact of Each Hypothetical Cornell Population Growth Scenario on Neighborhood Livability 4.3.1.1 Description of increase in automotive traffic and its impacts on residential neighborhoods a. Commuting trips to Cornell b. Other trips generated by Cornell- related households (see ITE Trip Generation Manual) 43.1.2 Description of increase in transit vehicle traffic and its impacts on residential neighborhoods 4.3.1.3 Description of increase in service and delivery vehicle traffic and its impacts on residential neighborhoods 4.3.1.4 Description of increase in construction vehicle traffic and its impacts on residential neighborhoods 4.3.1.5 Description of increase in Cornell- related parking and its impacts on residential neighborhoods V. Mitigations and Strategies 5.1 Transportation Systems 5.1.1 Potential Mitigation Strategies for Impacts to Single Occupancy Vehicle Trip Reduction Programs 5.1.1.1 Pedestrian Circulation a. Description of potential improvements to pedestrian facilities to enhance access to campus 5.1.1.2 Bicycle Circulation a. Description of potential improvements to bicycle facilities to enhance access to campus 5.1.1.3 Transit Service a. Description of potential improvements to the bus system b. Description of potential improvements for Park and Ride programs c. Description of potential improvements for paratransit service d. Description of potential development of light -rail service 5.1.1.4 Transportation Demand Management Programs (TDMP) - a. Description of potential improvements or additions to TDM programs at Cornell University 1. Potential free bus passes for students not requesting /receiving parking permits 2. Zone 1 Privileges 3. OmniRide 4. Occasional Parker . 5. RideShare / Van - pooling 6. Guaranteed Ride Home 7. Telecommuting . 8. Flex -time 9.' Parking Cash -out 10. Other- i.e., Car sharing; Parking Restrictions, etc. 11. Fewer work days per week, without reducing total work hours . 5.1.2 Potential Mitigation Strategies for Impacts to Vehicular Circulation 5.1.2.1: Description of potential mitigation strategies for roadways and intersections 5.1.2.2. Description of potential mitigation strategies for service and delivery vehicle traffic 5.1.2.3. Description of potential mitigation strategies for surrounding residential neighborhoods - 5.1.2.4. General description of potential mitigation strategies for special events 5.1.3 Potential Mitigation Strategies for Impacts to Parking 5.1.3a 1. Description of potential mitigation strategies for parking for students, faculty, staff and visitors: a. On- campus b. Off - campus 1. On- street parking 2. Residential parking permit programs, meters and other regulations 5.l .4 Mitigation Strategies Relative to Land Use and Transportation P. 8 5.2 Neighborhood Livability 5.2.1 Potential Mitigation Strategies For Impacts to Residential Neighborhoods 5.2.1.1 Automotive Vehicle Circulation a. Description of potential mitigation measures to reduce the number of automotive vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods on both commuting and non- commuting trips b. Description of potential mitigation measures to reduce the impact of remaining automotive vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods 5.2.1.2. Transit Service a. Description of potential mitigation measures to reduce the number of transit vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods b. Description of potential mitigation measures to reduce the impact of remaining transit vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods 5.2.1.3 Service and Delivery Vehicles a. Description of potential mitigation measures to reduce the number of service and delivery vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods b. Description of potential mitigation measures to reduce the impact of remaining service and delivery vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods 5.2.1:4 Construction. Vehicles a. Description of potential mitigation measures to reduce the number of construction vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods b. Description of potential mitigation measures to reduce the impact of remaining construction vehicles traveling through residential neighborhoods 5.2.1.5. Parking a. Description of potential mitigation measures to reduce Cornell- related parking in residential neighborhoods VI. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Adverse environmental effects in Section III that can be expected to occur regardless of the mitigation measures considered will be identified. VII. Alternatives to the Action 7.1 No Action — Continue to. evaluate transportation impacts on a case -by -case basis VIII. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Those resources listed in Section IV that will be consumed, converted, or made unavailable for future use will be identified. IX. Growth Inducing Aspects of the Proposed Action (Transportation Issues Only) X. Impacts of the Proposed Action on Use and Conservation of Energy (Transportation Issues Only) P. 9 Transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) For Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies Table 1: List of Intersections to be Evaluated According to Criteria 1. Forest Home Dr & Warren Rd 2. Forest Home Dr (including adjacent bridge) & Pleasant Grove Rd 3. Warren Rd & Hanshaw Rd 4. Pleasant Grove Rd & Hanshaw Rd 5. Triphammer Rd & Hanshaw Rd 6. Forest Home Dr & Judd Falls Rd 7. Triphammer Rd & George Jessup/Dearborn PI 8. Triphammer Rd & Wait Ave 9. Thurston Ave & Wait Ave 10. Thurston Ave/East Ave & University Ave/Forest Home Rd, signalized 11. Stewart Ave Bridge & Fall Creek Drive 12: Stewart Ave & University Ave 13. Stewart Ave & Buffalo St 14: Lake St & University Ave 15. Lake St & Lincoln St 16. Campus Rd/South Rd & Stewart Ave 17. Court St & Aurora St, signalized 18. Seneca St/Seneca Way & N Aurora St, signalized 19. State St (SR 79) & Seneca/Green St, signalized 20. State St (SR 79) & Stewart Ave, signalized 21. State St (SR 79) & Mitchell St (SR 366) 22. Ithaca Rd (SR 366) & Mitchell St 23. Cornell St & Mitchell St 24. Cornell St & State St (SR 79), signalized' 25. Dryden Rd & College Rd, signalized 26. Dryden Rd (SR 366) & Cornell St & Maple Ave, signalized 27: Dryden Rd (SR 366) & Hoy Rd 28. Dryden Rd (SR 366) & Pine Tree Rd 29. Dryden Rd (SR 366) & SR 13, signalized 30. Ellis Hollow Rd & Pine Tree Rd, signalized 31. Slaterville Rd (SR 79) & Pine Tree Rd, 32. Buffalo St &Cayuga St, signalized 33. South Aurora St. (SR 96B) & Prospect St. 34. West Buffalo St (SR 96 & 89) & Fulton St (SR 13), signalized 35. West Buffalo St (SR 96 & 89) & Meadow. St (SR 13), signalized 36. West State St (SR 79) & Fulton St (SR 13),' signalized 37. West State St (SR 79) & Meadow St (SR 13), signalized 38. South Meadow St (SR 13), Elmira Road, Old Elmira Rd, signalized 39. Sapsucker Woods Rd/Brown Rd & SR 13 40. Warren Rd & SR 13 41. North Triphammer Rd & SR 34B 42. Freese Rd/Mt. Pleasant Rd & SR 366 43_ Game Farm Rd & SR 366 - 44. Judd Falls Rd & SR 366 45. Honness Lane & SR 79 46. Honness Lane & Pine Tree Rd 47. Pine Tree Rd & Snyder Hill Rd 48. King Rd & SR 96B 49. Enfield Falls Rd (SR 327) & SR 13 x.10 '50. SR 13 & SR 13A 51/52. SR 13 & SR 34 53. SR 79 & SR 13A 54. Caldwell Rd & Forest Home Drive (and adjacent bridge) 55. Triphammer Rd & Pyramid Dr (Pyramid Mall entrance) 56. Triphammer Rd & AT SR.] 3 Ramps 57. Triphammer Rd & EB SR 13 Ramps 58. Triphammer Rd & Savannah Park Driveway 59. SR 96 & Dates Drive (Cayuga Medical Center), signalized- 60. Caldwell Road & SR 366, signalized P. I1 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. January, 3, 2006 AGENDA 6:30 P.M. SECOND PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING: Consideration of the Draft Scope outline (dated November 15, 2005) for the proposed Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation. Strategies (TIMS) and the associated transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t =GEIS) being jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. The t -GEIS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will evolve in response to the feedback obtained from the t -GEIS process, and may include, recommendations for transportation demand management, multi - modal. transportation strategies, access and circulation modifications, and zoning changes. Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge. Copies of the Draft Scope outline are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca; NY (607- 273 - 1747), and on the website for this-project: www.teeisproject.ore. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Fain 2 -Lot Subdivision, 131 West King Road. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision located at 133 and 131 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37-1-13.11 and 37 -1 -28, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves reaffirmation of these two existing lots (vacant lot 0.889 +/- acres, existing . house lot - 1.0 +/- acres) which were previously subdivided but did not receive Planning Board approval. Schickel Construction Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant. 7:20 P.M. SEQR Determination: Namgyal Monastery, Danby Road, 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Namgyal Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of multiple buildings (main building, monk's residence, student dormitories, student rooms /apartments, shrine) on the property totaling approximately 13.000 square feet, to house the local: Namgyal Monastery branch in Ithaca. The plans also include parking for 66 vehicles, five seasonal cabins and a bathhouse, a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities. Namgyal Monastery Institute of Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant. 8:00 P.M. SEQR Determination: Sokoloff Dock, l l26 East Shore Drive. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the construction of a dock located at 1126 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open pile dock, 8' wide by 60' long with an "L" to the north 15'6" wide by 15'5" long. Jason Sokoloff, Owner: Ronald B. Knewstub, Applicant. 8:15 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed addition at the Genex Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves constructing a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities. Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc.; LLC, Agent. 9. Consideration of Recommendation to the Town Board Regarding Re- appointment of George Conneman to the Planning Board. 10. Persons to be heard. l l . Approval of Minutes: December. 20, 2005. 12. Other Business: 13, 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, January 3, 2006 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: January 3, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., . at the following times and on the following matters: 6:30 P.M. Consideration of the Draft Scope outline (dated November 15, 2005) for the proposed Ten -year Transportation Impact Mitigation Strategies (TIMS) and the associated transportation- focused Generic Environmental Impact Statement (t -GEIS) being jointly undertaken by Cornell University and the Town of Ithaca. The t -GEIS will address transportation impacts on the community surrounding the campus related to an increasing population traveling to Cornell. The TIMS will evolve in response to the feedback obtained from the t -GEIS process, and may include recommendations for transportation demand management, multi -modal transportation strategies, access and circulation modifications: and z_ oning changes. Kathryn Wolf,` RLA, Principal -in- Charge. Copies of the Draft Scope. outline are available at the Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, NY (607 -273 - 1747), and on the website for this.% .project: www.tgeisproject.org. 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval for the proposed 2 -lot subdivision, located at 133 and 131 West King Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 37 -1 -13.11 and 37 -1 -28, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves reaffirmation of these two existing lots. (vacant lot - 0.889 +/- acres, existing house lot - 1.0 +/- acres) which were previously subdivided but did not receive Planning Board approval. Schickel Construction Co., Inc., Owner /Applicant: 7:20 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed .Namgyal Monastery development located on the east side of Danby Road (NYS Route 96B) across from Sesame Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -10, Medium Density Residential Zone: The proposal includes the construction of multiple buildings (main building, monk's residence, student. dormitories, student rooms /apartments. shrine) on the property totaling approximately 13,000 square feet, to house the local Namgyal Monastery branch in Ithaca.. The plans also include parking for 66 vehicles, five seasonal cabins and a bathhouse,_ a maintenance building, lighting, trails, and new stormwater facilities. Namgyal Monastery Institute .of. Buddhist Studies, Owner /Applicant. 8:00 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the construction. of a dock located at 1126 East Shore. Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19- 2 -5.2. Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal includes constructing an open.pile dock, 8' wide by 60' long with an "L" to the north 15'6" wide by 15'5" long. Jason Sokoloff, Owner; Ronald B. Knewstub, Applicant. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent, or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Friday, December 23, 2005 Publish: Wednesday, December 28, 2005 l previously :subdivi -did' not , receive Board approval Construction Co Owner /Applicant. ded but Planning Schickel inc.; - cated'on`tiie eost;side-of Ddnby -Road (NYS =Route 9.6B)';ocross from Sesame .. Street Town - of Ithaco'< tax - ,,arcel No '43-2-i Q '_h M'F uin Density Residential Zone The proposal a in -; eludes the..I construction -1of multi le ;buildings (main' burl�ng; monks residence, 3iudent ; dorm itones,- >student rooms /apartments stir "ne) , on.the.,property totalmg'afs . prowmatelyy.13 000 sgugre feet, to a .ousb,i -the, ,local Namgy6l -Mc nosterybronch mslthaco'- The -plans also in- elude arkirig for 66 v;ki- eles,, five -seasonal cabins, aod:o bathhouse a majnfe `nonce", "building, :lighting, trdils,.`and new.stormwater omgya - onas, de of Buddhist vner /Applicant. 4 Consideration iry and Ein6l Site ivaf ond,:Special ie- constructionof ,fed- at- 1126'Eost Te=Town'ofllf cica ll 2; esideritial Zone. gal: mc)udes:con ppen.pileiiock; 60' long with on forth 15 6" "wide long. =:' =__ =Ja-son vner Ronald =B. 4gphcantx lining Board ;will s and so d'plaae rsons -in support ters or'objections ersons may' ;ap h ;nor in person.. with visual''.im- hearing :impair-' other. - :special be;prayidedrwith Jos =: necessary, st._Persoins aesir- oce; must make lest not less than ioi;to the'time.of edrings. r Kanter, A1CP 07 of Aanning < °2711747 aaayy; ; Er 23<2005 ✓edieisday, .r-28, 2005 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGW IN SHEET DATE: January 3, 2006 (PEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION F�L Lf= 14�m �Douq zri • l reviaz 7 m i Go1"niel • U n i vfves • 4L�`4- -- 7 ; t4 to or ; /� s /11 J � f� 4 �i � `N' LPL =:�� /�^ ,•. 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. January 3, 2006 commencing at 6:30 P.M.. as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board . 215 North Tio ag Street. Date of Posting: December 23, 2005 Date of Publication: December 28, 2005 Jaadno Cyvt� Sandra Polce: Senior Typist Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28`h day of December. 2005. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. Ot CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 G� .r