Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-01-17FILE DATE off_ REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, JANUARY 17, 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairpersons Eva Hoffmann, Board Members George Conneman, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Mike Smith, Environmental Planners Nicole Tedesco, Planners Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk, EXCUSED Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Christine Balestra, Planner. OTHERS Bruce Brittain, 135 Warren Rd; Doug Brittain, 135 Warren Rd; Bob Drew, Hunt Engineers; Laura Meilman, 131 Campbridge PI; Lydia White, 505 The Parkway; Jonathan Miller, 4 The Byways Carl Sundell, 310 Forest Home Dr; Deborah Perotti, 310 Forest Home Dr; John Sundell, 310 Forest Home Dr; Sheila Danko, 229 Forest Home Dr; Linda Blossom, Lansing; Bruce Abbott, Lansing, Angela Slama, Lansing; Nancy Schuler, East Hill, Annette Marchesseault, Trowbridge & Wolf, Herb Engman, 120 Warren Rd; Bill Wendt, Cornell University; Siisan Stephans, 145 Forest Home Dr; Karen Westmont, 206 Forest Home Dr; Carol Devini, 201 Dewitt PI; Steve Beyers, 1328 Slaterville Rd; Dani. Novak, 115 Halcyon Hill Rd; Wally Wiggins, 961 Taughannock Blvd; Bonnie Warren, 2028 Elmira Rd; Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf; Shirley Egan, Cornell University Counsel; George Alexiou. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:06 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 January 9, 2006 and January 11, 2006, 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 January 11, 20068 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. OTHER BUSINESS Chairperson Wilcox I will point out for the record that George sentenced to another 7 year term. I have also been reappointed Chair for another year and that both of us took the Oath of Offs this evening. , Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Conneman has been by the Town Board as ce before you arrived For those of you who haven't met Susan Brock, Town Attorney. appointed by the Town Board at the Organizational meeting on Monday worked with Codes and Ordinances for the past year. Ms. Brock — Two years. Chairperson Wilcox — Two year? It's been two years? Board Member Mitrano — Time flies. She was She has Chairperson Wilcox — Susan has also had a role, as you know, with the TGEIS. She was in the audience during the two public hearings and actually spoke at the last one and will clarify her role then and now just to make sure there is no conflict when we get to that. 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. Chairperson Wilcox — With regard to the proposed transportation focused TGEIS, this is not a public hearing this evening. We have provided two public hearings so far and the purpose of tonight's discussion is for the board to provide input and see if we can come to a decision of if we need to post -pone it to another meeting. We will have to wait and see. I ask, and I'm looking at the Brittains sitting there because they have done so much work, that you hang around and be available should we have a question for you. We would like to be able to get clarification on some of your opinions, if necessary, when we get to it. SEQR La Tourelle Room Expansion & Spa Addition Modifications, 1150 Danby Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you provide an overview of what is in front of us this evening? 2 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Walter Wiggins, 961 Taughannock Blvd Mr. Wiggins I think just a revision of our proposal to accommodate the suggestions and concerns about our young neighbors across the street by relocating some of the parking spaces that they found offensive. I had to give up ... being a tennis player it was very difficult to give up two tennis courts, but in the interest of good will and I think it was the proper thing to do, we relocated the parking spaces down where the tennis courts are. We will actually use the tennis courts as the base for the parking lots. I think everything else is just the way that it was. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with .regard to the environmental review? Board Member Thayer — Nope. I move the SEQR. Chairperson Wilcox — Bear with me for just a sec? Board Member Thayer — Sure. Chairperson Wilcox — Wally, what are you going to do with the fill that was dumped in the location of the parking lot that is no longer going to be used? Mr. Wiggins — My understanding is, and I didn't want to do anything until I knew what you were going to do, but my understanding is either it has been too soft or too hard to do anything with and we will wait until your approval and then we will cover that with topsoil. So that rather than remove it because it was in kind of a hollow to begin with, so we will spread it out, put it in topsoil and plant it with grass. Board Member Hoffmann — Didn't that hollow area have a function? Mr. Wiggins — Not really. It was always a bit soggy. in that area. So this fill will serve a real purpose and aesthetically I don't think you will be able to tell the difference. Board Member Hoffmann — I think if it was soggy before it is probably going to be soggy in the future, too, if you just leave that fill there because I don't think that is drained. The fill doesn't drain it in any way. So it is probably going to remain soggy. Mr. Wiggins — I don't know that. It's not my area of expertise. It just seemed like an appropriate solution to the problem. So that is what we would do. I suppose it could be removed, but it wouldn't serve a purpose that I know of. Indeed, when we are finished, it will look just like it looked before and no one except perhaps you and me will know that it is different. Board Member Talty — As long as that is not going to be the overflow parking because if you have it already down there and its hard, lets just say that water goes to the lowest spot and its now not the lowest spot because there has been times where there has 0 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved been overflow parking right on 96B because that would be the same issues that the neighbors would have. I just want to make that clear. Mr. Wiggins — Its clear. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Larry, you moved the SEQR motion. Board Member Howe — I'll second. Board votes on motion. Mr. Kanter — Could you entertain a couple of slight wording revisions on the SEQR resolution that Susan came across? Chairperson Wilcox - Susan, you are always welcome to interrupt me. Ms. Brock — I didn't know, but now I do. Mr. Kanter — Sometimes you move so quickly. Ms. Brock — I'm going to go fast on this. Chairperson Wilcox — No. Take your time. Ms. Brock — Well, the first one is just in the first whereas. It is not really a sentence. I think it just start, "This action is consideration of... ". Number 2, you might recall that the Town's environmental review law changed about a year ago and there are no more legislative determinations as to who the lead agency is. So instead of saying that the Town Planning Board is legislatively determined to act as lead agency, I think we should just say that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency in this uncoordinated environmental review. And then lastly, SEQR requires a reasonable elaboration of why you are making the decision to neg dec something and your resolved clause doesn't quite do it. I think that we could very simply say, I'll just read it. ""That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance," and here's the change, "for the reasons set forth in the short environmental assessment form, Parts II and III," and then the rest of the sentence continues as you have it here in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act, etc. So now you have said here are our reasons and you actually just reference Parts II and III, which spell out all of the reasons. Chairperson Wilcox — Should we rescind and revote? Should we revote? Ms. Brock — Probably wouldn't hurt. El Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board revotes on the motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -009: SEAR, Site Plan Modification, La Tou�e /% Country Inn - Room Expansion & Spa, 1150 Danby Room, Tax Parcel No, 36- 1-4,2 MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Howe WHEREAS: 16 This action is consideration of Site Plan Modifications for the previously approved plan for the spa and room addition project at the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.2, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves changes to the proposed stormwater facilities, to the number and location of some of the parking, and modifications to the arrangement of the landscaping and lighting. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permits, and 3. The Planning Board, on January 17, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning stab, plan entitled "Site and Demolition Plan "revised 5 - 12/06/05, prepared by Gary L. Wood P. E., 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 Modification; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Parts II and III, 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, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. 4 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 7 :13 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Site Plan Modifications to the previously approved plan for the spa and room addition project at the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 3644.2, Planned Development. Zone No. 1. The proposal involves changes to the proposed stormwater facilities, to the number and location of some of the parking, and modifications to the arrangement of the landscaping and lighting. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant Chairperson Wilcox reads the public hearing notice. Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:15 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions of Mr. Wiggins with regard to the site plan as proposed, which is a modification of what was proposed before, which is really going to back to plan c, which is kind of going back to plan a. No questions? Board Member Mitrano - I'll move it. Chairperson Wilcox - Well, I have to give the public a chance to speak. Wally, there are no questions. Would you have a seat please? Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one present to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:17 and brings the matter back to the board. Chairperson Wilcox - Motion moved by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by the Chair. Ms. Brock - May I speak? Again, just the first whereas. I think it should be a sentence. So just say, "This is consideration of..." Again in number 2, acting as lead in uncoordinated environmental review. And then I just had a question under the resolved, under 1d, it says the approval is subject to the following conditions, submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and or federal agencies. Does that mean that he has just showed you that he has applied for and tells you what the status is of his application that that is enough or do you want him to actually get the approvals for your site plan? Chairperson Wilcox - We want records of the approvals in the Town office ?. 0 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock — So why do you have the word status in there? Chairperson Wilcox — Because we shouldn't, how's that? I mean what kind of answer do you want? Ms. Brock — I guess the question is, should it say submission of record of application for and status of all necessary permits? That is really what you want, right? Not just an update on the status, which could be denied. So just cross out the word status. Okay. I'm done. Mr. Kanter — Sometimes we word it like that because it would be prior to something, issuance of a building permit, certificate of occupancy. I guess in this case we just want the documentation of the approvals. Is that right? Mr. Smith — I'm not sure there even is any in this case because they are so far along into the project, but in case something comes up. Chairperson Wilcox — Tracy, changes okay with you? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — And they are fine with me. Board votes on the motion. PH RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -010• Site Plan Modification, La Toure/% Country O 44G/1 n�•%i4 T•w n�ri+a1 A/A 24.1 ..Q %. MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Site Plan Modifications for the previously approved plan for the spa and room addition project at the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 142, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves changes to the proposed stormwater facilities, to the number and location of some of the parking, and modifications to the arrangement of the landscaping and lighting. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Modification, has, on January 17, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a 0 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 30 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 17, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate,% plan entitled "Site and Demolition Plan" revised 5 - 12106105, prepared by Gary L. Wood P.E., and other application material, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants approval for Site Plan Modifications for the spa and room addition project at the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road, as shown on the plan entitled "Site and Demolition Plan "revised 5 - 12/06/05, prepared by Gary L. Wood P. E., and other application material, subject to the following conditions: a. submission of a revised lighting and landscape plan to reflect the current parking layout, prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, and b, submission of an original stamped version of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, and C submission of a stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting Agreement" between the property_ owner and the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy, satisfactory to the Director of Engineering, and d, submission of record of application for and approvals of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to a Modification Form for the Stormwater Pollution. Prevention Plan. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. SEQR Three Rivers Mini Golf & Creamery, 869 Elmira Road Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:24 p.m. n Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — To those members of the audience who wish to better view the presentation, the visuals, you are certainly welcome to come up and stand behind us so that you can see them better. Having said that, name and address please, and I assume you have a short presentation to make. Robert Drew, Hunt Engineers Yes I do. My name is Robert Drew, Hunt Engineers, Corning, New York. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I have a street address?. A professional address will do fine. Mr. Drew — 100 Hunter Center, Airport Corporate Park, Big Flats, New York. Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead. The floor is yours.. Mr. Drew — Okay. I want to go straight through as if nobody knows where it is at. I'm going to go right down through with what is going on at the site and what we are doing and things like that. The site is located on Route 13, which would be the east side of Route 13 between Eddydale's and Turback's restaurant. The 2.0 -acre site, a vacant site, mostly grass covered. There are small trees on the west side. If you looked at the site drawings here, the survey drawings of the project, you see that there is a high point located on the site here, on the existing site here from an assumed elevation down here that was surveyed. The drainage from the site runs east and north on one side and west on the other side, which would be towards Route 13. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I interrupt you for a moment? When I was looking at the drawings, I didn't see a north arrow. So I assume that it is laid out so that north is straight up on the paper. Is that right? Mr. Drew — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Thank you. Mr. Drew — You're welcome. Municipal utilities are available on the site, sanitary, water and telephone. They all run along Route 13. Here is the main. The sanitary main runs along here and it is an 8 -inch. The water line is located in here, which feeds the two different locations here, essentially we are going to hook up to existing utilities and stuff like there. We will have underground telephone there also. The whole work is really going to be construction of an 18 -hole golf course, 9 holes will be accessible to the handicapped. There will be a 600 square foot clubhouse and gazebo, built on the south side of the parking lot. There will a 29 -car parking lot, a gravel parking lot at this point and driveway off Route 13. 9 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved We have a revised lighting plan that we have done. (not. audible) ... detention pond, according to the New York State regulations. As you can see here as we go through the drawings, your grading plan, our proposed contours overtop the existing contours. Stormwater, like I said, is all designed for all the stormwater and drainage off the site. It comes off across the. parking lot and into a design swale into our detention pond. It is actually a water quality pond, into the structure and it will come out slow out of.the structure, across the site, essentially in the same direction as it is now, which is essentially in a northeasterly direction. Most of the site is draining that way currently and we are going to take it that way. The actual golf course itself is all on the southern and western side. Parking is on the north. The clubhouse building will have water,. sanitary, and hook up along the existing utility lines that we have in front. It. is going to be a 1 -inch water line that hooks in here into the existing 8 -inch, which goes underneath Route 13, existing on the other side of Route 13, which would be the west side is the existing 8 -inch line that feeds all the hydrants that are along Route 13 as you drive up through there. Sanitary is already there on our side. That is just an extension of the water. I mentioned that there is going to be a clubhouse, gazebo, sidewalk, 18 -hole and there is a revised lighting plan. I would also like to address, if I may, some of the comments that were given to me from the board members, I guess, in other agencies who reviewed this. I had a chance to review these and I want to go over these. I am addressing this letter right here. The preliminary site plan approval, special permit, dated January 17th, 2006. It goes onto three pages, front and back. So I am going to refer to that letter. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that our proposed resolution? That is the proposed resolution as drafted. Mr. Drew — I thought I would address these comments here because I had a chance to go through these. I feel a lot of the comments that have been addressed to the light plan. So we went ahead and we redid the lighting plan using different fixture than what we had proposed, shorter light pole. We went from a 25 to 18 foot high pole. We went from 1,000 -watt light to 400 -watt light. In essence we went from 12 different light poles to 18. The recommended light candle watt power for a golf course is 10- candle watt power and that was our guideline. As you can see from the lighting plan here, these contour lines are lighting contour lines. If you look on number a line, it is the .5 candle watt power and this is your 1 candle watt power, 5- candle watt power and 10- candle watt power. So you can see that that it is focused right around the playing area and that is what the recommended candle watt. Then as you go away from your site, you are going down to here where you are down to half a candle watt power. So all the light is right on the site. The lights are cut down. So there shouldn't be any concern with this lighting. 10 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — That is a diagram that we have not seen before tonight, correct? Mr. Drew — No. I just got these comments. These were something that I had a chance to address in the last 2 days that I have taken the time to address your concerns and I want to bring it up for possible comment. Later it will be submitted to you for final approval at a later date. Board Member Hoffmann — Can I just ask for a clarification? In our papers we got this picture of the light that you proposed. Are you saying that you are not going to use this light, you are using something different? Mr. Drew — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So the one that you are using is not going to be set at an angle. Mr. Drew — I have a cut sheet for that I can show you. Right here is a picture of the light. You can see that it is shielded and it is at a 90- degree angle versus that one. The new light will be fixed at a 90- degree angle. We also went from the 1,000 -watt bulb to the 400 -watt bulb and increased the number of poles. Hopefully we have addressed, most of everybody is concerned with the light seepage from the site. Another comment that was given to us, landscaping, additional landscaping for the parking lot. We have also addressed... which will go along in here and along in here. So we have provided a buffer for the parking between Route 13 and our neighbors, Eddydale Fruit Stand, as requested. That was in 2a on that sheet. Board Member Hoffmann — What kind of plants are you proposing to put there? Mr. Drew — Right now they are the same as the proposals in front of you. You should have a sheet of the plants that we have. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but the additional ones along the parking lot, are they the same kind of plants? Mr. Drew — They are the same thing as you are seeing here. They are the dwarf spruce. Board Member Hoffmann — How high do they get? How tall? Mr. Drew — Five foot, I think. I'm not a landscape architect, but I believe that is their normal height. 11 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — Because one wouldn't want to plant something that would block the drivers from seeing what is coming and what is going. Mr. Drew — Another question we had was handicap accessibility. We originally showed, as you see the plans in front of you, the handicap was down in here. We have moved it closer to the building and in addition to that, we also are going to pave these three parking stalls here so that the handicap chair ... will ease operation for them. It connects to the sidewalk here so it will be easy to negotiate to the parking lot. Number 2a, the lighting plan, which I already addressed. 3a, a screen refuge area has been placed in here. You asked for a refuge area for our dumpster: We placed that on the plan according to Superior regulations or what they require for their dumpster area. I contacted the person for Superior here in Ithaca and in conjunction with the site requirements, we also got a commitment from them to pick up the refuge once a week to pick up prior to operation hours or before business hours. So access to the dumpster is going to be really easy for them. They are going to drive on this main lane, pick up the dumpster and they will have the entire parking lot to turn around in. So again, access is not an. issue? Board Member Mitrano — Will that dumpster be fully exposed, visually? Mr. Drew — No. It is screened. We put a fence around it. There will be details of all of that, too. Again we will have all these plans on the final submittal, but I just wanted to address here tonight that we were working on these. Number 4a, a bike rack has been added down in here, next to the sidewalk for future use. I guess there is a proposed bike trail that is nearby. Another question was additional architectural drawings for the gazebo and clubhouse and they will follow at a later date. Sign detail, I think you have a drawing on a proposed sign. Chairperson Wilcox — We were handed one this evening, yes. Mr. Drew — I haven't even seen that. Board Member Talty — Will that be lit the sign? Chairperson Wilcox — We might also want to know colors. Board Member Talty — Going back to building materials, often what we require are like swatches or colorized so we have a real definite look at exactly what you are building. Mr. Drew — For site plan approval or for building permit? 12 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Talty — Site plan. Chairperson Wilcox Or come in with a color picture of it that is a true reproduction of what the colors are. Board Member Talty — Roof, siding, etc. Mr. Drew — So you will need the color and the material the building will be. made of. Board Member Hoffmann - I think in this case I would be interested in seeing colors of some of the structures that are part of the golf course, too. Mr. Drew — I think everything is pretty much green or gray with stone. It will be a green carpets gray natural looking stone and I don't think there is much else other than the trees. Bonnie Warren, 2028 Elmira Road There are no physical structures like houses or buildings on the course. It is strictly natural looking. It will have natural boulders from the area with the waterfall and then there will be mostly landscaping. The carpets are green. Board Member Conneman No pink dinosaurs or things like that? Ms. Warren —No. It's too beautiful an area. Chairperson Wilcox — The one near Owego has a big pink elephant doesn't it? That's right. Board Member Hoffmann — Let me just be sure I understand. You mentioned natural stones, but I thought Mr. Drew said natural looking stones. Mr. Drew — There is some manmade stone within the design of the course, but there is also going to be some natural stone. Ms. Warren — The manmade is what they call granite. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know what that means, but I know that I have seen some places where they have what is supposed to look like natural stones and it looks like magnified piles of dog food or something. Ms. Warren — If they put any in it would be gray. Board Member Hoffmann — Anyway, I would like to see some more details about what those constructions would look like. 13 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Mr. Drew — Would you like to see pictures? Board Member Hoffmann — Pictures in color if possible. Mr. Drew — I don't think that is a problem. Board Member Mitrano — To what three rivers are we referring to? Board Member Talty — Are you Steeler fans? Ms. Warren — There is three separate flowing streams on it. Three Streams just didn't sound as good as Three Rivers, but it refers to the three separate pieces of flowing water. I did them separately that way and if one pump for the fountain goes down then I don't have all three of them without running water. Board Member Mitrano — Thanks. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not sure whether we interrupted your presentation or whether you are done. Mr. Drew - I think we are pretty much done. We have dealt with the amenities. I guess I am open to the additional questions. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sure we'll have a few. Board Member Hoffmann — As far as the sign, I may have just not heard what you said. Was it going to be lit or not? Ms. Warren — I was contemplating just small lights on the ground just aiming up at the sign, but nothing ... the sign I'm going for is just wooden. I don't want an illuminated bright plastic sign. Chairperson Wilcox — We are in the process of creating a lighting ordinance and that type of lighting will not be allowed because it points up. That is the essential issue. Board Member. Mitrano What do you recommend that she gets so that she... Board Member Talty — Didn't we just have someone else.come in where the light was on the sign? Chairperson Wilcox — In this case it extends out from the top of the post and points down at it. 14 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — Any kind of lighting like that has to be done very carefully so that the lights don't accidentally point out towards the road or to other drivers who can be blinded by the glare. So it can be very tricky. Chairperson Wilcox — Let us look very briefly at the comments that were here in front of us when, we got here. Comments from various boards and others. The Town Conservation Board, their biggest comment had to do with lighting and that has been addressed on the new Sheet L11. We have a letter from NYS Parks, which have you seen the letter from Parks? Mr. Drew — Just tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — Again, lighting is mentioned. Lets talk about hours of operation and amplified music, which they mention. Will there be amplified music? That's a now I see the shaking of the head. Now, we are getting a little bit ahead of ourselves, but I think that this might be SEQR, do we have a conflict with them being open to 11 p.m. and parks having quiet time after 10 p.m., if indeed there is no amplified music. Board Member Mitrano — I don't see a problem. Board Member Talty — I don't see a problem. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, there would still be traffic sound from there and some from the people using the golf course. Chairperson Wilcox — I think driving on the highway would drown out any traffic from this site. We're comfortable there? Board Member Howe — Yes. As long as it does end at 11 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — I will also point out that the County in their 239 review also mentioned lighting of course. Hours of operation were mentioned: Landscaping was mentioned. Now lets talk about the pedestrian traffic since the county brought it up and the state brought it up. Do we want pedestrians crossing Route 13, 34 and 96? Board Member Thayer — No. That can't happen. Board Member Hoffmann — No. That's too dangerous and I think I would also like to register a somewhat dissenting view on the hours. I think having it stay open with the lights on and so on later than the park closes, I think could be disturbing. I would like to see a 10 p.m. closing hour for this too. Board Member Mitrano — Help me understand. Who is in the park at that time that is affected by that? 15 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — In the summer? Board Member Mitrano — Is the park open or closed? Is there a campground there? Board Member Hoffmann - There is a campground there. I don't think that the representatives of the park would have written that this would be a problem unless it was a problem because it is close enough. Mr. Kanter — Well, I think that they were mostly referring to the amplified sound, if there, was going to be. So I think that was their main concern. Board Member Hoffmann — But there is also a problem with light and actually, what are you going to do about the lights? Are the lights staying on after the facility closes? All night? Ms. Warren - Not all of them. There will be some security for the buildings. Mr. Drew — The bare minimum. Board Member Hoffmann So all those lights would come off and then they would go on, as it gets dark in the afternoon or evening. Chairperson Wilcox — And keep the light on the site. They essentially increased the number of light poles and lowered them in order to reduce the spillage. Mr. Drew — Right. We lowered the poles and we lowered the wattage of the fixture itself. Mr. Walker — Just a comment. You notice the little building on.this picture here. There are a couple of buildings down here. Those are state park's maintenance buildings and their lights are on all the time. They have large lights around that building. The campground is on the opposite of that from you. Chairperson Wilcox — By lights all the time you mean security lighting? Mr. Walker — Yeah. They have security lighting all the time and the campground is quite a ways back in. So you should have everybody turn their headlights off on Route 13, though, because that would probably disturb people, too. Chairperson Wilcox — So what you are saying is you don't... Mr. Walker — I don't see a problem with light there. 16 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to say anything about the stormwater management. Mr. Walker — Stormwater. They have handled it well. Chairperson Wilcox — Enough said. Mr. Kanter — One thought on the pedestrian access, we did try reaching Sue Poelvorde from parks today, but weren't successful, but the future Black Diamond Trail is going to have a crossing connecting to Robert Treman Park somewhere and I wanted to see is she could tell us exactly where that was because I don't know for sure, but it will be somewhere just south of this proposed golf course. And it will come around behind Turback's and this site. So I think there is going to be a future opportunity, again we don't know when the Black Diamond trail will be built for an actual physical connection, which I believe will probably be tunneled under 13, if .I recall how they were going to do this, or else some very careful kind of a crossing in an appropriate location where people from the park and certainly from the campground area and other parts of the park could actually by means of the Black Diamond trail access this proposed golf course at some point in the future. Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Thanks for mentioning that because I remember talking about that trail and exactly this issue coming up so I was wondering about the relationship of the two. Mr. Walker — I think with that trail, they were looking at locating it along the creek and actually using the Route 13 bridge and go under the bridge along side the creek there, is what they are planning. Chairperson Wilcox — That could provide access from the west side of 13/34/96...from one side to the other, from the State Park side to the opposite side. Clearly I don't want ... the State would never-put a crosswalk in and that's not appropriate. Nicole, anything you wish to say? Ms. Tedesco — No. Board Member Howe — Nicole had put in here that we had to make a recommendation to the Zoning Board about whether ice cream sales... Chairperson Wilcox — We can do that as part of SEQR. Board Member Mitrano — Okay by me. Chairperson Wilcox — Define creamery, or better yet, what are you going to sell there? 17 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Warren — Hard and soft ice cream cones, milkshakes, sundaes, and frozen ice cream sandwich or fudge cicle, canned soda, bottled water. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you going to make ice cream? Ms. Warren — In the machine, yes, with the soft serve. Board Member Conneman — Webster doesn't say that's a creamery, but if you can make streams into rivers then... Board Member Talty —. Any hotdogs, hamburgers? Ms. Warren — No. Chairperson Wilcox - French - fries. You go to some public events and kids just buy French -fries and soda. They've got to be high profit for whoever is selling them, but that raises the issue of the grease and the smell and the fire potential and everything else. Board Member Hoffmann — We talked about a similar question recently and we were talking about whether it was a normal function of something to have something associated it. Mr. Kanter — That would be the Six Mile Creek Winery and Vineyard and whether banquet were a normal function. Board Member Hoffmann — I though that there was something even after that where we had a similar question. I think we have to look at this the same way. We have to look at how this question was phrased and consider whether ... I haven't been to a miniature golf course since my kids were small and that was a long time ago so I don't know if they are just golf courses or if they have these associated food. services with them as a normal function of a miniature golf course. There is a question about what we allow in our zoning ordinance. That is why we are asking this. Board Member Howe — But I have no problem with it. I see it as a normal function. Board Member Hoffmann — And have you seen this as a normal function when you have been to a miniature golf courses? Board Member Howe.— To me they go hand in hand so I have no problem. Board Member Talty — I believe that they just built one up in Cortland that is a function. They did incorporate it into it. Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Conneman — They do it in Virginia. Board Member Mitrano — And ... where we also live, has the same kind of thing.. Small, it's just the ice cream. Chairperson Wilcox — I was saying before the meeting I think there are three miniature golf courses in downtown Old Forge. I have played one of them with my kids and there is a place to buy soda. I, can't tell you whether it has ice cream or not, but it has soda and snacks. Board Member Talty — You'll have plenty of trash recepticles? Ms. Warren — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to the environmental review? Would someone like to move the motion as drafted? Board Member Conneman. moves the resolution, seconded by Board Member Talty. Chairperson Wilcox — I know we need changes, so go ahead. Ms. Brock — So this is on the SEQR resolution. In the Whereas under number 2. It is the same change as before. Again, because there no longer is any legislative determination. We just changed this to, "This is an unlisted action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as lead agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to site plan approval and the special permit." Then in the resolved clause, again, to incorporate the reason that are in the environmental assessment form. So it will read, "The Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the environmental assessment form Part II, referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act" and the rest will be no change. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a question. In whereas clause 3, it refers to drawings L1 through L10. We have seen tonight revised L4 and a new L11. So I am wondering if we should note that we have seen drawings through L11 now. I'm looking at the Assistant Town Attorney over there. He has held that role since I have been on this board. Ms. Brock — Do I have to pay him? Chairperson Wilcox — No. Mr. Kanter — But they do. I guess it would be okay to reference them as having been shown to the board, but we haven't had a chance to review them and we don't have 19 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 'Approved record copies at them. So something to just indicate that they were presented for the board's information. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, can you do that? Yeah, we can't say that they have been reviewed and accepted as adequate, revised L4 and new L11, but certainly... Mr. Kanter — Maybe just at the very end of it add... Chairperson Wilcox — At the very end under other materials we could just specify that we seen the revised L4 and new L11. Ms. Brock — The other materials that, all of those are deemed to have been reviewed and accepted as adequate too, right? Mr. Kanter — Yeah, I. mean there are other things in the file that would refer to. Ms. Brock — So do you want to say other materials including, but not limited to, revised drawing L4 and new drawing L11. Chairperson Wilcox — That's all I want to do. Board Member Hoffmann — I have an additional comment, actually. First I want to compliment Nicole on a very thorough write -up. That was very good and very helpful, but you did mention one thing in here that we didn't talk about yet and that is the location of the driveway and whether we should discuss having this curb cut there or whether we should suggest having the driveway go out so that it comes out where Eddydale's driveway... Ms. Tedesco — In an ideal world you would limit the number of curb cuts onto a road of very high speeds and high volumes. It reduces the number of . conflicts between entering vehicles and through vehicles. That would require coordination with Eddydale's owners. It will be complicated. I don't know if that is something this board can demand the applicant do. It might be a suggestion to put forward that maybe they could talk to Eddydale and see if they would be interested in doing something like that. I don't know how you would go about doing that. I . Chairperson Wilcox — There is also the issue that New York State DOT will have to give you, I guess two approvals, one for curb cut and one for the work in their right -of -way. Mr. Drew — I talked to the DOT today in the Cortland office. I talked about the location of the driveway. I talked about Nicole's comment and I told them the distance that we had between Eddydale's driveway and our proposed driveway and they had no problem with that location. It probably would be a good thing, if you want to, to connect. They don't have a problem with that, but if we leave the one, they don't have a problem with NEI Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved that. The one comment that they did make, though, they may require access to buses, which we have done. We have increased the radius of the turns from 30 to 35, which is the minimum standard for bus access. Ms. Tedesco — When you say the turn, you mean the actual curve of the access drive? Mr. Drew — Yes. That is correct. In L2, which is another revised plan, all the dimensions are on here. You look on your plan and you see the radius we show here are 30 foot and we increased them to 35 to accommodate minimum fire truck radius and school bus or other type of buses to put in. there. And there may be a plan to. connect here; to make it through Eddydale's for bus access. They could park their buses along in here then exit right off Eddydale's if we talk to Eddydale... Ms. Tedesco — That was my next comment that having a bus turn around there would be a safety hazard. Mr. Drew — Absolutely. The only way that we could accommodate that right now ... (not audible) ... would be to use the Eddydale entrance. I talked about it with my client today and we will probably approach them after the DOT ... once we get the DOT ... those are initial comments. Of course they didn't have anything to review so I told them what I had and that was the one comment that they had. It probably will be on the final set of plans, but I did talk to them about that and they were fine with the location of that and the size of it. Ms. Tedesco — Distances were adequate? Mr. Drew — Yes. The only requirement they have for distance is your radius of your driveway is not onto someone else's property. If you can put it to your. required radius for their driveway entrance is not onto someone else's property, then they were fine with it. It's the only requirement that they have. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, the reason I was concerned about where your driveway comes out onto the road is, when you approach this area from the south, there are two lanes, which join into one, very close to this area here. Could you tell me where it joins into one lane going north with respect to where your driveway is coming up? Mr. Drew — I don't having anything ... if you see this drawing right here that Nicole was so nice to provide everybody with, you can see, I think this is the point that you are talking about, which would be north of Eddydale's. That is the best I have right now. Ms. Tedesco — I wouldn't necessarily worry about that. If there are going to be any conflicts there, it would probably be at the turn off on Route 327. If there was going to be a conflict with that narrowing it would probably be at that intersection. 21 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 . Approved Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. My memory ... I used to go there very often. My memory of it is that it turns into one lane sooner than when you get up to that intersection. Chairperson Wilcox — It looks like if we were to the southern part of the boundary, its still 21 but obviously you can.see the northbound lane narrowing. The speed limit is still 55 there, I think, right up to about where 327 is where it drops to 50. Board Member Hoffmann — So it is a bit of a problem because people who are driving north there will be paying attention to other drivers as they try to go into one lane and they might not look for people coming in to this driveway or going out from it. I have a bit of a concern about that. And did you talk to the State people about that? Mr. Drew — No. I did not, but he was familiar with this site and the location of the driveway, but he did not voice any concern with traffic safety other than he does realize it is a 55 mph speed limit and things like that, but he did not comment to me any concern that he had, particular concerns. Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second with regard to SEQR still. Any further discussion? Board votes on motion. PB RESOLUTION NO 2006 -011; SEOR, Pre/iminary Site Plan Approval & Road. To wn of Ithaca Tax Parcel 35."l -i a 2 MOTION made by Board Member Conneman, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS; 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed Three Rivers Mini -Golf & Creamery located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35. -1- 10.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of an eighteen hole miniature golf course, a twenty-nine space parking lot, and entrance drive, a small building for ice cream sales and storage, a gazebo, lighting, and stormwater facilities. Bonnie and lames Warren, Owners/ Applicants; Robert M. Drew, Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, P. C., Agent; and 22 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved 2, This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on January 17, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, subject to the conditions outlined in the Site Plan Resolution, a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff ,• site plan drawings, entitled,. 'Engineering Drawings for Three Rivers Miniature Golf & Creamery, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, (L -1 through L -10) "prepared by Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, dated December 2005; a floor plan entitled, "Mini -Golf Club House, Bonnie & James Warren, Route 13, Ithaca, NY 14850 (not for construction), " prepared by Claudia Brenner, architect, dated September 19, 2005, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by Hunt Engineers,. Architects & Land Surveyors, dated December 2005; "Engineering Report and Design Information for Three Rivers Mini -Golf & Creamery, "prepared by Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, dated December 2005; and other materials including, but not limited to, revised sheet L4 and new sheet L11 presented at the January 17, 2006 Planning Board meeting; and 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determ /nation of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Short Environmental Assessment Form, Part II, 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, Hoffmann, Conneman, M/trano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NAYS• None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of them the meeting at 8:05 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary. Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Three Rivers Mini Golf & Creamery located at 869 Elmira Road, 23 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 =1 -10.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a 18 hole miniature golf course, a 29 space parking lot and entrance drive, a small building for ice cream sales and storage, a gazebo, lighting, and stormwater facilities. Bonnie and James Warren, Owners /Applicants; Robert M. Drew, Project Engineer, Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, P.C., Agent Chairperson Wilcox reads the public hearing notice. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions with regard to site plan that we haven't already asked? Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:05 p.m, and invites members of the public to address the board. With no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:07 p.m. and brought the matter back to the board. Board Member Mitrano moves the motion, Board Member Howe seconds. Chairperson Wilcox — Any changes? Ms. Brock — So the second whereas should say this is an unlisted action, not type II. Then under the ... on the top of the third page, you have and be it further resolved, number 2 says that this permit is further conditioned upon the approval of the variances by the ZBA regarding inclusion of ice cream sales or other snack foods as a normal function of the miniature golf course. Actually, they are going to need a use variance if they make the determination that these sales are not a normal function. So I think what we really need to say is, "upon approval of the variances, by the ZBA as referenced in condition 2e of site plan approval" and then just add, "or acquisition of the necessary interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the inclusion of ice cream sales or other snack foods as a normal function." Then I would add a number three here at your pleasure and discretion, if you want to add any of the conditions that we discussed tonight, perhaps something along the lines of, "This special permit is further conditioned upon compliance at all times with the following: a) no amplified music, b) no lighting of the course when the course is closed, c) evening house of operation shall not extend beyond 11 p.m." These are just things that you have been discussing. These are just some ideas for you to consider. Chairperson Wilcox — I would like to get it in there. Ms. Brock rereads the suggested changes. Chairperson Wilcox suggests adding, 'other than security lighting" to the suggested condition 3b. Mr. Walker mentions that in subparagraph g, it should state "Director" of Engineering and not "Direction" of Engineering. 24 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Though many of the conditions have been addressed in the presentation in the revised drawing, we will leave the conditions in so that the drawings can be submitted and reviewed and hopefully we will mitigate or take care of most of those before you come back for final. Mr. Kanter — Do you want to add a quick reference in a to photos or details of the rocks and other natural landscaping materials? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Some members have made it clear that they would like to see... Board Member Mitrano — Yeah, but does that have to be in the resolution? Is that what was suggested? I didn't really hear. Mr. Kanter — If you want to see the details, then it should be. Chairperson Wilcox — If you want to see the details then you should put it in the resolution. Mr. Kanter — These are all prior to final approval anyway so they have to put the other things together. Board Member Mitrano — Well, if it is thought of like a checklist for them okay, but ... (not audible). Chairperson Wilcox — We're all set. Any further discussion? Mr. Kanter — Just on the interpretation of the GML letter where they basically said this had intermunicipal - county concerns and the one they listed under that concern was the lighting, but since we have already addressed that in our resolution and the applicant has already indicated the willingness to accommodate our resolution, my interpretation is that we are not overriding the County letter, but are actually meeting their recommendation. So just for the record that does not require a majority plus one vote in my opinion as the assistant town attorney, but that is just me. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record it says that we recommend outdoor lighting minimize spill, glare and night sky impacts to the greatest extent possible. Board Member Thayer — They've done that. Board Member Mitrano and Board Member Howe accept proposed changes. Board votes on resolution. 25 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Permit, Three Rivers Miniature Golf Course and Creamery, 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel 35, -1 -1a2 MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the proposed Three Rivers Mini -Golf & Creamery located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35. -1- 10.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of an eighteen hole miniature golf course, a twenty -nine space parking lot and entrance. drive, a small building for ice cream sales and storage, a gazebo, lighting, and stormwater facilities. Bonnie and James Warren, Owners/ Applicants; Robert M. Drew, Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, P.C. Agent; 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 and special permit approval, did, on January 17, 2006, make a negative determination of environmental significance; and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on January 17, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, subject to the conditions outlined below, a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, • site plan drawings, entitled, "Engineering Drawings for Three Rivers Miniature Golf & Creamery, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, (L -1 through L -10) "prepared by Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, dated December 2005; a floor plan entitled, "Mini -Golf Club House, Bonnie & James Warren, Route 13, Ithaca, NY 14850 (not for construction), " prepared by Claudia Brenner, architect, dated September 19, 2005; a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared by Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, dated December 2005, "Engineering Report and Design Information for Three Rivers Mini -Golf & Creamery, "prepared by Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, dated December 2005; and other materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary Site Plan Checklist, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in OU Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved 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 proposed Three Rivers Miniature Golf Course and Creamery, as shown on the site plan drawings, entitled, "Engineering Drawings for Three Rivers Miniature Golf & Creamery, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, (L -1 through L -10)" prepared by Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, dated December 2005, and the floor plan entitled, ' Mini-Golf Club House, Bonnie & James Warren, Route 13, Ithaca, NY 14850 (not for construction),"' prepared by Claudia Brenner, architect, dated September 19, 2005, subject to the following conditions prior to Final Site Plan Approval, unless otherwise noted: a. Revision and submission of the site plans to include adequate buffering of the, parking lot on the north and west sides; landscaping plans and schedules for the site beyond the mini golf course, including locations, species, and size of proposed plantings, along with existing landscaping to be retained; revisions to improve handicap access in the parking lot; revisions to show that all exterior lights will be fully shielded so that no light rays are emitted by the installed fixtures at angles above the horizontal plane, in order to minimize excessive glare and light trespass, addition of details showing the location and type of trash receptacles throughout the miniature golf course facility; details of rocks, boulders and other landscape materials; and an appropriately screened trash collection bin, and the details of -an appropriately located and designed bicycle rack; and b. Submission of floor plans and elevations for the clubhouse, showing external configuration, dimensions, finishes, fenestrations, colors, and construction materials, and other usual building details; and c. Submission of design, material, and construction plans and details for the gazebo; and d. Submission of any proposed sign details, including location, design, dimensions, construction materials, and any associated lighting; and e. Acquisition of any necessary interpretations or variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the operation of the creamery, consisting of the sale of ice cream and snacks, along with the miniature golf course in a Low Density Residential Zone; and f Submission for review and approval of the Town of Ithaca Director of Engineering of revised stormwater, erosion, and sedimentation control 27 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved plans, including a revised SWPPP, before the start of any construction on the site; and g. Submission of a stormwater maintenance agreement for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, prior to issuance of any certificate Of occupancy; and h. Submission. of evidence that the Ithaca City Fire Department has approved the adequacy 'of access to the site and building for fire and emergency service equipment; and i. Approval from NYSDOT for a curb cut onto a State Route and/ or a road work permit, prior to the issuance of any building permits; and j. Submission of an owners' certificate stating that the owner of the land owns the land, caused the land to be surveyed and the site plans proposed, agrees to construct the project in the manner presented by the finally approved site plan and all related approved documents, and agrees and guarantees to construct any required infrastructure elements set forth on the finally approved site plan, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 12 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit to allow the Three Rivers Miniature Golf Course & Creamery to operate in a Low Density Residential Zone as provided for in the Town of Ithaca General Code ,§270 -55 (Principal uses authorized by special permit only, Low Density Residential Zone), subject to the conditions of the Preliminary Site Plan Approval,. finding that the standards of ,§270 -200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met; and 2. That this Special Permit is further conditioned upon the approval of the variances by the Zoning Board of Appeals as referenced in condition 2, e. of Site Plan Approval or acquisition of the necessary interpretation from the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the inclusion of ice cream sales or other snack foods as a "normal function "of a miniature golf course; and 3. That the Special Permit is further conditioned upon the compliance at all times with the following: a. There shall be no amplified music; b. There shall be no lighting of the course when the course is closed other than security lighting; and 28 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved c. Evening hours of operation shall not extend beyond 11:00 p.m. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to §270 -227 (A)(4) of the Town Code, hereby allows a reduction of the standard size of a parking space to no less than 162 square feet, as shown on the plan titled "Site Improvement and Layout Plan" (L -2), finding that the reduction will not have any adverse effects on the project, on the surrounding area, or on the neighborhood. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 18 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends to Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) that the proposed creamery, the sales of ice cream, snacks, and limited beverages, appears to function "as a use accessory to the proposed miniature golf course, such a finding by the ZBA. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. the Town of consisting of be a "normal and supports AGENDA ITEM Consideration of acceptance of the Draft Scope document (dated November 15, 2005, revised ]anuary 11, 2006) as the Final Scope document 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. Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge. Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:14 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox - Before we get going, Susan, I wanted to clarify your role since in the previous two public hearings you were sitting out in the audience and now you are sitting up here with us. So I want to make sure there is no conflict of interest. Ms. Brock — No. I was hired by the Town to work specifically to work on the GEIS, representing the Town's interest. At the time, someone else was appointed as the CO Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Attorney for the Town for all other matters. So I was sitting in the audience. Now I have been appointed Attorney for the Town for everything else. So... Chairperson Wilcox — You were representing the Town before... Ms. Brock - ...representing the Town before and am still doing it. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. I have a handheld, which if that will be easier and I will be glad to bring it up to you otherwise you are stuck passing that back and forth and I'm not sure if it will stretch all the way to Shirley. I get the assumption that you have a presentation you would like to make. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects Ms. Wolf — Well, let me tell you what we had in mind and then if you would like to do something different you'll let me know I'm sure. Yes. Kathryn Wolf, Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, 1001 West Seneca Street. I thought that what I might do is just very briefly summarize the process since receiving the public comments and then at your pleasure, very briefly I thought I might walk through and just point out specific changes that have been made and that are perhaps more significant in how they might relate to a ... that we are responding to a particular comment. I was hoping to do that all in approximately 10 minutes if that seems appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox — Be my guest. Ms. Wolf — Okay. First of all, we received a total of...as you know there were two public hearings and a total of 17 persons commented during the public comment period. Eleven spoke at one or the other or both of the public hearings and then there were six written submissions, some delivered as hard copies, some were submitted over the web page. I believe you have all received copies of those although I believe there were also a couple that came after the deadline and I'm not ... so I don't think those were in your packets, but those will be provided. Many helpful comments and I think that you will find that we have responded to and incorporated most of the suggestions that have been made. I think in a very general sense, overall the message and the bulk of the comments said that there was really too much emphasis on vehicular circulation and that the commentors would like to see more emphasis on pedestrians, bicycles, safety and access, was a common theme. And of course, neighborhood issues and livability. It has always been the intention that this project would have a strong emphasis on bicycles, pedestrians, all forms of alternative transportation and that the outcome ... one of the outcomes of the project would be a reduced use of single occupancy vehicles, but it really... hearing the public comment it was clear to us that we didn't do a good job communicating that. That we had ... the intention from the outset was that this would be a very broad, holistic... when we talked about transportation, we were talking about all modes of 30 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved transportation. I think, in fact, there was a misperception by may that the idea here was that we could figure out how to get as many vehicles as possible to Cornell and that in fact is not at all the case. The intention is to, first and foremost, as a result of the growth at Cornell we want to reduce the number of vehicles that are coming to campus as a part of that change by emphasizing other modes of transportation. But then doing the best job that we can and encouraging alternative modes of transportation we want to then be sure that we do identify and mitigate any impacts that do occur from any additional traffic including mitigate any impacts to the neighborhood. So I think that was not made clear and so the revised scope before you we have added language that we hope clarifies that and there are also additions to the scope. We have incorporated many of the suggestions that were provided. I also, not to confuse you further, but I also do have and we can wait till later to look at this or whatever the board's pleasure, but I have one page of some additional brief additions that we would like to suggest in addition to the copies that you have in front of you. We can ... I've got copies of that for the board but we can look at that later, but there are few additional brief. additions. Chairperson Wilcox - Did they result from a meeting this afternoon? Ms. Wolf — Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to just explain that meeting? Ms. Wolf — Lets see. We received a memo from Susan Brock, who had reviewed the scope and made a number of comments and suggestions, things that she thought were still confusing, things she didn't understand or thought might still be of concern and so we attempted to respond to all of those concerns and we reviewed those with Susan and Jonathan this afternoon and so that is what I have, one page additional changes. So as I go through these, I think the ones that are most significant I'll just read to you. Chairperson Wilcox — I have not seen any ... I became aware that there was a meeting this afternoon, but I also have not seen... Mr. Kanter — While they're bringing that up, I'll just clarify. That meeting was actually of the project team, which is a group that has been formally established during the process, which includes Susan, myself, Cathy Valentino, Joann Cornish from the City of Ithaca, Fernando de Aragon from the Transportation Council and numerous Cornell representatives. So it wasn't a special meeting set up, it was a regularly scheduled meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — Meeting of the project team. 31 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter — We have copies of Susan's memo here also, which I wasn't sure if we would be getting additional copies. Chairperson Wilcox — Pass them down. Thank you. Ms. Wolf. — Now, I guess I would also point out that I think you each have two copies of the same draft scope. One has underlined the changes since the original scope was submitted to you. Then the other one doesn't have any other underlines. I am looking at the one with the underlines. Where the changes were made and its really just sort of a clarification, I'm not going to go into that, okay, I'm just going to try to point out more substantive things for the sake of time. So on page 1, the third paragraph, which is largely underlined, mostly that is a clarification and is also trying to describe for the reader how the GEIS is organized. Part III is existing conditions, Part IV is impacts and Part V is mitigations and that format become quite repetitious through the document. Under the third bold heading, what the TGEIS will not address you see over in the right hand column that air quality has been deleted from that. Air quality has been added to the scope and actually when we get to that element in the outline where we have added it then we will elaborate on that a little bit more and describe exactly what will covered under air quality. So we have added air quality to the scope. On page 3, the, I think the underlines in the first paragraph, again, are ... I think most of that language was in the previous version. It has simply sort of been reformatted. In the second paragraph we do have a change and that is reflected on that piece of paper that I just handed out to you. It is revision number one and this is just a clarification because it became clear in talking to the group today, well, this is something that we had always intended, but we never made it clear. So this is the third sentence in that paragraph that begins, ""purposes of this project." The new sentence will read, 'travel to the main campus will be analyzed as if all population growth will commute to campus in order to understand the worst possible transportation impacts on the community." So what we are saying is that under each scenario that population growth number, we will be assuming that that entire growth number will actually be commuting to campus and in that way we are exaggerating the number of people that would actually be commuting as a way to get a worse case. We had never spelled that out before. Now moving on to page 4, several of the commentors has requested wanting to understand what Cornell University's were, what projects they had planned. So we have added under section 3.11, item number 8 is the Cornell University Capital Plan and that reflects all known planned projects at this point in time We have also included under the planning studies numbers 9 -13, those are transportation planning studies at Cornell. 32 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Page 5, under alternatives to single occupancy vehicle traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. Again, the one page sheet that we handed to you today, there is a little more explanation of what we will actually be looking at there for peds and bikes. So and again, this is section 3, so this is really we are documenting existing conditions at this point. So for pedestrians we will identify primary pedestrian routes to the campus and they will be evaluated for suitability for pedestrians, looking at things like are there sidewalks or not, continuity of sidewalks, handicap access, safe street crossings, etc. Those are the kind of things that we would be looking at along pedestrian routes to the campus. Similarly for bicycle routes. Identified bicycle routes will be evaluated for suitability, including presence of bicycle lanes, vehicular traffic conditions and is it safe for bicyclist to travel there, signage, safe road crossings, etc. Mr. Kanter — I'll add just an editorial note. Kathryn, it sounds like you are at the same time you are going through the draft scope you are mainly referring to the new sheet that you have given to the board. Ms. Wolf — Well, no. Mr. Kanter — It sounds like the language is the additional new language. Am I wrong? Chairperson Wilcox — I am following through on... Ms. Wolf — You have that sheet in front of you, Jonathan? Yeah, sometimes I'm doing that and sometimes I'm following the old one. Mr. Kanter — I want it clear to the board, if you can make it clear to the board when you're, if you are only referring right now to the scope that they had sent to them a week ago or if you are referring to the new revisions that you just handed them. That's all I'm asking to make it clear. Otherwise it will be difficult for them to know what is what. Ms. Wolf — Okay. Mr. Kanter — Does that make sense? Board Member Howe — I think she has been doing that actually. Board Member Talty — We're good. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm fine. Mr. Kanter — Good. I just wanted to make sure. 33 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf - Okay. Under transit service, I am not going to go through that unless someone would like the elaborated on, but really, we've just ... it came out of the discussions with the resource committee. I believe there has been at least 3 resource committee meetings and this largely came out of working with that committee to flush out and George developed this, what would actually be included in the'transit section. Looking at transit routes, where the population is distributed and so where do we really need transit routes and park and rides, etc. Okay, page 7 of the draft scope. Here are a lot of new additions. These are all pretty much suggestions that either came out of public comments or the resource committee. So 3.1.4.3, initially we did not have looking at accident and crash data. We have now added that. So we will be looking at where there might be concentrations of accidents and problems created by existing conditions out there. 3.1.4.411. Chairperson Wilcox — Before you go on, is it called crash data? Isn't it called accident data or something? Ms. Tedesco — Actually, it is called crash data because when you say an accident it makes it sound like something actually occurred accidentally whereas a lot of collisions and things that go boom actually have identifiable causes. Chairperson Wilcox — So that is the technical term? Ms. Tedesco — That is the reason why, yes. Board Member Howe — Would that include pedestrian and bicycle accidents as well, not just automobile? Ms. Tedesco — As far as I know. Yes. Planning Board 1/17/06 Tape 2 Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Kathryn. Ms. Wolf - George just informed me that "crash data" never caught on with the public. OK, 3144, the original scope did have the Service and Delivery vehicle traffic. What has been added, based on public input, is the coal delivery, which is a concern to the community, and routes and policies for construction traffic, so those are the additions. 3146, this is an entirely new section that has been added in response to the public comment: "General description of existing air quality and noise," and I'm actually going to ask George to just explain to you a little bit because he actually understands it. 34 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Mr. Alexiou - Thanks, we think it is a good idea to consider air quality, air impacts and noise impacts. On the air side, emission and air quality as you probably know is receiving increased attention because of global warming, so there are a lot of communities now that want to see that documented and understand the impacts on air quality of any particular initiative. What we proposed to do is to quantify the air quality benefits of mitigation strategies, obviously of every trip we divert from a single occupant vehicle to an alternative mode of transportation is one less car starting up and traveling and that results in a reduction in the various emissions, and we want to be able to calculate this and quantify that for each of the strategies, so that that's people understand that there are, that's one.of the benefits of the mitigation strategies. On the noise, our approach here, our purpose here is to explain the relationship between noise and traffic so everybody understands what we're dealing with and basically the kinds of attributes that contribute to noise, things like how much traffic, what kind of traffic, what's the composition, obviously more trucks, more noise... the speed implication when traffic is stopping or starting or accelerating or trucks going downhill, and using their engines or airbrakes. Those kinds of real issues, very annoying, it may happen once or twice a day, but it can be very annoying, particularly if it's not at night. So, given that noise is undesirable and annoying, we want to identify strategies that get to the source of it, which is really the traffic that's creating that noise, so by being able to develop strategies that reduce, whether it's volume or whether types of vehicles or the speed of vehicles, those kind of traffic management programs, and trip reduction programs... by doing that, we're getting to the source of noise, so we can identify reductions in potential noise impacts by talking about and understanding what we're proposing to do to reduce traffic or to control traffic. So, we'll be able sort of to show the implications of doing that. Ms. Wolf - And then let's see, the final section under 314 that we've added, this is something that really came out of our discussion that we had at the resource committee: "General description of visitor and other traffic generated by facilities and /or programs on the Cornell campus ". This is really a discussion, we talk about all the service delivery, employees, staff, students, and then someone said well, there are, what about people who are coming to drop their kids off at daycare or the Vet school, people bring their animals to the Vet school to the clinic. There are a whole array of programs that attract visitors to the campus, and that's a whole different kind of user, so what about them? And, are there likely to be substantial programs expansions that would also attract that user group. So, that has been added as a category here. Chairperson Wilcox — Would that include sporting events? Ms. Wolf-- Let's see, sporting events, I think is included under special events. If you go up, scroll back, 3145, existing traffic conditions and mitigation strategies for special events. That's kind of like student move -in, graduation, sporting events, and they have mitigation plans in place for all those kinds of events, so those will be described. 35 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — OK. Ms. Wolf - OK, now if we go down to 315: Parking. We have really just elaborated here, we've got description of parking for the students, faculty, staff and visitors on campus and we've now, the previous version identified only existing parking, we've now expanded that to also include any known planned parking facilities, and sort of what the gains and losses might be from those changes in parking. And then letter c, this is something that came out of the public comment period, municipal Collegetown parking garage, asking us to also include in the analysis existing municipal garages and known planned garages. Then 3.2 is an entirely new section, I believe the original draft addressed neighborhoods, were really embedded under vehicular circulations. We've now pulled this out, this was obviously a bog concern of the public, and we recognize that and we pulled this out, and we also originally had not used the word livability, thinking that there might be confusion about the definition of that term. But clearly this is something that people in this community understand and what addressed, and so we are in agreement with that and have added that here. Essentially under section 3.21, what we're going to do under section 321 is we're going to look... Chairperson Wilcox — Before you go on, will you read the revised language of 3.2? Ms. Wolf - Sure, the one in front of you? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, the one you handed out this evening. Ms. Wolf - For 3.2: "This section will identify the existing transportation systems and issues described in sections 331 to 315 as they relate to residential areas and specific neighborhoods, and will include issues identified by residents. Neighborhood livability, character and participation will be addressed as described below. The purpose of this section is to lay the foundation for discussion and evaluation of impacts, section 4, and mitigations, section 5, affecting neighborhoods." Chairperson Wilcox Thank you. Ms. Wolf - Would you like me to read the new language for 321? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, I think it's important. Ms. Wolf - OK, sure. OK, so the new language says: "For each..." actually the whole first part of it is unchanged, only the last part is changed, but do you want me to read the entirety? Chairperson Wilcox — Read the entire thing, please. 36 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf - OK: "For each residential area identified below in section 322, general neighborhood livability and character along major access routes to campus, will be qualitatively described and will include, where applicable, abutting land uses and density, street widths, building setbacks, street scape aesthetics, problematic sections of road, roadway shoulders, sidewalks and bicycle routes and facilities, safety, bus routes and facilities, and service delivery and construction routes. The purpose is not to duplicate existing livability studies or to provide an exhaustive catalog of characteristics, but rather to consider existing livability and neighborhood information in enough detail to determine impacts and identify mitigation strategies where impacts are significant, on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis." So I think also, just to paraphrase, I think the intention under that section is to really look at each neighborhood and say what are the essential characters that are really, what are the essential elements that contribute to the character of this neighborhood? And it could be, it will be very different in different neighborhoods, but what is most important to the neighborhood character in a given location, so if it's narrow streets with mature trees for example, that tells us that mitigation strategies that go in and widen the roadway and therefore impact the trees is probably not a good idea in that location. So, these are the kinds of things we're looking at, what are the defining features of the neighborhood character and so that begins to tell us how they are sensitive to traffic impacts. In a nutshell that's what we're assessing there and trying to get a handle on. Then 322, I guess we didn't have any changes, 322 there's no changes on your new sheet, but here we've identified all of the neighborhoods, that's been discussed before. I think what's new to you here is we have the, we've developed further our method for participation and for engaging neighborhood involvement, and so we've talked with the university neighborhoods council, as well as the Ithaca neighborhoods council, and these are. existing umbrella groups... the City for example. staff the Ithaca Neighborhoods Council, Leslie Chatterton at the City does. And so, they sponsor events on a regular basis, so the thought is, because the list of neighborhoods has gotten quite long and then there is this whole question of how do you define the neighborhoods, what if there is not an actual association to call up, or some people don't even belong to a neighborhood. So the thought is that the outreach would occur through these existing umbrella groups, and that the neighborhood meetings would occur, they would actually be grouped together, we've talked about having them sort of possibly, west side, east side geographic division, and then really reach out to all of the neighborhoods in those areas, east side /west side, through these existing umbrella groups. And we would of course work with them to make sure that if there are other groups or neighborhoods or residential areas that they're not typically outreaching too that that's also happening. And then of course, we have our extensive stakeholder list, and other venues that would be utilized to bring, to reach out to people, but the people who staff these neighborhood councils, think it's a good idea, our resource committee endorsed 37 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved it, and so this is the proposed methodology for the neighborhood meetings. And I think we're thinking at this point, in terms of the general neighborhood. meetings, probably three meetings: information gathering, early on; reaction to early proposals and inputs and then discussion of more finalized proposals. OK, moving on to section 4.1: the hypothetical Cornell population growth scenarios over the next decade. Here I would like to direct you to your sheet that I've distributed, revision 5. And I think, what we did, we heard concern that how do we know these growth scenarios accurately reflect what is likely to occur at Cornell? So the revision 5 is intended to clarify that. So I'm assuming you would like me to read this, Fred? Chairperson Wilcox — go ahead. Ms. Wolf - So this would simply be an addition under the very first heading. "Hypothetical Cornell population growth scenarios will be studied for the main campus. All projects in the current Cornell capital plan, not all of which may be built, were examined, and their collective population growth as currently estimated was midway between scenarios 2 and 3 listed below." So the, you can see what those were, "and these include projects such as Life Sciences Technology, Millstein Hall, Johnson Art Museum, Martha Van Rensallear North replacement, Bailey Hall renovation, East Campus Research facility, Lynah Rink expansion, Plantations headquarters addition, and Physical Sciences, which are all in a five year plus or minus planning horizon." So, once again I think, because the collective population increase of this falls between the second and third scenario, I think again we've been conservative in that both the third and fourth scenario, should exceed what is actually planned. OK, now I'm going to move to section 4.3. Some of these other sections are really redundant, the changes are all. Because Section 3 is existing conditions, and then section 4 is all the same language except we're looking at the growth scenarios overlayed. Now, if we look at section 4.3, and this has been revised as per your sheet, that I just handed out, revision 6: Impact of each hypothetical Cornell population growth scenario on neighborhoods. And that now reads "This section will identify residential areas that could experience potential significant adverse impacts from an increase in traffic, cars, transit buses, construction, service and delivery vehicles, as a result of population growth at Cornell. Potential impacts will be evaluated in enough detail to determine effects on neighborhood character and livability using the characteristics described in section 321, and on the systems described in 311 through 315. Additional livability issues will be considered where appropriate, such as identifiable safety hazards, suitability for bus routes, and potential for speeding." So, this is now overlaying the impacts, and this is where we take that livability, character analysis that we talked about earlier and we say OK, is this neighborhood really suitable for bus routes. That's really the impact analysis that occurs here. Real Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved OK, let's see, then section, at the bottom of page 11, bicycles, 5212, that's revision 7 on your sheet that's handed out today. This is in response to, we got an e- mail, I think just, I think yesterday we got an e-mail from the City of Ithaca Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and one of the things that they were very interested in having us look at is improvements to uphill movement, because of course the hills are real obstacles here for bicycle use. And so, the language in.revision 7 is in response to that suggestion by the bicycle and pedestrian committee. Chairperson Wilcox — That was the e-mail from David Kay, I believe, right? Ms. Wolf - Correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, thank you. Board Member Mitrano — I think they should put chairlifts up on all of the roads. Ms. Wolf - They'd like something like that. And then let's see, I think finally revision 8, it's the last one I'm going to bring to your attention; and that's the mitigation strategies relative to neighborhoods, and just the first paragraph is revised in front of you. And what that says is "description of how mitigation strategies described in section 521 to 523 will effect residential. areas. Additional mitigation strategies will be proposed for specific residential areas, in which impacts identified in section 4 were not mitigated by the strategies in 521 to 523, these could include items such as traffic calming measures and safety improvements." So these could be mitigation measures specific for neighborhoods but. not necessarily for the broader system. And I think, I also want to emphasize there I think, we also, one of the other things that I think also came out in discussions, and I think there is a concern out there that, I think there is a very real concern by the neighborhoods that mitigation strategies will be proposed as part of this project, and then those mitigation strategies could have impacts on the neighborhood, but that those impacts wouldn't be considered. I mean, we recognize that, and the intention is absolutely to consider and evaluate the pros and cons of any mitigation strategy, and I am certain that there may be mitigation strategies that will be considered unacceptable perhaps in certain neighborhoods, because of the impact on the neighborhood. So that absolutely is an important part of what we're doing here. So I know that is a concern out there, and that is absolutely part of what our analysis is. What are the proposed mitigation strategies, what do those then mean for the neighborhoods, so are they appropriate or not. So I think that completes the things that I wanted to review with you. Chairperson Wilcox George, did you want to say anything? Mr. Alexiou - No, I think Kathy has covered it well. Chairperson Wilcox — Your comments have now been taken into account? 39 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano — Yes, they've been addressed. Chairperson Wilcox - Where do we want to start? I'm sure we've all read through, I'm sure we've all made our own comments and notes. Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, on all kinds of different papers, and now we have new papers, and trying to, it's very very difficult to deal with this, actually. And I would love to have been able to interrupt you and ask you questions as you were presenting this, but I think we're going to have to go all through it again. I'm not sure what's the best way. Chairperson Wilcox — Before we Brittains addressed to their house? Board Member Conneman — Yes. get going, did everyone receive a letter from. the Chairperson Wilcox — I just want to make sure everybody saw... we have a... OK. I got mine, even though it was addressed to the wrong address. Mr. D. Brittain - It was? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. 600 Warren Road, that way you can send me more mail. Board Member Hoffmann — No, and I'm not even sure... Chairperson Wilcox — OK, Eva has the floor, go ahead. Board Member Hoffmann — No, I'm not sure that I want to do it this way, that I go through all my points, I think it might be better if we go through the document point by point, and everyone who has something to say about that point gets a chance, and then we discuss that point, all of us. Instead of me going through all of mine, and then George all of his. Board Member Conneman — Well, I'd like to start with Purpose, OK. In this original thing you gave us, you indicated very strongly that, if I can find this quickly, the purpose dealt with neighborhoods. It says there the IS will study the effect on the surrounding community, outline ways to reduce adverse transportation. And then of course you came to this single occupancy vehicle issue. It seems to me that under purpose, when you put a purpose down, you want to state what you want to do, and the first part of this, in my opinion, you don't talk about what the major objective is. If the major objective is to develop ways to reduce trips through a neighborhood, that should be part of it. But, in any statement that I've ever seen where you have a goal or what it is, you state that up front. It isn't stated here at all in my opinion. Purpose .R Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved is something that sounds like transportation jargon to me, instead of saying look, the major objective of this GEIS is to develop ways to reduce traffic through neighborhoods and so forth, and part of that strategy may be to reduce; to discourage single occupancy vehicles. But I don't see the purpose stated there. Ms. Wolf - George, I guess, I would, are you looking at page 1 of the draft scope? Board Member Conneman — I'm on page 1 of the draft scope that is dated January it and so forth. Ms. Wolf - And the very first sentence says, I think the very first sentence states the broad purpose. Board Member Conneman —That is so confusing that the general public doesn't understand what that means. If you put it into normal language and say the major objective is to reduce traffic through neighborhoods, it would be meaningful, which is what you said originally in this thing in my opinion. So, I think that first purpose should state exactly what the purpose of this study is in simple language that everybody can understand. And if you do that, there will be a lot less confusion about what you are going to do. And I can't imagine that you hadn't thought about that before. I know some people say well, it's obvious what's there, but in my view, I won't give you my lecture on why you put things in writing, but you put down what you're going to do in simple language so everybody can understand it, I don't think it's there. Board Member Howe — For me it would work, George, if in that second, actually the third paragraph, again on the first page... I mean, I think it says very clearly that it's about getting people, not vehicle to the Cornell campus, but if they added a sentence and if we go back to what Forest Home, remember I think at the last meeting Forest Home gave us a draft copy of this with some potential revisions, and they had a sentence in there that added with a companion goal of maintaining or increasing the quality of life in neighborhoods. So if we added some sentence like that to the purpose, it helps, I think it broadens it, I mean it's there, but I think it would be helpful to stipulate that up front as part of the purpose. Board Member Conneman — It's there, but it isn't there, Rod, and that's my point, that that ought to be there. I mean you put things in writing because you want to remember what you agreed to, and you want to be able to use it as a roadmap, and if you're going to do that then you got to have a general direction at the beginning, not some place in the middle, where it gets all confused with everything else. Ms. Wolf - George is just saying to me, I think the real purpose is this sentence in the third paragraph that Rod just pointed to, the third sentence there, excuse me, fourth sentence says "the focus of the mitigation strategies in this t -GEIS will be on ways of 41 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved getting people, not vehicles to the Cornell campus. I don't know if there's a way to move that up perhaps, and... Board Member Conneman — The focus of mitigation? Ms. Wolf - correct. Board Member Conneman — Again, I don't think that that states clearly that one of the objectives is, or that the main objective is to keep traffic out of neighborhoods. Board Member Howe — That's what I'm suggesting, if we just add it on to that sentence, with a companion goal of maintaining or increasing the quality of life of the neighborhoods or something like that. Board Member Conneman — Well, I still think that's pretty vague, Rod, that's my opinion. I would much rather have you add the sentence that I guess the Brittain brothers put in their revision, because that is clear to me. I've tried it on some other people who say yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Ms. Wolf - What's the sentence? Board Member Conneman — The sentence says "a. major objective of the 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." I couldn't say it any better. That was a sentence that you apparently rejected when you did this matrix. Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on a second, I got a problem. I'm getting hand signals from back there because I told them they couldn't talk, so I'm getting hand signals. Mr. D. Brittain - [inaudible] to comment, except to say that if you are going to be discussing theirs from January 11, I did take a version of January 11, and I put a little "c" on the left -hand column every time one of our comments from two weeks ago [inaudible] a comment that was not incorporated into ... [inaudible) just so that for instance, there's a little "c" here and that was [inaudible]. Chairperson Wilcox — So what I have is another copy... OK. Mr. D. Brittain - It was just to [inaudible] what public comment has not been incorporated [inaudible]. You can decide whether or not you'd like it in the discussion, but you would all be looking at it. Board Member Mitrano — I have never known you to take long comments from someone who hasn't given their name and address and stepped up to the microphone. 42 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Mr. Kanter — Maybe Fred will repeat who that was who just talked. Chairperson Wilcox — That was Bruce Brittain. Mr. D. Brittain - Doug. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh it was Doug, I'm sorry. Board Member Conneman My other point would .be flow of traffic when you talk about single occupancy vehicles. That comes second, that doesn't come first in my opinion. Ms. Wolf - Well, I think if I could just, if we reduce single occupancy vehicle use, if we're successful in that, then there is less traffic going through the neighborhoods, there is less impact on the neighborhoods, that's why.,.. Board Member Conneman — But you state what your major objective is, then you say there are various ways we can do that, single occupancy vehicles, maybe bicycles,, maybe skateboards, I don't know, whatever. But it seems to me you put the cart before the horse, that's one of the mitigation methods, that's not the purpose or objective. Chairperson Wilcox — Only if you have the microphone. Ms. Egan - Shirley Egan from Cornell. I think one of the things we have to bear in mind is that a t -GEIS is not the action. If you turn to page 3 for a description of the proposed action, an extensive amount of additional language was added, including the sentence that TIMS will grow out of the mitigation sections, and TIMS will outline ways to reduce adverse transportation impacts of potential Cornell University population growth, with an emphasis on reducing single occupancy vehicle trips including those through residential areas. I think as we did this, we thought that perhaps, with all due respect, that might be the more appropriate place to put that language, so we did actually incorporate it in there. TIMS becomes the action, rather than a t -GEIS. A t- GEIS is more like the pair of glasses through which you look at the action. Board Member Hoffmann — Shirley, could you say which version you were reading from? Ms. Egan - I am reading from the full redline version you have dated January 11tH Board Member Hoffmann — The what version? Ms. Egan - January 11 version. 43 Board Member Hoffmann - didn't make my comments on the other version, so h the November 15 version, please say again what you about? the on tl ere I but just Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved one with the lines. OK, now it just so happened that I ie one with the lines for the added things, I made them am sitting, trying to. And I am also looking mainly at I am also looking at the January 11. And could you said; and refer again to the paragraph you were talking Ms. Egan - Yes, it's in Roman Numeral II, which should be someplace on the third page I imagine, even in the version you're looking at, under description of the proposed action, it's the paragraph that begins "this transportation focused generic environmental impact statement is being written pursuant... to study TIMS." And it goes on to describe what the t -GEIS will do and then it says "TIMS" and this is the new language will grow out of the mitigation section, section 5, of the t -GEIS. TIMS" that's the ten year transportation impact mitigation strategies "will outline ways to reduce ways to reduce adverse transportation impacts on potential Cornell University population growth, with an emphasis on reducing single- occupancy vehicle trips, including those through residential areas." Board Member Conneman — You always put your objective first on page 1 at the top, that's my argument. Board Member Mitrano — What I want to understand is are we arguing form or substance here? Board Member Conneman — We're arguing substance because substance comes first, you have to say what you're going to do Tracy. Board Member Mitrano — Well, I write a lot of policy, George, and if what they want to do is write the purpose in here and talk about how they're going to do it inside, and you just want it flipped, that's a matter of form, that you can decide whether you want to do it or not... Board Member Conneman — It's very... Board Member Mitrano — But if we're giving a difference in what.the substance is, that's something really to dig into and talk about. Board Member Conneman = there is a difference in substance of what you put first. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — I have another problem with the purpose section which I've already talked about before, and that is at the two public hearings on December 6 and on January 3, Ms. Wolf made a very brief statement about what the purpose was, and . . Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved it was essentially, well I can read it, as I did at the last meeting, from the minutes of the December 6t' meeting. It says, "The primary purpose of the project is to identify strategies to reduce single- occupancy vehicle trips by the Cornell population. That's our primary objective with this project. We're seeking global solutions that will achieve reduced dependence on single: occupancy vehicle use," and that was repeated almost word for word at both meetings, and those were the meetings where the public was here, so that's what the public heard, that's what the reporters from the news media heard. They did not hear the text that's in either the November 15, 05 version or the January 11, 06 version of purpose of transportation GEIS, the purpose of the scoping and the scope, and in fact, this language about the reduction of the single... the vehicle with just one person in it, does not appear in the November 15 version and it bothers me, and I haven't heard an explanation for why we heard just that one very narrow purpose both of those times instead of everything that's in the November 15 version that now has been expanded. Ms. Wolf - I would be happy to respond. to that, Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — And why the public didn't hear all of it. Ms. Wolf - Well, obviously the public had the full document. Board Member Hoffmann — Did they? Ms. Wolf - the November 15 document, sure, we brought extra copies and they were out at the front desk for people to pick up. Board Member Hoffmann — OK, I'm glad. I didn't know. Ms. Wolf - Sure. And we had mailed to what? Like 54 people on the stakeholders list, that was broadly; broadly distributed. Board Member Hoffmann — I'll have to... 1. Chairperson Wilcox— Let her answer your question. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, please. Ms. Wolf - It became very clear, and this was our mistake, but it became very clear that everyone interpreted that original scope as being focused on vehicular circulation and as the desire to get vehicles to Cornell. It became clear that somehow people thought that's what we were trying to do, when in fact — and that was our fault, in that we didn't explain it well at all. When we talked about having, looking at transportation mitigation, the entire purpose here was to really look at how to not have all these vehicles coming to Cornell, and primarily through reduction...I mean reduction of SOV's 45 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved means getting people to use pedestrian, to walk, to use bikes, to use transit, et cetera. And that was all in there, in that it was all in that original scope, I mean nothing changed, it's simply that the message and the way it was presented came across to people that we were trying to get the most vehicles to campus, when in fact that was not. at all the intention. So, to try to communicate it in the simplest possible terms, to have a very simple and not elaborate explanation, knowing that all this language about hypothetical growth potentials, as George has just pointed out, was confusing to him, we tried to come up with.a very simple way to describe just simply, fundamentally what is it we are trying to accomplish. And so, I think if you look at any of it, none of it, the substance has not changed, it was just the original was read to imply that we were going to ... I heard one resident say "they're going to widen the roads in our neighborhoods to get more vehicles to campus," which the idea is to get people to take other modes so we didn't have to do that, that was the intention. And so we were simply trying to get that message across. Board Member Hoffmann — Still, it's what it says in the papers that we have to talk about and vote on, it's not what was stated verbally at the meeting. Board Member Conneman — It's only repeating something.:. Board Member Hoffmann — It's the words on the paper that matter. Board Member Conneman - Repeating something, Kathryn, is OK. Clarity says you say it twice in a different area, that's fine, because then people understand it. But up front, when you're doing a research project, you put the objective up front; you don't put it on page 3. Ms. Wolf - We didn't do a very good job with the first draft. Board Member Conneman — Well, I don't think you did a very good job with whatever this draft is either, unless you add the sentence that I talked about. Board Member Howe — I mean I think the first three paragraphs do become very important, because a lot of people look at the introduction background to get a quick read, and I think folks will still read those first three paragraphs and get a sense, they're not worried about neighborhoods. Yes, you're worried about — I think it would be very easy to add some sentence in there to let neighborhoods know that you're concerned about quality of life in neighborhoods. Ms. Wolf - I think we can do that, I think we can do that. Ms. Egan - Clearly, we'll do that, but I think... EA N Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Shirley, I need... And I will bring up, I will gladly bring up the wireless one, if that will. Ms. Egan - Well, if we can pass it back and forth, we'll try that for a while. Chairperson Wilcox — OK. Ms. Egan - I think, George, we can take care of yours, there's no problem. As I often lecture my clients, SEQR is about redundancy. They quoted it back to me today, to my embarrassment, and we can certainly put that right up front. There's two things here that have to do with your comment, Eva. First, after we got it finished, we realized it was something that had been written by transportation planning types. It was professional, it was bland, it talked in very neutral terms what the intention was, and didn't get into the intention. We realize that. I think your concern over what the public had to review, the whole point of public review is that the public is to say what we want to have added to it, and in fact, what the public wanted to have added was what we had hoped would shine through anyway, but obviously didn't. So, when you've added something to the scope as a result of the scoping comments, and I hope you did have the chance to review the matrix where we show all the many things that have been added to the scope, it is not then necessary to go back and say but the public didn't get to see this, because that is the whole point of it is that you do add the things that the public asks you to do, and that we have done. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but if the public hears that the purpose is something very, very simple, and they don't hear part of what it is, which is .actually in the text, then they get the wrong impression perhaps, they think maybe it's simpler, and there's less to it than there is. Ms. Egan - Well, evidence suggests that the public did have a copy of the scope, rather that just what they heard in the media or from Kathryn's presentation. I think we have good evidence that people really took the scope and read it line by line, if I were concerned that they didn't, I might agree with you, but I just don't think there's any evidence much for that. Board Member Mitrano — If, assuming that you guys are going to keep this format, that is you're going to begin with introduction and background, may I just offer a suggestion as to how we can... Chairperson Wilcox — That's our job. Board Member Mitrano - .., a little bit of the form and a little bit of the substance issue we're getting here. It's a little bit of wordsmithing, you'll excuse me. "The purpose of the transportation focused GEIS, t- GEIS,..." 47 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox.— Can I get the microphone closer, because I definitely want to pick this up. Board Member Mitrano — Well, we'll see when it's done... Chairperson Wilcox — No, I definitely want to pick it up. Board Member Mitrano - ... "is to identify, examine, and evaluate the impact of CU transportation on" — and that's what I think everyone is arguing about, why don't. you say it right there? It's on what, on neighborhoods ?, on what ?, what's the impact on ?, or for or whom or about? — "and to explore possible mitigations for hypothetical Cornell University population growth scenarios over the next decade." It kills two birds with one stone. Board Member Howe — It's going to be hard to get, it's a lot of wordsmithing tonight, rather than just... Board Member Mitrano —,I don't mean to go through everything, but.listening to what people are saying and suggesting that that could help us —that one -piece right there. Chairperson Wilcox — If anyone thinks that we're going to approve anything before ten O'clock tonight, they are sadly mistaken. Especially because we've been spending the last 15 minutes scolding the people in the process rather than offering improvements. Board Member Conneman — We've been networking with them, not scolding, please. You may scold people, I don't. Chairperson Wilcox — OK, we should spend the time and go through it, paragraph by paragraph I agree, that we should go through it, not individually or one by one, but paragraph by paragraph, maybe some paragraphs we'll skip over very quickly and make whatever comments we wish to offer. Board Member Mitrano —Well, I'm done. Chairperson Wilcox — Clearly one of the issues, briefly, one of the issues is that we have a revised document from the eleventh, and then we have additional changes that came about this afternoon that we became aware of this evening, and I'm sure that there will be some additional changes suggested and /or mandated by this board, or recommended to be made, so given that, I'd like to move through. So, we've gotten through the issue of, we'd like the draft scope to clearly indicate what the purpose is and what's being studied. Board Member Thayer — I think of George's comments is that simpler language adds to the clarity, and that's definitely what I think we need to do. 11111111111111EU00 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Conneman — I respect transportation people, but they talk in certain terms that economists do sometime you can't understand them. Board Member Talty — As the acronym goes, KISS, right? Board Member Conneman — Keep it Simple Stupid. Chairperson Wilcox - On the other hand, we keep it simple, use terminology we all understand, but on the other hand,. it has to be technical enough to be clear exactly what we're telling them to do and they're committing to do. Board Member Conneman — But that can follow, Fred, that can follow the statement. Chairperson Wilcox Yeah, no, I hear you, I hear you. All right. Have we gotten through the introduction and background? I think we kind of have. And we, essentially we're hoping that when we review the next draft in two weeks, I'm jumping ahead, but when we review the next draft, there will be language in there that will be acceptable. Rod, you OK? Board Member Howe — Where...? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm saying, have we given them enough input on the purpose and that so that we can skip ahead to Part II of the draft scope? Board Member Talty — No, I still have some questions related to what the t -GEIS will not address. Chairperson Wilcox— Go ahead. Board Member Talty — Just because I think there's already been an acknowledgement that sometimes there's going to be neighborhood contextualization of issues. I don't know if out of hand, I feel comfortable just saying we will not consider an historical or archaeological resources, because that might be an issue in some neighborhoods. So, I don't know if there's a way of... Chairperson Wilcox — How might it be...? [tape is flipped] Board Member Talty — want to make sure that any mitigation strategies don't deter or ruin any of the resources there in that particular community, but there's probably examples from other neighborhoods that can be brought to bear, and I think in general, yes, it's probably not going to be an issue, but I guess I'm a little uncomfortable out of ER Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 . I Approved hand saying it may not be an issue. The other thing I just want to point out, is I'm wondering if there's actually a contradiction where we say we're not going to analyze housing, but in Roman Numeral V, 5.1, we recognize that there is a relationship between land use and transportation, and that would include housing locations. So, I'm not sure whether there's a bit of a contradiction there, because there's a recognition that it depends on where houses might get built, or where, in terms of where people are going to have to get, how they're going to get to Cornell. I don't know how to deal with that, I recognize that it's probably not going to be a major issue, but I guess I'm looking for ways that it can stay in the mix if it's an issue. Chairperson Wilcox — Is the issue the word analyze? That they won't analyze those? Board Member Talty — Maybe. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Making it clear that while they won't be analyzed, impacts on those, the issue is you're not, I understand why you don't want to analyze them. Board Member Talty — Right. Chairperson Wilcox — But, on the other hand, we want to make sure that if a, if something that grows out of TIMS has an impact. Ms. Wolf - Rein me in here, Shirley, if I'm... Chairperson Wilcox — Let her go, Shirley. Ms. Wolf - I think that this is a generic environmental impact statement, so in many cases we aren't talking about real site - specific proposals, there are potential mitigations, so we're not getting down to the nitty-gritty detail that you would get down to at the point that you bring something in for a site plan review. I do think it is probably true that when we look at things like neighborhood livability for example, and as I described, we're going to look at each neighborhood, and we're going to say what are the essential important characteristics of this neighborhood, and I think that where historic architecture is sort of obviously a part of the mix, I think we would identify that, and that we would, and that we wouldn't, we .would want to be certain that we weren't proposing anything that might negatively impact that. So, but I think it's sort of at that level, I mean, I can't imagine that it's not, at that level it's definitely there and we would be thinking about it, and it would be a part of the thinking. Board Member Howe — Well, I think you're right that the word analyze is sort of... it's . almost like you say we're not going to analyze these, but we recognize that some. of these issues could come up as we're addressing strategies or something. 50 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf - So actually Bill suggested, we could maybe come up with some language I on that, but perhaps we could say something like we may comment on, but not analyze, may comment and identify... Board Member Mitrano — Excuse me, having asked the question on form, now I really am curious, what would the rest of that sentence read? The purpose of the study of is to identify, examine and evaluate Cornell University's... the impact of Cornell University's transportation on what? How do you answer that? Ms. Egan - Well, it's on all the things we've listed here. Board Member Mitrano — But maybe that's what you want to say right in your first sentence in order to clear up the confusion, so you say later on what you're not going to look at, but maybe right in your first sentence to help this issue, you want to say the impact on x, y, and z and a, b, and c. And that way it's not vague. And then to say that you will explore possible mitigations for blah, blah, blah. Ms. Egan - Yeah, in simplistic terms it would transportation systems, and when we say systems again we don't mean just vehicles, we mean transit, pedestrians, bicycles, and neighborhoods. Transportation systems and neighborhoods, I think that's really what it is. Board Member Mitrano — And if that's what it is, then maybe that's all you want to do is just be really clear in the first sentence about what it is. Board Member Hoffmann — You mean in the first sentence under what the t -LEIS will not address or the very first paragraph? Board Member Mitrano — I'm way back, right at the top. Ms. Egan - She went back. Board Member Mitrano — By talking about what it's not going to include, it still wasn't clear to me in the specific term, what it is about. So it's impact on...? Ms. Egan - Transportation systems and neighborhoods. Board Member Mitrano — There you go. Chairperson Wilcox—, OK, Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — In looking on the first page of the responsiveness summary which also deals with the same first paragraphs that we have just been talking about, it talks about these same issues, neighborhood livability, the visual resources, air quality 51 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved and so on, that will be looked at, or that some people would like to have looked at. In the column on the far right, which is the response, it talks about noise and pollution, which is one of the things we just discussed, and that they are affected by traffic, and they will be evaluated in the appropriate sections, but not on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis, and I thought that you said, when you went through the whole revision, that there would. be a neighborhood by neighborhood look at these things. Did I misunderstand that? Ms. Egan - We created, we did create a separate section for air pollution and noise. It has a separate section, although I do think we discussed today that we, if again, like we just discussed for historic, if there are noise issues in a neighborhood, they would be identified. Board Member Hoffmann Yes, and I think as someone else alluded to earlier, it depends on where the neighborhood is, how much noise there is and how much air pollution is from traffic specifically, because if you have a steep hill somewhere like you have in Forest Home or like you have in various other parts of town, that's where the cars and the trucks and buses are noisy whether they are going uphill or downhill, and that's where some, especially again trucks and buses let off a lot of fumes, I assume it's when they go in low gear, so I think you almost have to look at it on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis and what the roads through the neighborhood are like, when it comes to those two things at least. And the other thing I would like to add on that page is my questioning of your, of Ms. Wolf's statements about what the project included and what the purpose was, which I did at the planning board meeting on January 3rd, and I can give.you references to where the text appears in the minutes of the Planning Board meetings, too. But that's an oral comment that was not included here. Chairperson Wilcox — At this rate... Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, I know, whatever comments I make always take.too much time... Chairperson Wilcox — No, no, no, that wasn't specific to you, it was just specific to this board. Ms. Egan - If I may, Mr. Chairman? Chairperson Wilcox — Pardon? Ms. Egan - I think this is a specific response to Eva's comment, but I think has general application. We realized very early on that a generic environmental impact statement is a very very broad document. You need to have a certain amount of comprehensiveness to it for it to be useful, but that we didn't want to get so totally lost in the details that it became a grand exercise in creating encyclopedic detail about 52 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved things. So in any instance, when we were trying to decide well, did this mean, for instance, we should set up noise receptor devices in each neighborhood to find out how loud a truck was in that neighborhood, or something that would sniff the emissions and tell you what the air. pollution was like there. We tried to ask ourselves in each instance, and I urge you to ask yourselves, what would having that kind of catalogue of information actually do, given the overall purposes here? Do you really need to know what the emissions are in this neighborhood versus that neighborhood in order to know almost more by windshield survey that they're worse here than there, or that this is a pocket or this has a hillside, or this has more trucks and to then come up with mitigation strategies. We were trying to find that balance between doing so much detail that in fact resources were, were not really being allocated where they needed to be. Did we really need to know this in order to know something needed mitigation? Did we really need to know it in order to know that it was an impact? And I think that was the point of this comment was that we weren't going to go neighborhood by neighborhood to say yours was this many decibels, and this was that many decibels. That sort of level of detail wasn't necessary to know that something was noisy and needed mitigation. So, you know, please rest assured that we're trying to be sensible and professional and something comes up or comes to our attention, we're going to use common sense about its inclusion and commenting on it, but we're trying not to get ourselves and you and the public and everyone so lost in detail that it ceases to be as useful a document as it really, truly could be for everyone. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. And I don't think that one necessarily has to include a lot of detail, but there has to be more than just a way for us to rest assured that it will be taken care of. It has to be mentioned in the papers, that something will be done to acknowledge that there are problems, certain problems that are worse in certain neighborhoods, because of certain topographical changes and things like that. There are lots of different reasons, that was just one that. I mentioned. Ms. Egan - Well, I think if you look at the way we try to structure this, it's so that all these various factors are listed in the 1 -5 in the section about neighborhoods, in each of section 3, 4, and 5. The existing impacts of. mitigation. And then you say we're going to take the neighborhood, and take into account its defining characteristics and what the residents there tell us, and look at each of those factor that we had studied and try to understand what they mean for that neighborhood. So, in that list of 1 -5, that's where noise is, that's where truck traffic is, or whatever, it was a way of bringing some order to this so that we could describe those sorts of factors in the system, and then take them and say what does that mean as far as existing conditions, as far as impacts, as far as mitigation for the neighborhood. I think if you understand how we're trying to structure that, it enable the transportation people to give the sort of more scientific overview, and than also put the human touch on it, so what does all this mean, you know, addressing George's comment about economists and that sort of thing. Board Member Conneman — I'm an economist, by the way. Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Egan - That's why I thought it was unfair of you to do that. To have that so that people say what does this mean for me, and that's why that separate section. So I think it's not, it's unfair to mention it, in fact, we pull that out in each of those neighborhood sections that we will be looking at those systems, those factors above, and relating them to the neighborhood using those defining characteristics. So, I think we're in agreement with Eva, and I'm just trying to help you understand the structure by which we are addressing it, is what makes a lot of sense. We'll be able to help people relate it to what's going on. Board Member Conneman — But you do need traffic counts in some neighborhoods. You have to have some quantitative data in order to make judgments. Ms. Egan - Absolutely, and that is why it's there, that is why it's there. Chairperson Wilcox — We're not getting far very quickly. So, I want to try a different strategy, Eva, and we may be able to do it. I, for example, have a list of questions I wish to ask on things, and I think I can get through it between now and ten O'clock, and maybe some other members of this board can as well, and that way at least we know that we've gone through and dealt with my issues or someone else's issues, because right now we're still on page 1 or one and a half. So, if we could try that, it means just going through, so each one of us will unfortunately go through the document, but so far, I want to get something done. OK, so I'm going to start. Board Member Talty — But Fred, would it make sense that if you are on an issue that we also address, we should... Chairperson Wilcox — Chime in. I don't mind people chiming in. And, granted, I'll repeat what's been said. It's somewhat difficult, given we have a draft dated the 11th and then we've got some changes that were presented this evening, which addressed many many of my issues which had to do with neighborhood. So, having said that, I want to go to the hypothetical scenarios, which is on page 9 of 14. Could someone... here is my concern, scenario 2 which is population increase of one tenth of 1 per cent a year, 300 people over 10 years, 30 people a year. Boy, that sounds awful close to no growth. I mean, to me, it almost seems like the same thing. In my demographic world, if you've got 30,000 people, and ten years later it's 30,300, boy that's stability. That's no growth. So, I'm almost wondering if scenario 1 and 2 are the same thing or that scenario 2 is scenario 1 with an error. They are so similar. Board Member Conneman — That raises my question, why don't we see scenario 5? Why don't we do 4 and 5, which would make some sense and give us an impact? Because these other things are random. 54 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Before you respond, I, I, it is a waste of time and resources to do scenarios number 1, and number 2 if they invest their time in scenarios 3 and 5, this is my feeling, if they invest their time in scenarios 3 and 5 per cent growth, then there's time that's not going to something that's appropriate and necessary. Now, it's their problem if their growth rate turns out to be 3 or 5 per cent, because then they have a worthless, then they have a worthless document, and they've got to live with it. So, they have to be pretty confident that growth rates of greater than 1 per cent cannot and will not occur. Board Member Talty — I have to add Fred, that they were giving worst -case scenarios, so that should be incorporated throughout the whole document. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, 1 percent is their worst -case scenario. And, and... Board Member Talty — Well, I think worst -case scenario should be open- ended... right? Do you know what I'm saying? How do you quantify that? Board Member Conneman — That's 300 people a year. Board Member Talty - but how are you going to top it off? Worst case scenarios. Chairperson Wilcox — it is only 300 people a year, and it doesn't seem like a lot, but you know what? They have a worthless study if it comes, well, I'm sorry, not a worthless study, they have a study that's not worth its weight if the growth rate comes in greater than 1 percent. So, I'm pretty darn sure that they'd throw in a 1 and a half or 2 if they thought it was at all possible. Board Member Hoffmann — But I have a question actually about what is meant by the Cornell population. Is it the 1 person in the household who commutes back and forth to Cornell, and the other people in the household are not counted? So those 3000 persons under the 1 percent growth, is that only those people who are employed at Cornell? Ms. Egan - Correct, that's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — So maybe that's not such a small increase. Chairperson Wilcox — I think I had a question on the floor. Ms. Egan- What was your question, Fred? Chairperson Wilcox — What's the difference between no growth and .1% per year? Other than... 55 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Egan - While, .1 %, you're correct that it's very low, but it actually did occur between 1990 and 1999, could happen, it's possible. Scenario 1, no growth, that's the scenario we would run to look at what would be the increase in traffic in the area if there was no growth at Cornell, because there is other growth, and so that establishes, that becomes the baseline, and so that's kind of a necessary, and I think that's almost a SEQR requirement, the no growth scenario. So that becomes the baseline to which the others are added. Board Member Conneman — But if you look at revision 5, which is 4.1, you talk about all those projects, you've got to hire people and that... I mean, supposedly the life science building is going to have 100 or 150 new faculty, what I've been told, and I don't know how many more students we're going to get for various reasons, so that's, if you believe revision 5, it seems to me that you've got a lot of people coming. Because you're not going to add on to these and do nothing with it. I don't think. Ms. Egan - I don't think they all result in increases to population. Board Member Conneman — Well, maybe Lynah Rink doesn't. Chairperson Wilcox — Name, please. Mr. Wendt - Bill Wendt. Bill, I don't think you've spoken yet. Name, please. Mr. Wendt - I've been trying to keep my mouth shut. Chairperson Wilcox - OK, go ahead. Mr. Wendt - George, you know Life sciences technology, I've been at many presentations, and they're talking about ten new faculty. It's true faculty bring research teams with them, and that might equate to a research team of ten people coming with a faculty member, but they're not talking about 100 or more new faculty, that number I've heard repeatedly Board Member Conneman [inaudible] Mr. Wendt - Right, 100 or more people, but not 100 faculty. Board Member Conneman — And I've heard 150, is what I've really heard. Mr. Wendt - And that's I think as good a number as I've heard, 150 in terms of total population for life sciences technology. Something like Johnson Art Museum is not envisioned to bring people. Lynah Rink, you've already mentioned, that's a special 56 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved event type of thing. Bailey Hall renovation, that's an auditorium special event. Martha Van Rensselaer North replacement, as I understand it, is a replacement for the building that it there, it doesn't bring new population, the population is already there. I don't know about the Plantations headquarter building or the physical sciences at this time or the east campus research, but I believe all of them are smaller than what is occurring at life sciences. Board Member Conneman - The other question that I have that I was going to- get to in a minute, is, does Cornell have a Master Plan? I mean, I've been on this board, this will be starting my eighth year, we always talk about Master Plans, Cornell's always going to have one, but we've never seen it. The question is, do they have a master plan that goes beyond this, because these are identified things that are essentially in progress. You're going to do nothing more than that over the next ten years. Mr. Wendt - I do not believe Cornell has a Master Plan, "Master Plan ", and I'm not sure exactly, they've talked. But Cornell. does have a capital plan, and a capital plan designates what these new buildings are and that's where new programs take place, and a capital plan is really the appropriate place to look at growth. A Master Plan, as I understand it would talk about strategic opportunities for the institution. Whether that be where things should be located, or academic programs that might be contemplated for the future, but the capital plan that we've documented in here as the Cornell capital plan is the document that will inform the public, and this board and us about growth that will occur at the university over the next decade. Board Member Conneman — So there are other structures, other programs on the list already? See, we don't know about these things, that's my concern, we learn about them one at a time, and of course there's always speculation as to what's coming up. Mr. Wendt - [inaudible] Board Member Hoffmann — And I can tell you that there are several things on that list that don't mean a thing to me, like Millstein Hall, I've never even heard of it before, I have no idea what it is. Board Member Conneman — [inaudible] Board Member Hoffmann — OK, well, I didn't know that. And the East Campus Research Facility, I don't know what is meant by that, I don't know what is meant by the physical sciences in this case. I haven't a clue. Mr. Wendt - But you will when you see the [inaudible] Chairperson Wilcox — Other comments had to do with section 5 -3, which is the mitigation strategies relative to neighborhoods. My comments are no longer relevant, 57 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved at least may not be relevant given the revisions, revision 8 that was provided tonight, so I'm going to hold off on that. It was very unclear to me about mitigation strategies will be... It read so poorly; I didn't understand it, but I think it's been clarified now with revision 8 because it says, bear with me here, additional mitigation strategies will be proposed. The addition of the word additional I think clarified my issue there. Bruce and Doug had made the comment about mitigation strategies will be selected based on their ability to facilitate commuter flow to Cornell, but I think I've heard enough that you are interested in the neighborhoods, and it's more than simply mitigating impacts on the commuters. I'm done. Larry, you want to go? I don't want to put you on the spot, you want to go? Board Member Thayer — You pretty much answered, or we talked about what I had in I y... Chairperson Wilcox - OK. Rod? Board Member Mitrano — No I said I'm done. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I thought you'd said that before. Board Member Howe — I'm just curious what my colleagues feel about 3.1.4 where it says that we'll analyze weekday worst -case traffic, but will not study weekend or weekday, because we recognize often times it's families that move to an area, so that there might be other traffic that gets generated by somebody being added as a Cornell employee. So, I'm just curious, I don't know if I feel strongly, I'm just curious... Board Member Conneman — Which section, Rod? Board Member Howe — 3.1.4. The very first... Board Member Hoffmann — Page 6 on the... Chairperson Wilcox — When a developer comes before the board... Board Member Howe — Let me just say that sometimes, when there is a special event at Cornell, sometimes weekends can be just as bad as morning rush hour in certain neighborhoods. I know when something is going on at Cornell, right away on the weekend. So. I'm just curious if that.:. Chairperson Wilcox The way I interpreted it originally is that when we have a project come before us from a developer, we look at Peak traffic, in the morning or in the evening, and they wanted to look at peak traffic as well, because that is really what you want to understand and mitigate when a specific plan comes before us, and I think that's what they were going for as well, and I will let you address that. But, Rod brings 58 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved up the issue of special events traffic, and whether it's a horse show on Pine Tree Road for example, or a football game, or a homecoming football game. They have different impacts, but they can have significant impacts in their neighborhoods. Board Member Mitrano — But isn't that what 3.1. — 3.1.4.5 ...? Board Member Howe — Well, and certainly they talk about special events, I just was curious if it rang, if it was an issue for anyone else. Chairperson Wilcox — I, I... Board Member Mitrano — It would be if I didn't see 3.1.4.5... Mr. Alexiou - Just very briefly, because this did come up, what we're proposing to do with special events, the University has management plans on how to deal with different types of events and the quantity of people that are coming, but we understand, just from some of the comments or hearsay that there are issues or concerns that I guess these management plans haven't fully addressed. So, we want to review them with the input that we get from the communities to understand what are the loose ends, how could they be improved and refined, and that would be part of this analysis and document. Board Member Howe — This might be wordsmithing, but on page 11, I forget whose version I saw this in, but for all the mitigation strategies, it always had the word potential in front of improvements, so I don't know if that's important, because again .1 think it gets back to that who ultimately gets to look at what's being recommended. Mr. Alexiou - I think the explanation for that is, as you go through the document, nothing is proposed or recommended until the end, so whatever we're considering as a strategy throughout this process, whether we're looking at impacts, or particularly as we get to 5 and start thinking about mitigation, we don't want to give the impression in this document that when it's mentioned that that's what's going to be proposed. That, until it gets to that final list that everybody thinks that that's a good direction, that that's the strategy that should go into a final package. Up until that point, it's just a candidate, or a potential strategy, and that's all we're trying to relay here. Board Member Mitrano — In which case, I would go along with Rod and say back to your very first sentence, on page 1, that you figure out exactly what word you want to use there, possible, potential or whatever, and then you use it consistently throughout so that it is clear that you're not promising anything, and if it were up to me, I'd use potential rather than possible... Chairperson Wilcox — Rod, does that sit well? 59 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Howe — yes. Chairperson Wilcox — OK. Board Member Howe — And then I think my last was on page 14, Roman numeral XII, we've talked about actually a lot of these, but we haven't really talked about... I guess I want more explanation on why the traffic counts for the last 30 years have been determined not to be relevant, and the hypothetical growth and building growth square footage, there's this long list of things that were just determined not to be relevant. Mr. Alexiou - And I saw that comment, and I think the intention there was by looking at 30 years of information relating to Cornell growth, any kind of information, whether its square footage, number of students, number of employees, etcetera, so that's the kind of traffic generating characteristics of the institution, and then looking at the traffic on the streets for the last 30 years, that we would be able to develop some kind of equation, some kind of correlation or relationship, that then we could use and say now we have a tool for forecasting... you tell me how many square feet, or how many people or combination of those and I'll tell you how much traffic is going to be produced, because we have this historic relationship from 30 years. All I can say is, in my close to 30 years unfortunately experience, is that it's a very lofty goal it just never works like that in reality because Cornell's one institution in a dynamic community where there's lots of other influences and contributors to traffic on the street, and to try and pick out cleanly what is a Cornell traffic contribution and relate that to Cornell growth, you just get a mess of data without any clear direction and all I can say is that whenever we have tried to do that and the way that it was proposed here was very comprehensive, it was a sort of a good theoretical approach. Its just never worked and we've gotten ourselves in a mess and we could have come up and regrouped and said what is a simple, clean, easy to explain way...the other issue is as you go into the future, the dynamics, the relationships between households and people and square footage and traffic changes a lot. That relates to the issue of when you look at ... one thing that I have learned by going to lots of campuses, the way that campuses use floor space and buildings has. changed dramatically. It is not often because they need a few extra square feet of space to fit people in, it's just the nature of the business. Particularly the research business that requires totally different facilities. In some cases you can't retrofit a building. You really have to recycle that building for something else or demolish it in some cases, but you just need new facilities if you want to compete for grants, for state of the art research. Board Member Conneman — While you are on that, comment number 10, Kathryn, about building square footage is not well correlated, population growth or traffic growth. Do you have evidence of that and what is correlated to population and traffic growth? Maybe George could answer that because it is the same kind of question, I think. ; Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf — For starters, building square footage is not correlated to population growth because certain buildings are intensively populated whereas warehouses, to use an extreme example, a warehouse you could have a lot of square feet and one person. So..: Board Member Conneman - (not audible) ... campus. That is George's expertise. Mr. Alexiou — For example, for a shopping center or a residential subdivision there has been enough surveys undertaken around the country to look at their ... there was 5,000 square feet of shopping in this and someone went out, maybe it was a requirement of some local planning body, and they went out and did a survey and they counted the traffic that came in and out of that particular facility and we collected enough of that information as a professional body and we put it into these thick books, these traffic generation handbooks that we can go there and look up so many square feet of this type of use. We have collected enough data to come up with a statistically valid relationship. We have not done that for universities. I think in the 20, 30 years, we have data for about three universities around the country. When you think, there are some universities that are in dense urban areas, some in rural areas, some deal with medical. We just don't have that kind of information to be able to go to a textbook and say you have so many square feet of a typical university and therefore we can tell you how much traffic will be generated. Board Member Howe — I'm all set for now. Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin? Board Member Talty — I'm good right now. I'll pass my time to Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — I had a comment that ... with what Rod said since we are going just every which way. In the very first paragraph on page 3, description of proposed action. You were talking about the word potential, but at the very end of that first paragraph it says that TIMS may include recommendations for transportation demand management, multimodal transportation strategies, including pedestrian, bicycle, transit and parking, safety access and circulation modifications such as traffic calming, zoning changes and other possible measures. And that word may there is a little bit like the word potential and I don't understand why .it couldn't be more definite because it sounds from all the ... what you have been telling us as if this is what you are going to do. Ms. Wolf — I think the intention is to provide examples. Board Member Hoffmann — Pardon? 61 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf — I think the intention here is....we don't know what ... it is providing examples. We don't know what the exact mix or set of recommendations will be and so we are providing examples and that is why the word may, but maybe there is a better way to say it. It doesn't mean to be hedging; it's just, for example. Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe that would be a better way of saying it because it makes me, anyway, feel more confident that there are going .to be recommendations. Ms. Wolf — So maybe TIMS will include recommendations... Board Member Howe — Ranging from... . Ms. Wolf — Such as... Board Member Mitrano — Well, you already have one such as so you need to figure out what is going on. Chairperson Wilcox — We are getting near the appointed hour and we try not to go past 10 p.m., though we will spend a couple of minutes after 10. Board Member Talty — Fred, where do we go from here? I guess is my question. Chairperson Wilcox — And that is... Board Member Hoffmann — I have more things that I want to talk about, too. Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, I'm sure that you do. I think the first thing we need to do is ... are you going to make some additional comments? Board Member Talty — Myself? Not tonight. Chairperson Wilcox — Possibly the next week? Board Member Talty — Possibly. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you prefer another draft incorporating ... would you like another draft, which starts with January 11th and incorporates the changes, dated the 17th and then incorporates some of the changes that have been suggested tonight? Board Member Talty — I would recommend cleaning it up. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay and so would George. So I have two out of three. RVA Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — I would prefer that, too, but I would prefer it if it came so that we had a chance to read it before we come to the meeting. Chairperson Wilcox — It arrived in my mailbox Thursday. Board Member Hoffmann — I mean that we just got something tonight, which is hard to incorporate. Chairperson Wilcox — I agree. Board Member Connemara — You should produce for us a document that you think is the final one with all these suggestions. Chairperson Wilcox — I wouldn't be surprised if we get a couple more changes coming out of either our discussion, Eva's specific things, but I am hoping that and your comments that you may offer at the next meeting, but I am hoping... Board Member Mitrano — And we will pretend it is a marriage and we won't argue about things about what we meant when we said back in November. Chairperson Wilcox — Those changes are mostly wordsmithing changes at the next meeting that I think we might be able to have and accept the adoption. Board Member Talty — Additional copies for the public, like it indicated the first time. I see a lot of nodding going on out there. I've go to think that that is a good thing, Fred. Chairperson Wilcox — It is clearly a good thing not to have updates on the day of the meeting, number one and number two, I believe ... was the January lit" version available on the website? Ms. Wolf — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — I forget the website, so I go to the Town of Ithaca website and there is a link right... Ms. Wolf — Sorry. I was thinking November 15t ". January 11t" was not. Chairperson Wilcox — That would have been a good idea, as I am sure you know, to get that up there because we had it in our mailout that I think arrived on Thursday. Having said that, a little bit about process. It is interesting that this sort of environmental review requires public participation, but doesn't require public hearing. So we have done the public participation has gone on. We have done two public hearings. We are going to get written comments no matter what and I appreciate them, but it is time for 63 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved us to provide our comments back and see if we can agree on something that we are all comfortable with and is satisfactory to us and the residents and the neighborhoods. Board Member Talty — I agree with that, Fred, but there is such a collage of information and so many changes. I don't think it is outside the realm right now to provide one last finalization that is open to the public so that they have a chance to read.. I think we got a lot of things nailed down in the last couple meetings and I would be highly surprised if there was a multitude of changes in it. Board Member Howe - I just want to get a sense of how many, some folks, like Eva, I mean do you have a lot of really nitty gritty stuff? Board Member Talty — Now Ms. Wolf — And is it wordsmithing more or are there real substantive things? That might be good to get a feel for it. Board Member Hoffmann — That is in the eye of the beholder, perhaps, but no it's not so much wordsmithing. That's not true. No there are just a lot of questions about what some of. the things mean and you know, some practical suggestions like for instance when I first read this, I didn't know what some of these abbreviations stood for, like ITCTC. I know now, but I didn't know it when I first read it and I would have liked, for instance, all of these abbreviations to have been spelled out once. Board Member Howe — But that is easy. substantial... Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. Board Member Howe — For them to go do this... I guess I am concerned if Eva has Board Member Hoffmann — But this is the kind of thing if you are putting this out for the public to read, you have to make it readable and understandable. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. That's done. Board Member Talty — What's done? What is going to be done? Where are we going from here I guess my question is. Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead, George. Board Member Conneman — The only thing I wanted to say was that I would like Susan to produce for us ... out in the world there are people who say well what this means when we get done with this is whatever Cornell recommends we have to believe and . A Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved we will therefore and it will therefore cut us out of the planning process. They won't have to produce a SEQR for every project that they have and so on and so forth. You can call that conspiracy theory, anything you want, but it is real because people talk about it and it seems to me that somehow we have to know what does this really mean. Board Member Mitrano — I think it would be helpful to us, don't you, if we had a document from the Town Attorney on what this means for the future. What scope it covers and what scope it doesn't cover in terms of future applications. That would be very helpful Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. So there are two issues. One is create another draft based upon January 11th, the revisions handed out tonight and input that you have received. Board Member Talty — It would be nice to put it on the website, if at all possible. Chairperson Wilcox — That would, of course, be nice. I agree. Board Member Hoffmann — I need a printed out copy because I can't get it on the website.. I have trouble with my computer. I haven't been able to access the website. Board Member Mitrano - I think that was meant for the public, but we are still going to get our hard copy, right? Board Member Talty — That's right. Chairperson Wilcox — The second, separate issue is from the legal side what does this imply going forward because we have seen such things as Cornell won't have to do environmental reviews or we'll be asked to approve generic projects or things like that. We have seen it either said or written and maybe it would be appropriate to address those concerns. Board Member Conneman I get the website, but I think you ought to offer a hard copy to anybody in the audience who wants it. Ms. Wolf — We brought a whole stack today. We do every time. Chairperson Wilcox — Rather than this wonderful set of mitigation strategies that are available given the project that comes before us and given the environmental review that is done. Okay. M Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Wolf — Since you are hoping to have what you are calling a final that incorporates all these revisions, but Eva has a whole list of things that we don't know what they are, would it be possible to get a written list of Eva's comments and questions? Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to discuss them with other board members. I don't want them to come in a vacuum to you. I'd like other people to hear them so they can add comments if they have them. Board Member Mitrano — I found the one that you just made about abbreviations that you just had very helpful. Are there some very distinct things like that that you could let them know? Ms. Wolf — Or we could do really easily. Board Member Hoffmann — It depends on how long you want to stay. Board Member Mitrano — Well, I'll stay a few minutes, but if we are going to get into the depth again, we'll wait till next time. Chairperson Wilcox — Or just put an appendix at the end of abbreviations spelled out. Board Member Hoffmann - Well, I can give you just a few examples, but I have some substantive comments that I feel will need discussion among all of us, too, that I think we will have to do another time. But for instance, one other thing that I would have liked to have already is copy of studies that are mentioned here. Traffic studies. There was apparently a study done among Cornell employees about their commuting habits. I can't remember what it was called now, but it was mentioned in some of the papers. I would have liked to see that study and there were some other studies, too, that were mentioned and I don't know why we don't have... Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, why do you want to see those studies? Board Member Hoffmann — Because I think there might be interesting information in there that would apply to what we are trying to study. Why would it be done otherwise? Chairperson Wilcox — This is the scoping document. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but when you think about the scoping you are supposed to think about everything ahead of time. You are supposed to think ahead of time about everything that would apply and the more information you have, the more you can think of, the more you can anticipate. You can't anticipate things out of a vacuum. .. Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — That would be unfair of me to ask what might we gain from having those studies before us. New ideas? New things to study? New mitigation? Board Member Hoffmann — There might be information about the existing situation of how people commute now. Chairperson Wilcox — But isn't that part of what they then are going to do once they get the okay to move ahead? I'm still confused. Board Member Hoffmann - Right, but it might still help us come up with questions or suggestions for what should be included in the scope. I'm guessing. I'm not saying that is necessarily true. I'm just guessing that so I thought that would have been a useful thing to have. Board Member Thayer — Speaking of the traffic studies, in section 5 there is a lot of mention about park and ride, but very little mention about traffic studies of how many people come out of Trumansburg, how many come out of Newfield. Could we put a park and ride there? Ms. Wolf — We will be looking at all that. exactly what we are going to look at. That is the purpose of the study. That is Board Member Conneman - And you do know where people come from who work at Cornell. Ms. Wolf — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — You have that for employees, right? Mr. Wendt — And students. Chairperson Wilcox — Employees mean faculty and staff? Mr. Wendt — Yes. Board Member Hoffmann — And as far as the park and ride, there is some mention of existing park and ride lots, but I don't know where they are. I would be interested to know where they are. I think that might be useful to know. Ms. Wolf — That will all be documented. Chairperson Wilcox — That is what... 67 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, but I am feeling that some of this might be interesting to know ahead of time for us. Ms. Brock — Since they are going to be providing all that information in the DEIS and I assume a lot of these studies will actually be attached as appendices, that then informs Cornell as they prepare the DEIS as to what they need to look at in terms of impacts among other things and flowing from that then come the mitigation strategies. That doesn't happen only on their end and you have no say once you are done with the scope. Under the SEQR regulations; the Planning Board is charged with responsibility before the DEIS can be released for public comment to make a determination that the DEIS is adequate as to scope and content. So when you review their draft, you are going to see that information. Board Member Hoffmann — The draft of the DEIS? .Ms. Brock — Yes, before it is released for public comment you get it first and you do not release it to the public until you make your affirmative finding or determination that it is adequate as to scope and content and at that point, you may say well you've now including these studies and we see in here this information and that shows us that these impacts should have been looked at more carefully or looked at in a little bit different way. So you do get to incorporate that information in your further determination as to whether the DEIS is ready to be released. Board Member Hoffmann — I see. So one can extend this point of scoping at that point. Ms. Brock — Well, no, the scoping is here. But they have said that they are going to look at the existing information. I think it is flexible enough. They themselves do not even know everything that is going to show up in the DEIS yet because they are going to poll all the residents and look for information that they identify, for example. So I think the wording is flexible enough that you will have some ability to say you need to look more at x y and z. Its not when they are done with this they go off and do whatever they want and you don't have any say and the same thing happens again at the end with the final EIS too. You actually have to make a finding or a determination ... well, the regulations say that you are responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the FEIS regardless of who prepares it. So again you are going to be looking at is it adequate and is it accurate. So you get to weigh in again. You are not going to get to blindly expand the scope, but to the extent the scope is flexible and you are working within that framework with the information that they say they are working with, too, I think you will be okay. Board Member Hoffmann — Because I am concerned that if there are things we leave out of the scope that we can't go back and address them. .: Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Ms. Brock — Well, if there is something really important that is left out of the scope, I think that you would ask Cornell to include it and maybe it is something that is either done or a supplement or they just include it now. I mean if it is something so important that it is really going to affect what the TIMS will look like then I think it is in everybody's interest that it is included. Board Member Hoffmann — I have comments on so many papers here. Let me just take them and not necessarily in order of importance for a little while and we'll see where we get. From the very beginning there is talk about travel to Cornell, but I assume you mean travel to and from Cornell because... Ms. Wolf — Correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Because you are talking about... Chairperson Wilcox — And she said yes.. Board Member Hoffmann - study... Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, but she said yes. Board Member Hoffmann — Right. Well would you include that in the papers then, please? On page 5 of the January 11th scope, you are talking about the pedestrian stakeholders and the bicycle stakeholders. Who are they? Ms. Wolf — Well, they are largely identified; well they would be anyone who is interested in pedestrian and bicycle issues. We have identified all of the known groups that we know of on that extensive stakeholder list that I think you saw. All of whom were notified before the public hearings. So those known groups would be invited to an informational meeting as well as there would be other more generic ways of reaching out like ads in the paper, but the stakeholders as we know them are all of the known groups listed on the stakeholder group list. Board Member Hoffmann — I know of some bike groups, but I can't think of any pedestrian groups and I don't want to dig it out right now. Do you remember? Ms. Wolf — The City of Ithaca is actually called the Bike and Ped group, I don't have my list in front of me either. There are a couple that are identified as pedestrians and I think also that a lot of the residents of the neighborhoods, quite frankly, are stakeholders. They want to walk and bike in their neighborhoods. Board. Member Hoffmann — I would think of them as such, but I don't know if they. are organized as a group and if that is what you mean. FOOD] Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Alright. If I may, this is from your stakeholder list dated December 1, City of Ithaca Pedestrian Committee, City Pedestrian Bicycle and Motorist Safety Committee, I'm looking for pedestrian specific and those, quick scan down here. Those are the two that I find that are specific to pedestrians. Others might be tangentially. Ms: Wolf — Its probably primarily residents. Board, Member Hoffmann — It seems pedestrians is a more universal group than the bicyclists maybe. And you mentioned, for both of these groups that there will be web based survey conducted. So who will get the survey? Ms. Wolf — The survey has not been designed. The details of that have not been worked out, but the commuter survey that was done, for example, of Cornell employees, they have a system set up where they were able to do this mass distribution to everyone in their system. So certainly Cornell students would be included in the survey. So and again we haven't designed the method, but we have thought that there would be a way to do a mass distribution at Cornell and then have a way of inviting the public to log on to participate. But we wouldn't be able to distribute to them at home because they are not part of the system. So some combination of that. Board Member Hoffmann — I did mention that I was interested in knowing where the existing park and ride lots are. Is that something you can share with us? Mr. Wendt — The existing park and ride lots that are in countywide system are on the TCAT transit map and they are on the TCAT website. Board Member Hoffmann — On page 6 of 14, you talk about a description, it is point e at the top of the page, a description of existing paratransit service. What do you mean by paratransit service? Ms. Wolf - Paratransit is Gadabout. Board Member Hoffmann — That's the only thing? Mr. Wendt — There is also paratransit that operates on the Cornell campus through our Red Runner service. That is the ability to carry handicap individuals or wheelchair accessible vehicles. TCAT may also. operate some paratransit vans in addition to Gadabout. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Does Gadabout actually operate on campus and serve campus? The Cornell community? I I . 70 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Mr. Wendt — Gadabout serves the Cornell community, especially those who live in the community. Gadabout does not bring students from class to class. The Cornell system moves students from class to class, but it may bring residents of the community who may be either faculty, staff or students to Cornell as a place of employment or study. Board Member Hoffmann — We talked a little bit about visitors and how traffic and events and I was thinking of events at the tennis center and equestrian facility as being some that have created problems that I have heard of , though I haven't seen it myself. I must have been out of town when it happened, but people have said that there has been a lot of traffic parked all along Pine Tree Road when there have been events there, but you said you were going to look into that I think, how events can affect traffic and parking in neighborhoods. At the bottom of the same page, off campus off street parking, I'm quite concerned about the East Hill Plaza lot and other similar parking lots that serve Cornell buildings, especially up in that area near East Hill Plaza that they are being used for parking in a way that they shouldn't be. I certainly want to be sure that they are not in practice used as park and ride lots. Mr. Wendt - Well, I can respond about the East Hill Plaza lot. That is a lot that the management company consistently sends notices to people who are spotted getting on the bus at East Hill Plaza who are not employees at East Hill Plaza. It is a problem we encounter particularly every fall when new people come to the community and find that as an attractive place. We spent a considerable amount of time this fall cleaning that. up and I imagine that we will do the same next August and September. I agree with you that it is a problem that we don't tolerate and we do our best to clean that up. Board Member Hoffmann — There are some, on page 8 of 14, you mention some of the residential areas and I had brought up on the November 15t" meeting that there were some neighborhoods that I felt were missing. You have now reworded this in such a way that you mention some and then you say this listing is not intended to exclude other residential areas, but I still feel that I would like to see some changes here. For instance, the areas that are right adjacent to this boundary that you have drawn out for what you call main campus, I mentioned the area right near where I live on the southern edge of it. You have listed Snyder Hill right here and I think it should say Snyder Hill Road neighborhood because Snyder Hill is a hill that is way out further east and it is not terribly populated. It is Snyder Hill Road, which has the residential area. Eastern Heights is a neighborhood there off Snyder Hill Road that I think should be included. The Slaterville Road /State Street residential area should be included and then there are... Chairperson Wilcox - Wait a minute... Board Member Hoffmann — Can I finish? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. 71 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. And then there is the area north of this area that you have outlined where you don't mention any of the roads and I think if you don't mention them they are not likely to be as carefully studied maybe and if you mention some of the others like Belle Sherman, Bryant Park and so on, you should also mention the Hanshaw Road and Warren Road areas because those are roads through which traffic goes to Cornell. Those are neighborhoods. Mr. Alexiou Can I just make a comment on that because perhaps it is not clear? There are neighborhoods that tend to be closer to the campus and then there are corridors that just string out from the campus. On page 6, it is 3.1.4.1, we are going to look at and describe and analyze these roadways that go out some distance, as far as we need to go until the traffic peters out. So we will be looking at roads that go beyond the neighborhoods. The neighborhoods, the section on neighborhoods is really to look at the communities that are more directly affected because of their proximity to the campus. Board Member Hoffmann — But that is what I am telling you. On your map, which is called figure 1, there is an outline of an area that you call main campus and how can you get more proximate to that area than Snyder Hill Road, Hanshaw Road, Warren Road? Mr. Alexiou —Those roads will be looked. Board Member Hoffmann — But they are not listed as neighborhoods and that makes a difference to me. If you are listing Ellis Hollow and Varna, why not list these roads? These residential areas along these roads. They don't have a name, but they should be included as residential areas to be looked at. Board Member Mitrano — Are all of those residential areas as much impacted as say Forest Home is where the neighborhood is there. So there are many arteries through which people are going or is there just one road sort of cutting through the neighborhood that really is where all of the traffic is occurring? Say Hanshaw Road, but would you need to know what is going on, on all the cigarette lanes and things like that? It's really Hanshaw Road. Board Member Hoffmann — It is Hanshaw Road that I am talking about and Warren Road, which get a lot of traffic. Chairperson Wilcox — But again, you are talking roads, not neighborhoods. When you said State Street /Slaterville Road, I'm going wait a minute, where is the neighborhood? Board Member Hoffmann — That is a neighborhood. 72 Chairperson Wilcox — Where does it start? Dryden? Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved At the city line? Where does it end? In Board Member Hoffmann — Well it probably starts at the neighborhood called Belle Sherman. It is the part beyond that, which has a lot of the traffic that comes in to Cornell. Chairperson Wilcox — But isn't that a traffic corridor? Belle Sherman is a neighborhood. Bryant Park is the neighborhood. You mentioned Eastern Heights. I'll take that as a neighborhood, but I think of it as a subdivision, but I'll take it as a neighborhood. But when we start listing Honness Lanes, Snyder Hill Road. These are roads. They are not neighborhoods. Board Member Hoffmann — Well I think a lot of the people who live on those roads would be very hurt if they heard you say that. Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not saying that they are not impacted by traffic. Board Member Hoffmann — And I also think it is true that Forest Home is a neighborhood. It has a name, but it is the people who live right along the different roads that go through Forest ' Home that have the impact of the traffic and that is exactly the same situation on the other roads. Chairperson Wilcox — That's right, which is why they are going to study traffic corridors. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but I still think... Board Member Talty It is semantics, Fred. It's the difference between arterie$ and capillaries. I live in the northeast and I deal with all of the traffic all the time on Warren and Triphammer, but yet the traffic isn't cutting through my neighborhood. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but those people who live on Warren Road have the traffic cutting through their neighborhood. Board Member Thayer — That is a corridor. Chairperson Wilcox — That is a traffic corridor. It is not a neighborhood. Board Member Talty There is a difference. There is definitely a difference become Forest Home; there are .numerous ways to cut through Forest Home. Numerous that are used all the time. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, then it is a question of semantics. It is because Forest Home happens to have a name. 73 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Chairperson Wilcox — Well, Varna has a name. Board Member Hoffmann — And Bryant. Park happens to have a name. I still think that you cannot just discount the people who happen to live on the roads that are through roads. Chairperson Wilcox — We're not. Board Member Talty - There is an open -ended statement here. Many board members talking at once. Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think you heard the response that they will be studied under the corridor section, not the neighborhood section. Ms. Egan — And under the neighborhoods where appropriate. Eva, we were very concerned. Here you will notice our language, on 3.2.2; we said the following residential neighborhoods were identified during scoping. So we listed everything that was then raised during scoping, but we realized that this could not possibly be everything. So we were at some pains to say that this listing was not intended to exclude any other residential areas and that we were going to be reaching out and inviting everybody. I think it would be a real trap to try to come up with an exhaustive list. Board Member Hoffmann — And I am not asking for that. I am asking for a list that includes the neighborhoods that are right adjacent to this line that you have drawn that you call main campus. Ms. Egan — They are not excluded. Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but why list some of them that are there and not others. That I don't understand. Ms. Egan — We listed the ones that came up in scoping. We said that that is why they were because they come up in scoping, but where it pains to say that we would be doing all of them. Board Member Hoffmann — What did you say? Ms. Egan — We were at pains to be saying that this was not to exclude any other residential areas from participation. M Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — Right and there are residential areas in other parts of the City and Town and other communities that have had people coming in here saying that, they don't want to be excluded. Chairperson Wilcox — They are not. Board Member Hoffmann — They are not and I understand that they are included in this second paragraph. because you don't want to list them all, but I still feel very strongly that you need to include the ones that are right adjacent to this area where the expansion is going to happen because that is where the main impact is going to be. Board Member Mitrano — How about if you take out all of the specifics and say that this document will explore:.. Chairperson Wilcox — I think there is a reason to leave the neighborhood names in. I think it is just good policy to leave them in. Now, is anybody with Eva on this one? Board Member Talty — No. Chairperson Wilcox — No. Move on, please. I'm sorry. I don't mean to be the bad guy, but that is my job. Board Member Conneman — (not audible) ... I think Kathryn understands. Inaudible talking. Board Member Hoffmann - ...I'm sure I have other things in another paper here because I wrote notes. I guess I already have gotten the answer as to whether we can see the ... no this is another survey. The ITCTC commuter data. That is not the one done by Cornell, is it, but I guess we are not going to see them. I had some additional intersections on the table that I would like to propose including, which are not on the list. Hanshaw Road at Sapsucker Road, Hanshaw Road and Freese Road, Hanshaw Road at the junction where Hanshaw Road takes a. sharp right hand turn. I meant to look at the name of the road, but I can't remember. Hanshaw Road goes east and then it takes a sharp right angle-turn over to Route 13 and the road that continues straight there is the one that I am looking for. Chairperson Wilcox — I would point out that the document says that intersections along the corridor that are similar in nature will be. Board Member Hoffmann — Will be determined. Shall I continue? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. 75 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. Ellis Hollow and Game Farm Road, Ellis Hollow and Quarry Road, Ellis Hollow and Turkey Hill Road. There maybe others on Ellis Hollow,Road, but those are the ones that I felt were most important and because they are closer to the campus area so there is going to be more traffic on them. On figure 2, you have all of the intersections to be evaluated according to the criteria and you have symbols for signalized all -way stops and then you have something else for other control. What are these other controls? Mr. Alexiou — I think another control may be a give way sign. That would typically be the other control. Chairperson Wilcox - A give way sign? Mr. Alexiou — A yield sign. It could be a two -way stop. Board Member Hoffmann - The list is too much to do now. Board Member Talty — I'm good, Fred. Chairperson Wilcox —. We got through a lot. Eva will have some more, potentially. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Definitely. Chairperson Wilcox — George still could have some more. Any one of us could still have some additional comments to bring up. Ms. Wolf — I guess we would like to ask again, is it possible to get Eva's ... I mean a lot of the questions we see them and we know the answer very quickly and if we can incorporate it we would and if not, we would just leave it to be discussed. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, as I said, I think it should be discussed as a board. Board Member Mitrano — I think maybe all Kathy is asking is maybe if you could send them in advance what the categories of questions or what the specific ones are. You could still ask them that night, but then they would know ... (not audible). Ms. Wolf — I'm not suggesting that we don't discuss them next time at all. Board Member Hoffmann — I will see if I have time to do that. Ms. Wolf — Another question. So when we give you this latest copy, should we give it with the underlined only or should we show only tonight's changes underlined or no underline? Do you have a preference? FI: Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved Board Member Mitrano — My preference is absolutely clean. Brand new. Board Member Talty — Clean. No deviations. No underlines.. No scratches. No nothing. Ms. Wolf - Got it. Glad I asked. Board Member Hoffmann.— Well, I think it is useful to have both, actually. Laughing. Chairperson Wilcox — God, bless her. Anything else you need at this late hour? Mr. Kanter— May I ask a question? Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, sir. Mr. Kanter — I guess we had asked Cornell to just confirm that we are now past the 60 day... Mr. Wendt — I sent you a letter. Mr. Kanter — I don't think a saw it. Can we get a verbal confirmation for the minutes? Mr. Wendt — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you all, ladies and gentlemen. AGENDA ITEM Nomination of Vice Chair for 2006 Board deferred nomination until the February 7, 2006 Planning Board meeting. AGENDA ITEM Approval of Minutes — January 3, 2006 PS RESOLUTION NO. 2006-013; Approval of Minutes: January 3, 2006 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the January 3, 2006 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting as presented with corrections 77 Planning Board Minutes January 17, 2006 Approved The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES .• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. ABSTAIN: None. The vote on the motion was carried unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Kanter gave the board an overview of the February 7, 2006 agenda. The board discussed giving the public another opportunity to comment on the scope and determined that there would not be another opportunity for the public to comment on the scope. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the January 17, . 2006 Planning Board meeting at 10:41 p.m. Respectfully submitted, rrie Coates Whitm Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF IT14ACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, January 17, 2006 AGENDA 7:00 P.M: Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: La Tourelle Room Expansion & Spa Addition Modifications, 1150 Danby Road. 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Site Plan Modifications to the previously approved plan for the spa and room addition project at the La Tourelle Country Inn located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.2, Planned Development Zone No. 1. The.proposal involves changes to the proposed stormwater facilities, to the number and location of some of the parking, and modifications to the arrangement of the landscaping and lighting. Walter J. Wiggins, Owner /Applicant. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: Three Rivers Mini Golf & Creamery, 869 Elmira Road, 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING:. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Three Rivers Mini Golf & Creamery located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -10.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a 18 hole miniature golf course, a 29 space parking lot and entrance drive, a small building for ice cream sales and storage, a gazebo, lighting, and stormwater facilities. Bonnie and James Warren, Owners /Applicants; Robert M. Drew, Project Engineer, Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, P.C., Agent, 7:40 P.M. Consideration of acceptance of the Draft Scope document (dated November 15, 2005, revised January 11, 2006) as the Final Scope document 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. Kathryn Wolf, RLA, Principal -in- Charge. 7. 2 10, 11. Consideration of Nomination and Election of Vice Chairperson of the Planning Board for 2006. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary) Approval of Minutes: January 3, 2006. Other Business: 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 -17470 (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, January 17, 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 17, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following . times and on the following matters: 7:05 P.M. Consideration of Site Plan Modifications to the addition project at the La Tourelle Country Inn Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 36- 1 -4.2, Planned changes to the proposed stormwater facilities, to and modifications to the arrangement of the Owner /Applicant. previously approved plan for the spa and room located at 1150 Danby Road (NYS Route 96B), Development Zone No. 1. The proposal involves the number and location of some of the parking, landscaping and lighting. Walter J. Wiggins, 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Three Rivers Mini Golf &'Creamery located at 869 Elmira Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 35 -1 -10.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a 18 hole miniature golf course, a 29 space parking lot and entrance drive, a small building for ice cream sales and storage, a gazebo, lighting, and stormwater facilities. Bonnie and James Warren, Owners /Applicants; Robert M. Drew, Project Engineer, Hunt Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors, P.C., Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, January 9, 2006 Publish: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SI&WIN SHEET DATE: January 17, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION S 4L4 r � � �� C %, RIL( pv K f , . _ r /n M Q l" I vu L ✓\ I :. Lill ✓ ` C'f� Ilk re I ,.i cc � c � r No r� �(11� Cl VV\- t �� 1 eju *OT tams , S TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SI&WIN SHEET DATE: January 17, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME i PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION dig^ - i v 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 17, 2006 commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 Nort h Tioga Street. Date of Posting: Date of Publication: January 9, 2006 January 11, 2006 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th day of January 2006. 6,�"t X� C( 'jt� Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20 O