HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-02-21FILE
. DATE
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2006
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET
ITHACA, NEW YORK
PRESENT.
Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; 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;
John Barney, Attorney for the Town; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike
Smith, Environmental Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk..
EXCUSED
Christine Balestra, Planner;. Nicole Tedesco, Planner.
OTHERS
Rob Levitsky, 102 Juniper Drive; Jon Meigs, 235 Culver Road; David Harding, Carl
Jahn and Associates; Stacey Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County; Jon
Bosak, 1448 Trumansburg Road; Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge and Wolf; Kim Michael,
Trowbridge and Wolf; Paul Levesque, HOLT Architects; Mark Ruhnke, Eisenbach &
Ruhnke Engineering; Lou LoVecchio, Cayuga Medical Center; Eric Dousharm,
Eisenbach & Ruhnke Engineering; Mark Mecenas, 188 Westhaven Road; Doria
Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive; Richard Berggren, 119. Williams Glen Road;, Joseph Allen,
417 North Cayuga Street; Dave Auble, 111 King Road West; Larry Young, 927
Taughannock Boulevard; Joe Burns, 1089 Taughannock Boulevard; Noel Desch, 132
Updike Road; Tom Myers, 3110 Dubois Road; John Abel, 1001 Taughannock
Boulevard; Patty Porter, 104 Juniper Drive; John Fennessey, Conifer Realty; Warren
Allmon, PRI; Ed Hart, Updike Road; Peter Rogers, .1221 Trumansburg Road; Krys Cail,
3110 Dubois Road..
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson. Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 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 February 13,. 2006 and February 15, 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 February 15, 2006.
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.
Chairperson Wilcox — Welcome everybody. Welcome to John Barney, who has
graciously agreed to fill in this evening while Susan Brock and other members of the
Town Board are in New York City for the Association of Towns meeting and training
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
school. Thank you, John. I also want to point out to members of the board that in
reading the agenda tonight, I did not see the word TIMS, TGEIS, or Dock anywhere on
the agenda.
[laughter]
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board
on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to
address the Board.
SEQR
Raponi 4 -Lot Subdivision, Pennsylvania Avenue
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 7:07 p.m:
Joe Allen, 417 North Cayuga Street
Hello. My name is Joe Allen. I am an attorney with offices at 417 North Cayuga Street
here in Ithaca and I am representing Ms. Raponi.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to sit or do you want to stand? That is up to you.
Mr. Allen — I'll sit.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to make any sort of presentation or not?
Mr. Allen — The proposed subdivision is in compliance with the current zoning.
regulations and we really aren't asking for anything particularly unique.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can you explain to me, well let me step back. When I was
looking plat and reviewing the memo from Michael Smith, it became apparent that the
Town's right -of -way will be partially on lot 3 and partially on that little sliver and that
struck me as odd. I wasn't sure why the sliver was being created other than some deal
might have been negotiated with the Taglioventos, but I was surprised that we. would
need agreements with both Taglioventos and the eventual owner of lot 3:
Mr. Allen - Lot 3 could have stood by itself subject to the easement that was given to
the Town. However, in the original mapping of the easement and the adjoining parcels,
it became apparent that certain structures or improvements on the premises of the
Taglioventos encroached upon the Raponi premises and rather than have a big
argument about it, we agreed that a small portion of lot 3 was what was necessary to
meet minimum lot size requirements could be transferred to Taglioventos, thereby
ending the encroachment problem.
Chairperson Wilcox — So that is what determined the size and shape of that little sliver?
2
Mr. Allen — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Very good. Thank you
review?
Board Member Howe — No.
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Questions with regard to environmental
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to talk about environmental concerns.or wait until the
public hearing when we actually get to the site plan review?
Ms. Porter - Okay. I'm not sure if it is environmental.
Chairperson Wilcox — Because we will proceed with the environmental and then we will
go to the actual subdivision review and then we will open the public hearing. Will that
work?
Ms. Porter — Yes.
Board Member Thayer moves the motion and Board Member Conneman seconds the
motion.
Board votes on motion.
PB
RESOLUTION
NO.
2006 -022:
SEQR,
Preliminary and
Final Subdivision
Approval,
Raponi 4 -Lot
Subdivision,
Pennsylvania
Avenue, Tax
Parcel No. 5444
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of. Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the
proposed 4 -lot subdivision located on Pennsylvania Avenue northwest of 116
Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -2, High Density
Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the existing +A 29,585
square foot parcel into 3 new building lots with an additional +A 977 square foot
lot to be attached to an adjacent parcel (725 Hudson St.) located in the City of
Ithaca. Mary Raponi, 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
Subdivision Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on February 21, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, plat entitled "Subdivision
P?
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Plat — 4 -Lot Subdivision Pennsylvania Av." dated 0142 -2006, prepared by
Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L. S., and other application material, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed subdivision;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
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 1 and fl, 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, Tally.
NAYS: None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed 4M
lot subdivision located on Pennsylvania Avenue northwest of 116 Pennsylvania
Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54 -7 -2, High Density Residential Zone.
The proposal involves subdividing the existing +/- 29,585 square foot parcel into 3
new building lots with an additional +/- 977 square foot lot to be attached to an
adjacent parcel (725 Hudson St.) located in the City of Ithaca. Mary Raponi,
Owner /Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox Question with regard to the subdivision as proposed ?There are
none. You may take a seat.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. and invites members of the
public to address the board.
Patty Porter, 104 Juniper Drive
I am Patty Porter and I live at 104 Juniper Drive, which is south of this property. My
main concern is noise coming from Pennsylvania Avenue. There are about 40
properties on Pennsylvania and only 7 of them are owner occupied. I hear all of the
Ithaca College parties. Saturday night, as cold as it was, I was awakened at 1;31 a.m.
by huge sounds coming from their parties. And well you call the police, sometimes they
tell you how many people are at the parties and they give you an hourly estimate on
how long it will take for them to go from Coddington Road down to the end, a dead end
on Pennsylvania Avenue where there are 4 new properties, 4 properties very close
together all rented to students. It is very annoying, even in the cold winter with the
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
. Approved
windows closed you can hear these parties. When the police are telling me, the issue is
that they only have 3 police that are on call for the whole County and if they are called
for these parties and they find an infraction and they can arrest someone, two
policemen have to take that person to jail leaving only one policeman left who can't do
anything until there is backup in return. So sometimes there parties go on until 4 in the
morning and they are shouting obscenities. They are building bon fires. They have
loud music. There are women screaming. They are using just awful language. So if
you allow this subdivision, and I'm assuming that they will not be owner occupied:.
properties, then you will have even more dense partying going on right there at. the
beginning, which mean the police never get to the end. It is an issue _and I don't think
we need to allow any more of these subdivisions. I think we need to do something to
give the police backup: 1 have written to President Williams at .Ithaca College. I've
written recently to the Town Supervisor and something needs to be done. Thank you.
Board Member Hoffmann = Can I ask you, what kind of response have you gotten from
Ithaca College representatives about this?
Ms. Porter - I just wrote the letter this week. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Anybody else? For the record, these are my former
neighbors.
Rob Levitsky, 102 Juniper Drive
My name is Rob Levitsky. I also live south of 116. Pennsylvania Avenue. Pennsylvania
Avenue is dominated by kids. Each year the noise and music and the drunkenness of
Ithaca College students are getting worse. When confronted, they are rude and
arrogant. I live. on the corner of Coddington and Juniper Drive. In spring and in
September, I have to close my windows. I am sick of it. This is not acceptable. I have
been a resident, taxpayer and voter of. the Town for 30 years. I do not want more
student. housing. When does it end? Where are the people who live on Pennsylvania
Avenue? How come they're not here? They are the working poor. The non - voter. The
forgotten. They are renters themselves. Have you seen the housing on. Pennsylvania
Avenue? Have you seen the condition of the houses that they live in? Where does the
rights of the developers proceed the rights of the residents? When does it end? I
implore each. of you to know and understand our concerns and not grant this approval.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir.
Board Member Conneman — May I ask a question?
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Would you take a question?
Board Member Conneman - Have you written or contacted Ithaca College?
Mr. Levitsky — No, but I have had a meeting with Patty Porter and other neighbors.
4�
Board Member Conneman — Okay
views?
Mr. Levitsky — Yes.
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
I assume that Ms. Porter's letter reflects your
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Rob. Anyone else?
Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:18 p.m.
Board Member Thayer — Unfortunately we can't police it.
Chairperson Wilcox — John, do you want to say anything in terms of the powers of this
board?
Attorney Barney - Well, you are looking at a subdivision and it looks to me like it was a
4 -lot subdivision before. This is a piece of property, actually, that is an old, old
subdivision that goes back to I think around the turn of the century with 50 foot. What is
being asked now is to convert 4 50 -foot lots into 3 75 -foot lots roughly. So that you are
actually reducing the density in that sense. I realize that it is not much of a help to you
folks who have to live there and whatever may be built there, but in terms of this board's
activities, they are basically bound by the subdivision requirements and if somebody
comes in with a subdivision that meets the requirements they don't have a lot of
discretion to say no, you can't do that. Particularly where here, it is actually, technically
it reduces the density a little bit, it is even more difficult to say no. I think the issues that
you raise are quite properly addressed to the Town Board because they are the ones
who hire the people to do the enforcement and I know that there has been some
discussion from time to time about some assistance to the Sheriff's office and others in
trying to do some enforcement of noise and other kinds of activities. So I think you are
right to direct a letter to Cathy Valentino and Peggy Williams because they are really the
ones that have a voice.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, John.
Board Member Hoffmann — I am assuming that the problem is not that there are more
people living, students or other people, living in each unit than is allowed legally. The
problem is that students from elsewhere come to have parties there. Is that right?
Ms. Porter — Yes. They fill the streets. It becomes a safety issue. On a Thursday,
Friday, Saturday night when the weather is good and the students start moving off
campus, you can't drive on Coddington Road. When you have a whole block party, if
something were to happen and we needed emergency vehicles at the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue, you would be really hard pressed to get through. I think it is a
safety issue as much as a noise issue.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Patty. Having lived on Juniper from 1984 -2002, noise
is an issue. It comes across open fields. The two people from Juniper Drive live on the
N
Planning Board.Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
north side, if you will of Juniper, which is south of the development and it just comes
across. The issue of Coddington Road is related. Students don't have an easy way to
walk downtown. They come down that back entrance off Coddington of IC to
Coddington Road. The shoulders are extremely narrow, almost non - existent and
frankly at 1 -1:30 in the morning when they are intoxicated and its warm, they are
walking up the middle of the road. Some of you may remember that we had a person
killed by a cyclist in the evening; potentially the narrow shoulders may have contributed
to that. It's an on -going problem and it continues to be. Unfortunately, we are put in a
position, as John said, where we are not the Town Board. We are not the. elected
officials. We have certain powers and duties and responsibilities and we have a
proposed subdivision in front of us that meets the zoning ordinance.
Board Member Thayer — Do we know if these are going to be single - family
developments on these 3 lots?
[laughter]
Mr. Kanter — That is also a zoning issue.
Board Member Thayer — I understand that. I just wondered.
Chairperson Wilcox — Zoning allows... doesn't require owner occupancy.
Member Conneman — Is there someway this discussion will get to the Town
Board? Will John or Jonathan take it to them? It seems to me there is an issue here.
Chairperson Wilcox = Do we want to in some way bring it to their attention?
Board Member Conneman We can send them the minutes, of course, but I mean
there may be a better way to do that.
Mr. Kanter — I did get a copy of Ms. Porter's letter that was sent to Cathy Valentino so
that has already gone to Cathy, although Cathy has not seen the letter yet.
Board Member Hoffmann — This is not the first time that we have heard of these
problems. I guess they are just continuing. Maybe it wouldn't hurt for us to pass on a
recommendation to the Town Board that they look into this and see what could be done
to help the permanent residents there.
Mr. Walker — I know that the Town Board is aware of this. They are going. to be more
aware of it. Whenever Cathy gets that kind of correspondence it always goes to the
Town Board for their information and next week there is another meeting of the Ithaca -
City Town Committee with Ithaca College that is looking at different issues in the area
and this is one of the hot topics for that committee. I have now been, as supervising the
code enforcement division; I will be attending those meetings. But Pat Leary is one of
7
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
the Town Board members next week so we will be bringing this up as an issue at that
meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion about the subdivision? You're all set in
terms of language that may be required in order to guarantee access to the water main
that they have to provide?
Mr. Walker — We already have a valid easement across that property and that will go
with the new parcel also.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think it has to go with lot 3 and that little sliver, that little triangle
piece.
Mr. Walker Possibly.
Attorney Barney — As a practical matter, has that been recorded?
Mr. Walker — That has been recorded, yes.
Attorney Barney — Any conveyance it's going to be subject to its terms whether it's all in
one piece or partly on one and partly on the other.
Chairperson Wilcox — Joe, come up for a second
d rafted?
Mr. Allen — Yes, I have.
Have you seen the resolution as
Chairperson Wilcox -- And you saw the bit about the... because we can't require
consolidation of the small triangular lot in the, Town with the lot in the City, the condition,
that the appropriate deed restriction will be... but those two lots will be linked through the
deed. There's no issue with that?
Mr. Allen — I'm not opposed to the concept, but to be honest with you I have been
pondering somewhat on how to do it. If for example, we cut this table in have and I own
both pieces and I got this piece from party a and this piece from party b, and then I
conveyed it to you by describing it as one piece, its now adjoined and the tax parcel .
number can be consolidated and cannot be split without your permission. But.parcel b _I
own that I am transferring a to Tagliovento, I don't own. I'm not sure how I am going to
be able to.merge the two.
Chairperson Wilcox — The point is, they can't legally be consolidated into a single lot
because you have the City line running there. That is the problem.
Mr. Allen — Well, they can be a single lot, but...
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Attorney Barney — Two different jurisdictions. What I think we are looking for here is a
deed agreement either by deed or declaration or something in that nature that says that
this property, this sliver, will not be sold independently of the Tagliovento property.
Mr. Allen That is kind of what I had in mind, just put a clause in there subject to the
restriction that and whether or not restrictions...
Attorney Barney —, The property, otherwise, the subdivision cannot be approved
because that is a substandard lot by a considerable amount.
Mr. Allen — It is going to be deeded to her with that restriction, but it is never going to be
able to be reconveyed out separately anyway.
Chairperson Wilcox — We can't even approve an illegal lot.
Attorney Barney — That's right. I guess the question that I have is, are we hearing there
is some resistance?
Mr. Allen — Oh, absolutely not. I was just trying to think of a way to do it.
Attorney Barney — I assume that this is going to Mr. or Mrs. Tagliovento or both.
Mr. Allen — Yes. The agreement is already arranged.
Attorney Barney — We are going to need an agreement by them that they sign onto
either in the form of the deed that goes to them or some other form that says basically
they agree that this is the way it is going to be. Absent that, I think that you probably
are not going to see this subdivision map signed.
Mr. Allen — No, definitely. The deed definitely would have a restriction that it could not
be transferred separately of the parcel being conveyed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thank you.
Board Member Howe moves the motion and Board Member Mitrano seconds the
motion. Board votes on motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -023: Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval,
Raponi 4 -Lot Subdivision, Pennsylvania Avenue, Tax Parcel No. 5444
MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Mitrano.
WHEREAS.
a
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the
proposed 4 -lot subdivision located on Pennsylvania Avenue northwest of 116
Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 54-74, High Density
Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the existing +/- 29,585
square foot parcel into 3 new building lots with an additional +A 977 square foot
lot to be attached to an adjacent parcel (725 Hudson St.) located in the City of
Ithaca. Mary Raponi, 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 subdivision
approval, has, on February 21, 2006, made a negative determination of
environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on February 21, 2006, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate, a plat entitled "Subdivision Plat — 4 -Lot
Subdivision Pennsylvania Av." dated 01 -12 -2006, prepared by Lawrence P.
Fabbroni, P. E., L. S:, and other application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and
Final Subdivision Checklists, having determined from the materials presented
that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of
subdivision control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final
Subdivision Approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision as shown on the plat
entitled "Subdivision Plat — 4 -Lot Subdivision Pennsylvania Av." dated 0142-
2006, prepared by Lawrence P. Fabbroni, P.E., L.S., and other application
material, subject to the following conditions:
a. prior to signing of the subdivision plat by the Chairman of the Planning
Board, submission of a deed restriction or amended deed, for review and
approval by the Attorney for the Town, attaching by deed the +A 977.7
square foot parcel in the Town of Ithaca to City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
113 -54 (owner by Tagliavento), and requiring that any future conveyance
of the +A 977.7 square foot parcel located in the Town of Ithaca would
occur only in conjunction with the City of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 113 -54
(Tagliavento) property, and submission of a final signed copy of said deed
restriction to the Town Planning Department prior to issuance of any
building permits for any of the lots in this subdivision, and
10
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
b. prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, submission of draft
deed language with references that lot 3 and the +A 977.7 square foot lot
are subject to the Town of Ithaca water main easement shown on the
subdivision plat, and submission of a copy of the filed deed prior to
issuance of any building permits for any of the lots in this subdivision, and
C. submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an
original or mylar copy of the final subdivision plat, and three dark -lined
prints, prior to filing with the. Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and
submission of a receipt of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning
Department.
A vote on the Motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Board Member Hoffmann — Its unfortunate, but I was just thinking since it is right
adjacent to the Recreation Way and if problems spill over there when there are parties,
maybe the Town would have some possibility of stepping in and doing something.
Board Member Mitrano — Its sounds to me like the measures that the first speaker is
taking are potentially the most effective.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, consisting of a
seventy -two (72) unit independent living and affordable rental project for seniors
55 years of age and older, located on a 9.0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing
Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Tax Parcel No.'s 27-1-13.12 and 27-
1- 13.162, Multiple Residential Zone. The proposal involves construction of a +/-
80,555 square foot, three -story building, with an 82 -space parking lot, stormwater
facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities. The project also includes a
secondary "emergency only" access drive to NYS Route 79 using Cypress Court
on Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.18 and 27AA3.17. The remaining +/- 49 acres of the
property are proposed for future development phases over a period of years
depending on market conditions. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; John H.
Fennessey, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox — Mr. Fennessey, welcome back. I know how much you enjoy
driving back and forth to the Syracuse area.
John Fennessey, Conifer Realty
11
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Good evening. I have here with me tonight Stacey Crawford with Better Housing of
Tompkins County as well as David Harding with Carl Jahn and Associates. So I will
turn this over to David to make the presentation to the board.
David Harding, earl Jahn and Associates
I'm David Harding, Carl Jahn and Associates, landscape architect, 450 South Salina
Street, Syracuse NY. I am here tonight for the final subdivision and site plan approval.
I am going to present the plans and point out the differences from the preliminary site
plan that were approved the last time we were here. Since we were at that meeting, we
have obtained the rezoning from the Town Board and also the height variance from the
Zoning Board of Appeals. We have also received the letter from TCAT approving the
layout that acknowledges that is accommodates its bus turning movements. The one
item that was not addressed was the agreement to extend the service, which
understand is subject their board acting on it, I believe in April. The letter that was
transmitted to the Town was positive, indicating a favorable position towards the
extension of the service at that time.
On the site plan, the changes involved the detention basins to the west to get
them outside the limits of the Conifer Drive right -of -way, both the proposed right -of -way
for the extension of Conifer Drive as well as the future potential extension of it to the
north. The Conifer Drive will be converted into a public roadway per Town's request
and that will involve reconstruction of the road all the way out to New York State Route
79 and widening the road to get it up to the Town's standards. The work will involve
grinding up the existing asphalt service out to 79 and building it up with additional stone
and new layers of asphalt. Associated with that, per Town's request, we have
established a 100 -foot wide right -of -way to the initial segment of Conifer Drive
correlating with the portion that completed to 79 and the intersection with Conifer Circle.
That 100 foot strip of property had been established back during the Phase I part of the
project. From that point on our plans are showing a 60 foot wide right -of -way that
extends to the north and the plan to extend out to the undeveloped property to the north
as well. I am going to talk a little bit more about that later as it relates to the bike trail
discussions.
Also we have put in some additional walkway and this is one of the conditions of
the Town Board. They wanted to see a little bit more pedestrian opportunities on the
site. If you remember when we were here last time in addition to the walkway around
the parking lot and down the entrance drive and over to the bus shelter, we did have a
walk extending from the rear patio- heading north to create a loop. We have since now
added in additional walkway. You can see a substantial amount that connects all the
way back around to the east side of the building out to the parking lot. So numerous
pedestrian opportunities now. One thing that I did that was a response to one of the
Planning Board member's comments and I forget which one, but they had asked the
question on the walk that extends from the Conifer Drive and the Senior Apartments
driveway intersection over to the bus loop, we were previously showing it on the east
side of the road, which required people to have to cross Conifer Drive and cross back to
get the bus shelter and I thought that was a reasonable concept to move it back over to
12
the west side of the road so that
those plans now show as we prop(
4 -foot wide grass median. The
accessible route from the building
garden area and this plan does
across from the building at an at
accommodated that.
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
we can eliminate those crossings. So that is what
)sed originally and separated from the roadway with a
last change to the site plan involved providing an
walkways over to the outdoor open space recreation
now allow by ending the curb in a location directly
-grade access over at that lawn area. So we have
Architecturally some changes have been made to the plans. The building is
substantially as it was proposed last time we were here. The big thing is to modify the
colors and reduce the extent of the white colors or the very light colors. We have
brought with us a material board here showing what is being proposed for the colors.
You will see a simulated vinyl siding and a simulated cedar shake, which is the tan
color. Then the lower portions of the building will be finished in a siding, also vinyl
siding, will be an olive green color. The brick on the building, which is simulated pretty
well with the color there. This particular brick, as I mentioned earlier, wouldn't stick to
the board without tipping over so I brought it along. The roof is a greenish color asphalt
shingle roof. Now all these colors are the exact same colors that are being used on
another Conifer project here in the Town at the Ellis Hollow complex. So if there were
any interest to see what that transfers to in reality that would be a good example. The
samples that are up on this board. are the samples from the Ellis Hollow property. The
project has evolved a little bit since then and I brought around the new versions of them,
which are essentially a little bit more refined, finer texture, more realistic simulation of
the cedar and I can pass these around.
There was a comment to show the locations of the balcony lights and emergency
exit wall pack locations, which there were two of them as I pointed out at the last
meeting. The balcony lights are now shown on the architectural plans an I think on the
cover sheett the colored cover sheet you will see a little black fixture designations
associated near the doorways of each one .of these balcony units. The light that is
being proposed is different than what we discussed at the last meeting where we were
suggesting utilizing a recessed ceiling light to obscure the visibility of the lamp source.
Because of the nature of the construction, the architect was not able to accommodate
that and alternatively proposed this low wattage frosted glass lantern light, which Susan
Ritter points out in her memo to you does comply with the Town's lighting ordinance
because it is below that 1,000 lumens threshold.
Chairperson Wilcox — Or should we say consistent with the lighting ordinance being
discussed.
Ms. Ritter — It's a draft lighting ordinance.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is still in Codes and Ordinances right now and will eventually be
referred to the Town Board, which will refer it to the Planning Board for a public hearing
and recommendation. You know the drill.
13
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Mr. Harding — The other major comment about the architectural plans was to make
provision for a second potential future elevator. One is being proposed in the plans.
The Town Board, I believe, originated that comment that maybe two were appropriate.
Provision has been made . to be able to put a second one in if the demand were
reached, although it is not part of the plan..
The only outstanding issues that I am aware of concern a future potential bike
path. There has been a lot of discussion back and forth about a bike path and how it
relates to the future network that might occur in the Town, but the Town Board as part of
the rezoning had made a condition to make provision, add a provision for that bike path.
We had looked at that bike path potentially being located on the west side of Conifer
Drive as a widening of the 5 -foot walkway. There is discussion about the bike path
occurring on the shoulders of the roadways, widening the shoulders out 5 feet wide on
either side instead of the 4 feet. After all that discussion, finally it came to down what
seemed like the best way for that bike path would be on the east side of Conifer Drive,
back where we. were originally showing that walkway. Now, this relates back to the
right -of -way because in the configuration that is being suggested Town planning staff
and engineering, they're suggesting a bike path that is separated from the roadway by a
10.foot grass median. Again, the bike path could be as wide as 10. feet wide if it were to
be utilized also as pedestrian route. In doing so and providing enough room within the
right -of -way to accommodate the road and drainage facilities, all of a sudden 60 feet
gets quite tight. One of the virtues of locating this potential bike path on the east side of
the road would be that the right -of -way can be widened out because there is land over
there that abut the existing detention basin of the Phase Il area that won't be utilized for
anything else and there is opportunity as you move to in a northerly direction to develop
that bike trail as part of the future single family home build -out that is indicated on that
conceptual overall development plan. That also puts the bike path on the same side of
the road as the park or the potential future Town park, I guess is the best way to say
that. So I think that is the best solution. At this point in time we are suggesting that we
just keep the right -of -ways as we have presented them. All the plans have been
prepared. and showing it this way. At such time that the bike path does evolve into a
project and we know for sure what we need for elbowroom, we can widen the right-of-
ways at that time.
Attorney Barney — David, how do you handle the potential change of ownership of
Linderman II, the project that Linderman II, LLC is involved with? How would we be
able at some future time to widen the right -of -way as. it crosses that portion of the
property?
Mr. Harding — I think I. am going to let John Fennessey address that. We talked about it
a little bit on the way down here. My thought is that perhaps either a deed restriction
could be tied to that Linderman Creek II: property that tells them to cooperate in
widening. John's opinion is that they are never going to sell it, but I know that is not
going to satisfy you. You're going to want something a little more concrete, but I'll let
him talk to you.
14
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Attorney Barney — If he wants to put that in writing, then we can probably...
[laughter]
Mr. Harding — We can report back to him when we are done. The only other issue
related to the potential future path that we had illustrated along the Linderman Creek
corridor and Sue, correct me, I'm not sure, did I see that in your memorandum? Was
that brought up at all in there?
Ms. Ritter — Not in the memo. I think you and Carol and I talked about it also.
Mr. Harding — Sue Ritter had brought up a point. Well, what mechanism .allows the
public to utilize that path, which will be on private property? My suggestion was that
since we were already creating a deed restriction describing this wetland buffer area in
that same vicinity and that buffer area that language already discusses that path,
thought it might be appropriate to .also put some language into that deed restriction that
says that public use of this path will be allowed by the owners of that property.
So with that, I would take any questions that you might have.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen?
Board Member Hoffmann — Just a small detail. You mentioned that the lights were a
.1,000 lumen and it was low wattage. What is the wattage actually of those lamps?
Mr. Harding — They are less than 1,000.
Board Member Hoffmann - I was looking for it in the papers, too, and I didn't see it
there either.
Mr. Harding — Susan, was that attached to the information that we distributed to the
board?
Ms. Ritter — Yes.
Mr. Smith — Yes. It is on the cut - sheet, with wall lantern on the back, at the very bottom
it shows the wattages and lumens and the highest lumen shown there is 900.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm just not used to using lumens, so I don't know how
bright that is. Wattage I can deal with.
Chairperson Wilcox —Something says to me when I go to the grocery store and buy a
60 -watt light bulb, something like 870 lumens:
Mr. Smith — Right here is has the 13 watt light bulb is 900 lumens, for this type of bulb.
15
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, okay and this is a florescent bulb. Okay. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - The floor is yours.
Board Member Hoffmann - The other question that comes into my mind when we are
talking about sidewalks and bike paths is, if we are going to have these ways for
pedestrians and bicyclists to move within these developments, you remember that road,
the original road that goes into the first phase of the development and how we tried very
hard to get them to build a sidewalk along that road? The first stretch comes in from
Mecklenburg Road and then it turns to the right and there is no sidewalk there and
those kids, as I remember,' had to walk out to that intersection to get to the school bus
and, you know, to have sidewalks in some parts and then nothing in other parts doesn't
make sense. I would, especially since there are children there, I would very much like
to see you extend at least a sidewalk there from the main intersection of this road we
are talking about now with the roads that go off into part I and part II of this whole
Linderman Creek development. That is good. That helps.
Mr. Harding — So you are suggesting...
Board Member Hoffmann —That's right. Along that road.
Mr. Harding — And that was brought up at the last meeting that we were at and it had
been dismissed as a viable option and I don't remember what the specifics of that were.
I remember that in Phase I we did extend a walk out to the highway entrance there. Are
you saying that that is not there?
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, that is there, but its along that road, which you just
pointed to, Conifer Circle, that one doesn't have any sidewalks on either side and if I
remember right, it doesn't even have a center stripe, which makes it very hard for
someone driving to know how far over to go.and avoid people walking. And I just think
if you have sidewalks leading to part of these developments and then there are
stretches of road without any sidewalk it is going to leave people stranded sort of as
they try to go in between.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before we go too far down this road, is that road segment on a
different tax parcel?
Mr. Harding — This is actually...
Chairperson Wilcox — That is not one of the tax parcels that's... is that on a tax parcel
that's not one of the ones that is under consideration this evening?
Mr. Harding — It is part of the ones that is under consideration this evening. It is owned
by Conifer Realty, LLC. It is an L shaped parcel. The north /south leg of which will be
chopped off as part of this project and converted into the public roadway. ..
16
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Where I was going is, if its not one of the parcels, then we don't
have much leverage.
Mr. Walker — You are subdividing that parcel to take road off of it.
Chairperson Wilcox — So legally, we can at least discuss it. If it wasn't a parcel that was
part of this subdivision, then that raises other issues.
Board Member Hoffmann — It just seems like a good opportunity to consider doing that
for the safety and practically of people who live there.
Mr. Walker — A little history on that. When that first phase of Conifer Circle was
constructed, there was no school bus traffic into that. The school buses would not
travel into the subdivision... the public buses would not, I believe. That is why the public
bus stop was across the street on Mecklenburg Road so that is why instead of the
sidewalk going up that roadway, we had the sidewalk come out to Mecklenburg Road
that does come out. Then in the subsequent phase of Phase 11, they put the circle in
and the bus stop travels in and they turn around in that circle. So that is one of those
things that sort of changed. We didn't look at the future planning as well, probably.
Board Member Hoffmann — But it is not just children going to and from school buses, it
is for internal circulation within this whole development, in this whole neighborhood I
should like to say actually.
Mr. Walker — Yup.
Board Member Howe — We were all shaking our heads. I think that we are all in
agreement.
Board Member Mitrano — Yeah.
Chairperson
Wilcox —
That a sidewalk there
is a good thing? Okay. Anything else at
this point?
Susan, I
was reading your memo
and I was looking at the draft resolution
and I got all
confused
about the road and the
money and the, you know...I shouldn't say
the money.
I should
say the letter of credit
or the deposit of funds and what would be
done prior to my signing
the subdivision and
I got all confused.
Ms. Ritter — Me too
Chairperson Wilcox — You've seen the resolution as drafted?
Mr. Harding — Yes. It's a catch 22, chicken and the egg kind of situation. Typically we
subdivide to build a road to Town standards, dedicate it and then you subdivide it. The
way that the language is worded here, it was conditioned that you weren't going to give
a building permit until the road is constructed and accepted to Town standards,
however, if you did that first, then your road would get beaten into a pulp during the rest
17
Planning Board Minutes
February 21., 2006.
Approved
of the construction process. So the proposal is to construct the road stone base to road
standards, utilize that as a construction road into the main facility and put up either a
letter of credit or funds to ensure that the road will be completed to Town standards at
the conclusion of the project. So instead of it being contingent on the issuance of a
building permit, it was going to be made contingent on the Certificate of Occupancy.
The Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until the road was dedicated and the
subdivision is completed.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do we have a sense from the Town Board about their willingness
.
to accept this as a Town road?
Mr. Walker — We historically have done this in the past with the appropriate financial
security.
Attorney Barney — And an agreement.
Mr. Walker — And an agreement.
Attorney Barney — That protects us in the case of an injury or something in the course of
construction.
Chairperson Wilcox — And...
Mr. Walker — We have a standard agreement already drafted if we can...
Attorney Barney — Sort of standard.
Mr. Walker — Well, its called standard, but we have to modify it for each site.
Chairperson Wilcox — And it is the understanding that if the road is constructed to Town
standards then the Town Board would accept the road.
Mr. Walker — Yes. They have accepted the location already.
Chairperson Wilcox — They have already accepted the location? Okay. I was reading
Susan's.memo and the condition requiring that the Town Board agree to accept and
then. the Town Board to accept.
Ms. Ritter — I think that they still have to accept the section from Linderman Creek up to
the Conifer Village. They have already accepted south of Linderman Creek, but they
have to convey the entire section.
Mr. Walker — We have not accepted ownership of it. We have accepted the location of
it, though.
im
E
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox Okay. Discussion or comments with regard to the bike path or
the lack of any concrete, at least for now, other than the potential for an item in the
resolution indicating that it would be revisited at some point in the future.
Board Member Howe — Just those proposed colors that we got. Hopefully it doesn't
include the plywood boxes around the utility that they are shown at Ellis Hollow.
Mr. Harding — I am not to blame for that project, but I'll pass that along.
Chairperson Wilcox — Now, wait a minute. I'm not going to let you off that easily. I'm
trying to find my picture. Are you aware of any structure that looks like that on these
buildings?
Mr. Harding — I have never seen this in my life.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay, but there is nothing like that on the outside...?
Mr. Harding — I am not aware of that
Chairperson Wilcox - Good. ° Thank you. Much stronger statement, thank you.
Board Member Hoffmann But I can see that this picture represents the true colors
better, based on what you brought, than what's here.
Board Member Conneman — Right.
Board Member Hoffmann — This has a lot more yellow. That is not what it is going to be
then.
Chairperson Wilcox - It's fake cedar
Mr. Harding — No, it's simulated.
Chairperson Wilcox — We all set for now. I need to give the public a chance to speak.
David, is there anything else that you want to say at this point?
Mr. Harding — I would just like to give the floor back to John Fennessey so he can
respond to the request for the walk and the issue related to the right -of -way language.
Chairperson Wilcox — And the various legal entities, which own land in this area.
Mr. Fennessey — I think on the issue of the existing C
concern that Mr. Barney brings up is that what if we sold
the right -of -way that you need. I think that in talking with
path, there is a lot of analysis that needs to be done that
the Town is not prepared to do right now, but I think in
:)nifer projects, I think that the
these properties, you won't get
David about the walkway, bike
we are not prepared to do and
working in good faith together
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
over the next several years we can address those issues and come up with a
reasonable solution. I think that it is something that should be initiated now and get this
issue resolved so that going forward over the next year, we get the decision of where
this right -of -way is going to be and where the bike path, is going to be and what makes
the most sense for both the Town and Conifer.
Attorney Barney = I'm less concerned when we get north of Linderman Creek because
that is owned, I think, by Conifer Realty, LLC and so any development that is going to
occur in there is going to have to come back to this board anyway.
Mr. Fe.nnessey — We are dead in the water here. Assuming we get an approval here
tonight, we do not know what is going to happen here until we get a connection.
Attorney Barney — My concern, John, is with the part of if that runs from Linderman.
Creek south to the 100 foot wide piece denominated Conifer Drive. That goes across
now and is actually probably its own, I think, Linderman Creek II Associates, LLC and
that is right at the moment slated to be just a 60 foot wide right -of -way and what occurs
to me is that ... your attorney just handed us a proposed deed with that in it and it would
be very easy pen change that could handled through I think an additional condition here
to make that a little bit larger, 80 feet or 90 feet, with the understanding from the Town's
standpoint that if we don't need it, we would abandon it back to the owner of the
property on either side of it. Then I would get it back to you if it is not necessary, but it
gets us over the hurdle and if next week or next year you decide that that .Linderman
Creek II Associates is. going to be sold, then we are not....
Mr. Fennessey — Is this area that we are discussing?
Attorney Barney — Yes.
Ms. Ritter — If I could just, I did. talk to Susan Jenning, she is the Conifer attorney, and
she...I don't know if this would work, but she talked about providing some kind of letter
or documentation stating that Linderman Creek II, LLC would participate in this
discussion of the width of the road and that they would abide by whatever the rest of
the ... you know, if there was a change in the right -of -way, north of Linderman Creek they
would abide by and participate in that widening. I guess there was a question of
whether that might be adequate.
Attorney Barney — I think it might be if we did it in a recordable portion and in a way to
put it on record. That is my concern.
Mr. Fennessey — Your concern is just this section here.
Attorney Barney — Yes.
Mr. Fennessey — I think that is something that we can accommodate now in this
resolution. I was thinking in terms of back in here.
20
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Attorney Barney — No because that needs to await what is going to happen up there
and there may be discussions about that, but that we have with Conifer Realty, LLC
because you are the owner. It is really that little strip across there. While we are talking
about that, I am sitting here and I hear David talk about us cutting off this piece of land
and then it dawns on me that we are leaving this east/west strip here 100 feet wide that
is kind of hanging in the middle of limbo -land. What is happening with the piece'that.is
Conifer Realty, LLC the east/west portion of that L shaped chunk coming up from
Mecklenburg Road.
Chairperson Wilcox — Which one are we talking about just so I am sure?
Attorney Barney - It's Conifer Circle's extension.
Mr. Harding — This section right here.
Chairperson Wilcox — The piece where we would like to put a sidewalk.
Mr. Harding — Correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — What is the issue, John, with that?
Attorney Barney — Well, right now it is an L shaped piece that has been previously
approved, I guess, but I think once we take off the L, the portion that goes between...
Mr. Walker — I think that is part of the big parcel.
Attorney Barney No. It's in the middle of and what is bounded on the north by
Linderman Creek II and is bounded on the east by Linderman Creek Associates, LP, but
it is owned by Conifer Realty, LLC. So it is 100 foot by .415 feet just sitting there
hanging in the wind, which I didn't think of this morning when we were talking about it. It
didn't catch my eye until now.
Mr. Harding — That piece will essentially exist as an accessway to the Phase I area.
From the technical standpoint, it does meet the criteria of a lot in that it has 1.00 feet of4
frontage on the public road that is being created there so I don't think there is an issue
from a subdivision standpoint there, but it is an odd left over piece.
Attorney Barney — Well, I don't think that this board contemplates that a structure is
going to go up on that piece and it is a legal lot.
Mr. Harding — It has a roadway on it to provide access to the Phase I development.
Attorney Barney — Where is it going to wind up ultimately?
Mr. Harding — It is going to stay just where it is.
21
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Attorney Barney — I'm sorry. Ownership -wise. Who is going to ultimately own it? Is it
going to be Conifer, LLC that is going to continue to own and if so why? Why wouldn't it
be tied into either the Linderman Il which it borders on the north or the Linderman
Associates, LLP, which is serving as an access point?
Mr. Fennessey — It is always going to be access for these units.
Attorney Barney — Its kind of a conceptual thing. You have this piece of land that has
no relation to Conifer, LLC any more. It's related to the other two. I guess I don't
particularly care from our standpoint as long as there is kind of an understanding that
you are not going to build anything on there other than roads and hopefully a sidewalk .
or two as requested by this board.
Chairperson Wilcox — And it is a legal lot?
Attorney Barney — Yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Ms. Ritter — I think it is at least 30,000 square feet.
Mr. Kanter — What about as width? Doesn't it have to be 100 and 150?
Chairperson Wilcox - We're all set? Jon, do you want to talk about the sidewalk that we
want?
Mr. Fennessey — This section here we are accessing now while widening it, I don't have
any problem with doing that. We'll deal with these other things down the line when and
if we get access back here.
Attorney Barney — What would be a reasonable width?
Mr. Harding - I think 80 feet would do it.
Attorney Barney— 80?
Chairperson Wilcox — I want to see nods over here on 80?
Mr. Walker - Yes, 80 feet.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. John, would you address the... members of the
Planning. Board clearly would like to see a sidewalk on that piece of land that we just
discussed.
Mr. Fennessey — I'm sure.
22
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Mr. Harding — I heard two just a while ago. A sidewalk or two.
Mr. Fennessey — The necessity... first are we all satisfied with what we are talking about
here tonight...?
Chairperson Wilcox — If that parcel of land is one of the parcels of land that is part of
what we are discussing tonight, then it is not outside the project. If the public hearing
notice includes that piece of land, that parcel, then we can discuss it tonight and we can
include it in the project. Go ahead.
Mr. Fennessey - We have toyed with that idea over time and it really hasn't not proved
a necessity. As mentioned earlier, they used to walk from here out to this end and we
had this walkway here and then the bus service now comes down and picks them up
there. In an ideal world, there would be some type of a walkway along there. I think in
an ideal world, it would have a sidewalk, but I don't think that we deemed it as a
necessity for this development.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can someone point to where the school bus goes right now?
Mr. Harding — What I understand is, basically it comes in here like this and around and
back out again. TCAT comes in here.
Chairperson Wilcox — And uses the turn around. So the issue would be people walking.
from Linderman I up to potentially catch the TCAT bus.
Board Member Hoffmann — But it isn't only that. As I think about it, I think about people
walking from there throughout this whole area as it develops. If there is not very much
traffic, not many people walking now, it could be because there is no sidewalk to walk
on and they don't feel safe doing it.
Mr. Fennessey — I would have difficulty understanding it considering there. is minimal
amount of traffic to why they would feel fearful of walking along there when they have
no fear of walking down here on 79.
Board Member Hoffmann — But it is a rather narrow road, this interior one and it doesn't
have very good markings. When I've been up there driving through to look at the sites
that we are going to talk about, I. have felt that this is a very narrow road and I wouldn't
want to walk along it when there are cars going there and when I have been there, there
have been cars driving along that road.
Mr. Fennessey — I have walked it personally many times and I have never felt
intimidated. Maybe if I was younger or if I was older, I don't know. I feel that it is nice
thing to have, but it is an additional expense. We have already added a lot of things to
I
project to make it a better project and I think it is another expense that we shouldn't
have to bear. I think it is something to keep in mind for the future. I feel the road itself
23
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
is sufficiently wide for the traffic to go along there. It is a very lightly used and there are
shoulders on both sides.
Board Member Hoffmann
sidewalks being built and
sidewalks built we have w
adjacent areas so that we
nowhere and then there is
think it is important...
- I feel this is the time to address it because there are other
as a policy we have in other areas when we have had
anted to make sure that they aligned with other sidewalks in
don't end up with these sidewalks that end in the middle of
nothing and then there is another sidewalk further way. So I
Chairperson Wilcox - Before you go on, David, do me a favor. Would you read me the
tax parcel number off your large map for this piece of land? I can't it read it off mine.
Mr. Harding - I didn't bring my glasses..) believe it says 21. -01 -13 and then 3 digits.
Chairperson Wilcox —Yeah and I can't tell whether it is 181, 161.
Mr. Harding - It looks like 1.81 or 191.
Chairperson Wilcox - Here's again back to my ... that might be outside the scope of this
project, unfortunately. John?
Attorney Barney - No.
Board Member Thayer - Did you say 27.0? There is no 27 -0:
Chairperson Wilcox - It is 27.- 01- 13.1... and. that is not one of the tax parcel numbers
that is referenced in the public hearing notice. I just want to make sure that we can
proceed down this road discussing this lot.
Board Member Mitrano - Is that what you have too, Susan? What. Fred is saying.
Ms. Ritter -Yes.
Yes.
Board Member .Mitrano - Well, that is unfortunate because I agree with...
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, I think we all kind of do, but if it is legally-outside the scope
of the project that is one thing. If it was distant from the site being developed, but still
part of one of the tax parcels that was involved in the subdivision_ then.we can insist up
on a sidewalk there.
Attorney Barney- You're giving it subdivision because you are basically breaking of the
north south for road purposes and that was part of... (not audible)
Chairperson Wilcox - You are talking about the upside down "U shape?
24
Attorney Barney — Yeah. The east west segment of it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay.
Attorney Barney — I'm not uncomfortable proceeding.
Chairperson Wilcox — And assuming. that we have... okay
gentlemen.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, then I agree with Eva.
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Its back on ladies and
Mr. Kanter — The other thing to think about is this bikeway or pedestrian bicycle path
that will be built eventually is going to be a connecting pathway that will go all the way
up virtually to where the Overlook project is. So it is going to end up being 1.5 to 2.0
miles long bicycle pedestrian route, which the more interconnections you have to it, the
better it will function for.the whole area.
Board Member Mitrano — That sounds great. That is not exclusive of what we are
talking about here, though.
Mr. Kanter — No. It is supporting what you are saying.
Board Member Mitrano -Right and in the past we have recognized when bike paths are
proposed and are very excited about the realization. We have in the more immediate
past come up with maybe an informal policy, but a policy nonetheless of looking at
sidewalks as part of a project rather than just what we hope to find..in the future. So I
remember that, too, and that is why I agree with what Eva is saying,
Chairperson Wilcox — Sidewalk?
Board Member Howe — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Kevin?
Board Member Talty — I think everybody knows my feeling on.that.
Board Member. Mitrano — No. I know your feeling about those gutter things, but not
sidewalks. What are your feelings about 'sidewalks?
Board Member Talty — My feeling, to reiterate once again, I feel as though it is a safety
issue for the Town of Ithaca in general: and I think sidewalks should be mandatory in
every project that comes. before this board.
Chairperson. Wilcox — So how do you feel about this project ?.
25
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Attorney Barney — Well, I haven't dealt with the sidewalk issue, but I would suggest
adding a new "I" in the subdivision approval, paragraph 1, which would be the
subdivision plat be amended to show the spur of the proposed roadway running north in
the north end of Conifer Drive to be widened from 60 feet to 80 feet to accommodate
road travel lanes, road shoulders, pedestrian and bike infrastructure, drainage and
landscaping. And then what was formally "I" will be relettered to "m" and that really is
intended now to deal with the portion of the road north of Linderman Creek. What.was
the conclusion on the sidewalk?
Chairperson Wilcox — Also on the next page, "m" becomes "n ".
Attorney Barney — That's correct.
Chairperson Wilcox — And the sidewalk, the. board is requiring a sidewalk along that
east west spur to the original Linderman Creek development, recognizing the fact that it
may not have been necessary originally, given the current configuration of the various
developments proposed by Conifer it now makes sense.
Mr. Kanter — And that would be referred to as Conifer Circle.
Board Member Hoffmann —Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva says yes.
Mr. Kanter - I'm looking at the L2 layout plan that shows that.
Chairperson Wilcox —
100
by
315
feet. That is
what
I have. All right. Let's see. Bear
with me here. Let me
see
if I
have
made any... I'm
all
set.
Attorney Barney — I just added modification of the plat to show a sidewalk along the east.
west spur of Conifer Circle into the Linderman Creek Associates, LP.property.
Mr. Kanter — Sidewalk to be owned and maintained by applicant or whoever the entity
is.
Attorney Barney — I don't know your recent decision on sidewalk ownership.
Mr. Kanter — Well that's not in the public right -of -way and it is in the development so it
should be privately owned and maintained I think.
Chairperson Wilcox — We are all set Larry and George?
Board Member Conneman — Yes.
Board Member Thayer —Yes
27
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — So language to indicate that the sidewalk will be owned and
maintained by one of the LLC that they have created. Should we also specify minimum
width of the sidewalk? Dan?
Mr. Walker — Five feet.
Chairperson Wilcox - Five feet. Thank you. We all set with 5 feet?
Board Member Conneman - Yup.
Chairperson Wilcox — All right. Any further discussion?
Ms. Ritter - You actually haven't spoken about this Town Board resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — Which Town Board resolution?
Ms. Ritter — The Town Board resolution that rezoned this property and then there was a
section that requested Planning Board to consider some recommendations. Most of
which have already been addressed, but it also asks for a report on what the Planning
Board would respond to these requests, but we really haven't talked about number 3,
reserve an off road bikeway corridor on the final site plan through project to commit
connection to a bikeway on the property to the north. So I think that they are asking for
some guidance on how you would like to see this handled. If you would like to see a
separate corridor? Do you want to seethe bikes on the shoulder or do you want to see
a bike pedestrian corridor? I. provided some materials from the Transportation
Committee just as some guidelines of things that are being considered so its...
Chairperson Wilcox — Can we take this up under other business?
Board Member Conneman — Yes.
Board Member Howe — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — If we get to it. Then at that point we could defer it. Its not
necessary right now as part of the approval of this project. Right?
Ms. Ritter — Probably ... ah ... not.
Chairperson Wilcox — I do not want to put you in the middle here.
Ms. Ritter — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox. — And therefore as Chair of the Planning Board, I think that
discussion of how we might bike paths configured in rights -of -ways and the fact that the
Town Board may want us to report back, I think that we can discuss that at the end of
the meeting. Does that work?
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Board Member Talty — Where is it one sidewalk or two, that is a whole different set of
circumstances.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, I am happy with one.
Chairperson Wilcox _ Do you have a preference for side of the road?
Board Member Mitrano — Does the developer? I don't know.
Chairperson Wilcox - Built within the right -of -way. I assume there is room within that
existing 100 feet given that the road is 20 -22 feet paved.
Mr. Harding — It is actually 24.6... there is enough room to do it. There is a little grading
because the grades do rise up on each side of that.
Board Member Hoffmann — I feel the northern side of the road would make more sense
because there.would be fewer crossings then to get to the bus stops.
Chairperson Wilcox - This resolution is only getting longer. Anything else at this point?
I need to give the public a chance to speak.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:17 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 8:18 p.m.
Stacy Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County
Stacy Crawford, Better Housing for Tompkins County. W
Business Campus, 950 Danby Road. I just wanted to
support and concept. of this project all along. One thing
day of this year, 2006, over 7,000 people in this country
Some of them live around here so in the future this kind
even more important. So thank you for your support.
e rent offices at the South Hill
speak to thank you for your
I heard recently is that every
are having their 60th birthday.
of, facility is going to become
Chairperson Wilcox = Thank you. Any further discussion? Any questions? John,
you're still writing. We have a revised draft resolution that was .provided on the table
when we came in. The changes are in red. Would someone like to move the motion as .
drafted and revised?
Board Member Conneman — I'll move it.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by George Conneman. Do we have a second?
Board Member Thayer — I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox = Seconded by Larry. Thank you very much. Where do we start?
26
Board Member
Susan?
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Thayer — They are not talking specifically about this project, right,
Ms. Ritter — The bike way is specific to this project.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah.
Ms. Ritter — And how you would like to see that in: this project.
Chairperson Wilcox What we have done is ask for an 80 foot right -of -way instead of
60 to accommodate what we might want to do.
Ms. Ritter — No.
Chairperson Wilcox — Oh, you're right. Only up to that point.
Ms. Ritter — Because the other resolution condition basically says that we are going to
explore this. We do not know for sure that we need 80, 60 may be fine, but as we are
looking at all of these drainage, driving lanes, bike lanes, the pedestrians, it looks like
we may need more. We are not sure what that is. We need to talk more with Conifer
folks. The question is, do you want to see ... they are talking about ... the Town Board
had suggested the corridor. Is there a preference for a bike pedestrian pathway or
bikes using the shoulder of the road? I guess that is the kind of conversation that they
are looking fora I'll -have to say that their request has prompted this issue of the right -of
way and whether there is enough space and has prompted looking at this a little bit
closer. So it's a worthwhile conversation.
Chairperson Wilcox — It's a worthwhile conversation. There are factors such as and I
think you either ... you might have mentioned it in your memo about or it might have
been part of the materials about some of them are used within subdivision, i.e. roads. .
that are only used to get to your house. Others are used on roads with heavier traffic
that you use to get from one neighborhood to another neighborhood. It depends upon
the amount of traffic and things like that.
Ms. Ritter — I think the two guidelines that are probably most useful for the Conifer Road
was either going to be the bike pedestrian multiuse trail or it's the wide shoulders.
Those are the two options that are best for that kind of road.
Chairperson Wilcox— So far we have got her down to two. I'm actually not prepared, to
make a recommendation at this point.
Board Member. Hoffmann — Yeah. I'm not either. I thought that the handout that you
provided us was very useful, but I think it is something that one needs to talk about
because I don't understand necessarily, what some of those terms mean., I think it is
something that we need to discuss more at length.
29
I
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Mr. Kanter — I was just going to suggest, one of the March meetings may be light
enough where we could just put that on as a discussion items.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well done.
Board Member Howe — Because we are talking, basically, about the future
development. We have sort of taken care of the issue immediately and not its...
Mr. Walker — Within the subdivision that you built, we have a right -of -way wide enough
to put the separated bikeway in up to the edge of the unsubdivided .developable
residential land. Any future subdivision, of course, would come before this board again
so you would have the opportunity there to discuss that.
Board Member Howe — So Sue, are we missing something, though that the Town
Board...?
Ms Ritter — I wasn't actually at that meeting.
Chairperson Wilcox. — I was at that meeting, but I will discuss it later.
Board Member Howe— Okay.
Mr. Kanter — I think it is entirely up to this board to decide how you want to report back
to the Town Board.
Chairperson Wilcox— Okay. So. are we done with the potential bicycle,.. how we want to
deal with bicycles? We are possibly going to do that at a March meeting.
Board Member Howe — I agree that it is an important issue.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is an important issue, but it doesn't lend itself to just blurting out
how I feel today about an issue.
Board Member Howe — Right.
Chairperson Wilcox — We need more information about the road, the speed, what is the
full build -out, how many houses are we talking, what is a reasonable traffic count and
that sort of stuff.
Ms. Ritter — And if it would be on the east side or west side.
Chairperson Wilcox — We can do that...
Board Member Talty — But that directly influences this decision, doesn't it?
30
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — We have increased the right -of -way, but we haven't specified
what has been built.
Board Member Talty — So we can put it on hold is what you saying?
Chairperson Wilcox - We can put the decision as to what would be built at a future time
on hold. Yes. In fact we are doing that. As to reporting back to. the Town Board, they
can read the resolutions and they can read the minutes as far as I am concerned.
That is my feeling on that, but we can talk about it later if we so want to.
Board Member Thayer — Okay.
Attorney Barney — Before you put your foot too far in your mouth, lets go back here and
talk about that strip of land, the east west spur before we...
Chairperson Wilcox — The one that we want to add a sidewalk to.
Attorney Barney — Can we build in a proviso that that piece gets conveyed to one of the
adjoining parcel owners within some period of time, but at some point it gets
consolidated and conveyed rather than just leaving it hanging there. We have done a
little looking now and it is quite clearly an illegal lot in a multiple residence zone because
it is not 150 feet at the road setback level, which is what it needs to be.
Mr. Fennessey — So you want us to convey this part ... say this side of Conifer Circle
over to the owner of this property here.
Attorney Barney — Your choice. Either that or to ... the issue is to tie it in with a larger
parcel that is a qualified parcel.
Mr. Fennessey — Because this is 100 feet wide, there is a problem, is that correct?
Attorney Barney — Yes, no. The requirement is it has to be 100 feet wide at the road,
but it has to be 150 feet wide roughly 50 feet back from the road. That is the normal
setback requirement. So this doesn't make the 150.
Mr. Fennessey — I don't see us having any problem with us signing this back over.
Attorney Barney - It is not any part of it. It is all of it.
Mr. Fennessey — All of it is on the north side of Conifer Circle,
Attorney Barney — It has got to somewhere. It can either go north, our preference would
be that it go east because it services your Phase l; but you need to get it off the map as
a discrete lot. It needs to be part of one of those other lots.
31
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Mr. Walker — And if you convey it to someone else, you better make sure that the
people in Phase I have the right to use that because that is their entrance. I.
Attorney Barney — It would have to subject to that.
Mr. Kanter — It would, make most sense to convey it to Phase l as their parcel because it
is their driveway.
Attorney Barney — Okay. How much time would you like to do that?
Chairperson Wilcox Six months?
Mr. Fennessey — That sounds good.
Chairperson Wilcox — And if I look at the map, it is Linderman Creek Associates, LP, as
the owner of the parcel to the east. You okay with that George and Larry?
Board votes on the motion..
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -024: Conifer. Village Ithaca Senior Li vin
_g
Community, Final Site Plan and Final Subdivision Approval, Tax Parcel No. 27-1-
13.12, 274411629 27 -1 43.18 and 27 -143.17, Conifer Drive and Cypress Court
MOTION made by Board member Conneman, seconded by Board member Thayer
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan
Approval. for the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community,
consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit independent living and affordable rental
project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9.0 +A acre parcel
north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase ll and 111, Tax . Parcel
No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27- 1- 13.162, Multiple Residential Zone. The proposal
involves construction of a +/- 80, 555 square foot, three -story building, with an 82-
space parking lot, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities. The
project also includes a secondary "emergency only" access drive to NYS Route
79 using Cypress Court on Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.18 and 27-.1 - 13.17. The
remaining +A 49 acres of the property are proposed for future development
phases over a period of years and depending on market conditions. Conifer
Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey, Agent, and -
2. The proposed actions, which include subdivision approval and site plan approval
by the Planning Board, rezoning by the Town Board, and height variance by the
Zoning Board of Appeals, are Type I actions pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, .and Town of Ithaca Code, Chapter 148,
9N
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Environmental Quality Review, for which the Planning Board at its December 20,
2005 meeting issued a negative determination of environmental significance, and
3. At its meeting on December 20, 2005, the Planning Board granted Preliminary
Subdivision Approval and Preliminary Site Plan Approval and issued an
affirmative recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed rezoning
for the above- referenced project, and
4. At its meeting on December 20, 2005, the Planning Board granted Site Plan
Modification for the Linderman Creek Apartment Phase ll and 111 project, to allow
construction of a secondary "emergency only" access drive from the Conifer
Village Ithaca Senior Living Community project, with the stipulation that the
emergency access will be removed once a secondary means of access is
provided for the remaining portions of the Conifer Realty, LLC property, and that
no further development on the remaining portions of these lands, beyond the
senior apartments, be allowed without the installation of a permanent, secondary
means of access, and
5. At its meeting on December 20, 2005, the Planning Board authorized a reduction
in the number of required parking spaces, pursuant to Sec. 270 -227 of the Code
of the Town of Ithaca, from the +/- 96 parking spaces required in Section 270-
227, to the +/ 82 parking spaces shown on the site plan, finding that such
reduction will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, will leave
adequate parking for all the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the
project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the
community, and
6. The Town of Ithaca Town Board approved the rezoning of the +A 9 acres for
affordable senior rental apartments from Medium Density Residential to MR
Multiple Residence on January 9, 2006, and
7. The Zoning Board of Appeals, at their meeting on January 23, 2006, granted a
height variance for the proposed Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Apartments,
and
8. The Planning Board, after holding public hearings at a meeting held on February
217 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate site plan and architectural
drawings including, Location Map and Details (L -0), Demolition /Erosion &
Sedimentation Control Plan & Details (L4), Layout Plan (L -2), Grading Plan and
Details (L -3), Storm System Plan & Details (L -4), Planting Plan & Details (L -5),
Details (L- 6/L -6.1), Road Profiles, Sections & %Details (L -7), all with most current
revised date of 1131106, Site Utility Plan (C101- C102), Site Electrical and Lighting
Plan (C103), Sanitary Sewer Profiles (C201), Site Utility Details (C501- 503), Site
Electrical Light Pole Details (C504), all with revised date 1130106, Floor Plans and
Elevation drawings (A0.1, A2.1 -A2.3, A4.1 -A4.2, A5.1) dated 1131106, a color
rendered Front Elevation drawing dated 1131106, Final Plan (Subdivision) Conifer
33
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Village at Ithaca revised 1130106, and revised drawings for modification of
Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and Ill including Site Plan and Details (L-
1), Enlarged Site Plans and Details (L -2) and Fire Truck Access and Analysis (L-
3) all revised 1131106, and with all drawings listed above prepared by Carl Jahn &
Associates, Landscape Architects, Hord Coplan Macht Inc., Building Architect,
and C &H Engineers, Civil Engineers, other application materials,
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED:
1: That the Planning Board hereby grants Final Subdivision Approval for the
proposed. subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -13.12 totaling +/- 29 acres, into two
parcels, including. a +/- 9 acre parcel for development of the Conifer Village
Ithaca Senior Living Community apartment complex and +A. 20 acre parcel
proposed for future residential development as shown on the drawing entitled
"Final Plan - Conifer Village Ithaca — Lands Now or Formerly Conifer Realty, LLC
Part of Military Lot 56" dated January 13, 2005 and revised 11103105 and
1130106, prepared by C. T. Male Associates, P. C, conditioned upon the following.
to be completed prior to signing of the plat by the Planning Board Chair, unless
otherwise noted:
a. Review and approval by the Attorney for the Town of the following
submitted documents: the easement to allow use by Conifer Village of the
emergency access through Linderman Creek Associates, LLC property,
the access easement granting the Town a 30 ft. wide access to the Town
park land, the access agreement granting Conifer Realty, LLC a 60 foot
wide easement to access their northwest parcel (granted by their more
eastern parcel),and the restrictive covenants to protect the "wetland
mitigation area" including language to allow public use of the path across
the wetland mitigation area, and
b. Review and approval by the Director of Engineering of the submitted
easement language providing access to the Town of Ithaca to all sewer
and water mains, and the Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting
Agreement for the stormwater facilities, and
C. Submission of a signed Operation, Maintenance, and Reporting.
Agreement. between Conifer Village at Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, and
d. Submission of the recorded deed for the Conifer Village at Ithaca property
showing the incorporation of the easement language to allow use by
Conifer Village of the emergency access through Linderman Creek
Associates, LLC property, to allow Town of Ithaca access to sewer and
water mains, to provide a 60 ft.. easement to allow Town assess to Town
park land, and to prevent impacts and uses in the "wetland mitigation
area'; prior to the issuance of a building permit, and
34
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
e. Evidence of the necessary approval by the Tompkins County Health
Department on the final plat, prior to signing of the plat by the Planning
Board. Chair, and
f. Prior to signing of the plat by the Chairman of the Planning Board, the
Town Board grants approval for the Town to accept the conveyance of the
extension of Conifer Drive (the road segment from the existing bus stop to
just past the Conifer Village driveway), and
g. Submission of a Letter of Credit or deposit of funds, guaranteeing
adequate funds to bring the existing segment of Conifer Drive up to Town
standards (the addition six inches of crusher run and re- asphalting) and to
construct Conifer Drive extension (just beyond the Conifer Village
driveway to provide a hammerhead turnaround) to Town standards, prior
to conveyance of the road to the Town of Ithaca; and
h. Submission of, and execution of an agreement with the Town, related to
the construction of Conifer Drive described above, and approved by the
Director of Engineering, Town Highway Superintendent, and Attorney for
the Town, pursuant to which the developer provides Letter of Credit,
provides liability and other insurance to protect the Town, and
indemnification, all prior to issuance of a building permit and prior to
acceptance of a deed, and
i. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the conveyance of the entire length
of the above referenced road, from its intersection with Mecklenburg
Road /Rt. 79 to just north of the Conifer Village driveway, to the Town of
Ithaca,'' and
j. Completion of the new extension to Conifer Drive and required utilities,
and completion of the existing Conifer Drive to the satisfaction of the Town
Engineer and Town Highway` Superintendent, prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy, . and
k. Submission for signing by the Chairman of the Planning Board of an
original or mylar copy of the final plat and three dark -lined prints, prior to
filing with the Tompkins County Clerk's Office, and submission of a receipt
of filing to the Town of Ithaca Planning Department, and
1. Subdivision Plat be amended to show the spur of the proposed roadway
running north from the north end of Conifer Drive to Linderman Creek be
widened from 60 feet to 80 feet to accommodate road travel lanes, road
shoulders, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, drainage, and
landscaping, and
35
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
M. Prior to any further subdivision or development of the Conifer property,
that the necessary width of the Conifer Road right of way (ROW), to be
conveyed to the Town, be re- evaluated, and if needed, widened to the
satisfaction of the Town Highway Superintendent and Director of
Engineering, such that adequate space be provided to accommodate the
road travel lanes, road shoulders, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure,
drainage, and landscaping, and
n. No building permits or subdivisions of lots for future phases or
development of the remaining large parcels located north of Conifer
Village Ithaca Senior Living Community and Linderman Creek Phase I
shall be issued or approved until the access road, extending from Conifer.
Drive is reviewed and approved by the Town Highway Superintendent and
Town Engineer, and an adequate permanent secondary means of access
is provided, subject to the approval of the Town Highway Superintendent
and Town Engineer, and
o. Modification of the Plat to show a sidewalk along the east -west spur of
Conifer Circle into the Linderman Creek Associates, L.P. to be owned and
maintained by the same entity as owns the east -west spur presently
owned by Conifer Realty, LLC, said sidewalk to be a minimum of five feet
wide, and
p. Within six months from this date the east -west spur of Conifer Drive —
Conifer Circle (315 feet by 100 feet) be conveyed to an owner of one of
the parcels adjoining such spur, and be consolidated with such parcel.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval
for the proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, consisting of a.
seventy -two (72) unit, +/ 80, 555 square foot, three -story apartment building, with
an 82 -space parking lot for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9.0
+/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase ll and
Ill, on Tax Parcel Nos. 27443.12 and 27 -143.162, as shown on drawing and
details including "Location Map and Details" (L -0), "Demolition /Erosion & .
Sedimentation Control Plan & Details" (L -1), "Layout Plan" (L -2), . "Grading. Plan
and Details" (L-3), "Storm System Plan & Details" (L4), "Planting Plan & Details"
(L -5), "Details" (L- 6/L -6.1), "Road Profiles, Sections & Details" (L -7), all with most
current revised date of 1131106, "Site Utility Plan ". (C101- C102), "Site Electrical
and Lighting Plan" (C103), "Sanitary Sewer Profiles" (C201), "Site Utility Details"
(C501- 503), "Site Electrical Light Pole Details" (C504), all with revised date
1130106, Floor Plans and Elevation drawings (A0.1, A2.1 -A2.3, A4.1 -A4.2, A5.1)
dated 1131106, a color rendered Front Elevation drawing dated 1131106, and
revised drawings for modification of Linderman Creek Apartments Phase ll and
111 including "Site Plan and Details" (L4), "Enlarged Site Plans and Details" (L -2)
36
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
and "Fire Truck Access and Analysis" (L -3) all revised 1131106, and all above
prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates, Landscape Architects; Hord Coplan Macht
Inc., Building Architect; and C &H Engineers, Civil Engineers and other
application materials, conditioned upon the following prior to the issuance of any
building permits unless otherwise noted:
a. Provision of record of application for and approval of all necessary permits
from other county, state, and /or federal agencies and obtaining the
necessary curb -cut and road work permits from the New York State
Department of Transportation, and
b. Submission and approval by the Director of Planning of a revised site plan
drawing providing details of the specific light fixtures to be used,
specifically for the two wallpack lights, and the wall mounted lights used
on the patios, balconies and front entranceway, including manufacturer's
name. and model number, and
C. Submission of a revised drawing detail for the asphalt road pavement
(11/L -6) to indicated 3 inches of binder thickness and 2 inches of asphalt
surface, and
d. Submission of a signed stormwater "Operation, Maintenance, and
Reporting Agreement" between the property owner and the Town of
Ithaca, and
e. The Town and applicant will continue to provide encouragement to TCAT
representatives to extend bus service to the Conifer Village at Ithaca
senior apartment complex, and
f. The emergency access is to serve only Conifer Village at Ithaca, and no
further development on the remaining portions of the Conifer property,
beyond the senior apartments, will be allowed without the installation of a
permanent secondary means of access, and the emergency access will
be removed once a secondary means of access is provided to the site.
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.
SKETCH PLAN
37
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Consideration of a sketch plan review for the proposed demolition of the Biggs
Building located at 301 Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24-
3 -2.24 and 24 -3 -2.21, Planned Development Zone No.. 3 and Low Density
Residential Zone. The proposal involves removing the entire building consisting
of 67,000 +/- square feet on multiple floors and demolition of some existing site
improvements such as driveways, walks, curbs, and lighting. The site will be
graded and landscaped as lawn and meadow. The project also includes
disposing of some of the hard fill on an adjacent property owned by the Cayuga
Medical Center, which will be covered and seeded as meadow. The Planning
Board will also consider a resolution proposing to establish itself as lead agency
to coordinate the environmental review of the proposal. Cayuga Medical Center
at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Lou LoVeccio, 101 Dates Drive
My name is Lou LoVeccio, 101 Dates Drive, Cayuga Medical Center and I am the
owner representative. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to be here tonight.
The Biggs has been in some form of. vacant capacity for a number of years.
Most recently over the past it has been 100% vacant. The previous owner of the
building was an out of state owner and was basically derelict in any form of
maintenance of the building. The structure has gone through a number of seasonal
cycles with no utilities, no heat, and no electricity and is in various stages of decay. The
Medical Center sees the building as a sick building ... (hot audible).
Our proposal and our plan is being presented tonight and in the matter of
introductions, Peter Trowbridge and Kim Michaels from Trowbridge and Wolf, or
Landscape Architects, Mark Ruhnke and Eric Dousharm, from Eisenbach & Ruhnke
Engineering our engineering consultants from Syracuse will be doing the technical
presentation. The building, in terms of development for healthcare reasons, as it stands
now is just not conducive to any form of use. Architecturally it is an inappropriate
building for current healthcare use in terms of ceiling heights, size of the structure and. in
terms of our development, we do not see any use for it as healthcare: What I would like
to do is turn it over to Peter.
Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge and.Wolf
Thanks, Lou. Peter Trowbridge. We're landscape architects, 1001 West Seneca Street
here in Ithaca. I think what I would like to do is just explain to the board what it is we
are proposing. You see the dark gray areas are remaining buildings of the Biggs
complex and the pinker areas are sidewalks, remnants 'of parking lots, service areas.
So those are the areas that are .considered to be demolished. As you can imagine, the
reduction in that much impervious surface will environmentally improve the area
significantly because that site as suggested is going to be developed as a landscape.
area. I just wanted to reinforce this point that the hospital has purchased this site and
really does see the building as a significant liability. I believe staff has handed out also
38
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
a letter from the Fire Department. There are considerable concerns about the building's
current condition and subsequently the hospital does not see any short term or even
have long term interests. The interests right now are protecting their current resources.
However, it clearly is a site that will add some value to the hospital.
The second diagram in the middle is a plan of all the trees. We are going to the
extent of actually using a sheet primoring when we demolish the buildings to save a lot
of the big oak trees immediately adjacent to the building foundation. So the sheet
primoring is put around the Oak so that the trees do not tip out during demolition.
Subsequently you can see in your packet it shows regrading of the site, backfilling the
former foundation area. The trees will all be stabilized and there will be a landscape
area. We are preserving, and I think this is a...(not audible) ... during the site plan
review process for the southwest addition that is currently under construction for the
hospital is the parking that is associated with the Biggs Complex. It is in pretty poor
condition, but it is used currently by some staff, mostly contractor parking associated
with the construction. So it will remain through this demolition cycle because we need it
for the current operations: However, we did provided, as you know with the Southwest
Addition, a comprehensive _ parking study of all the parking needs at Cayuga Medical
Center will be served with the new and existing parking that they are currently
developing on site.
So a few of their additions that we would like to talk about are associated with
other... materials that have been provided. The cover letter on our packet, February
13th, really talks about things that we would like to provide the board and at this point
those have been provided. The technical building ... (not audible) ... study, which is I
believe is under the heading of ...(not audible) ... survey, which staff now has. We have
also provided the SWPPP, the stormwater protection plan as well as the letter from the
fire department. What I would like to do and I'll come back in just a minute, l would like
to turn it. over to Mark Ruhnke and Eric Dousharm to. talk a little bit about the Biggs
process.
Mark Runke, Eisenbach & Ruhnke Engineering
The materials on the site are dangerous, like asbestos, PCBs and during the demolition
we will be addressing those issues.
Chairperson Wilcox — What is inside that building right now?
Mr. Runke — We have a complete survey...
Chairperson Wilcox — I want everybody to hear it. What is inside that building?
Mr. Runke — The standard things like most buildings have like asbestos, PCBs,
florescent light bulbs.
Chairperson Wilcox — Asbestos on the outside?
39
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Mr. Runke — On the outside.
Chairperson Wilcox- As well?
Mr. Runke — Yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox - Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt, but I wanted everyone to hear
what was inside that building right now. Lead paint?
Mr. Runke — There is probably lead paint
for lead.
The waste will be classified prior to disposal
Eric Dousharm, Eisenbach & Ruhnke Engineering
With the document that you received that is a valid survey, is a requirement of the State
prior to the demolition in most towns for a demolition permit, but the State requires that
the regulation be performed and what that involves is a search of all the hazardous
materials we can find, asbestos related ... what is required in the regulations for asbestos
materials and other hazards, PCB, lighting.
Mr. Runke — At this point we have the survey that identifies everything and where it is.
We plan to remove everything that we need to before demolition in accordance with
regulations, dispose of every item in accordance with regulations.
Chairperson Wilcox — Have you walked inside of the building, either one of you?
Mr, Runke — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — What inside is in good shape right now?
Mr. Runke — Some steel structure, maybe.
Mr. Dousharm = There is not too much of the building... if you were to walk through the
building, many of the floor tiles are lifting, the walls are peeling, the general condition of
the building is extremely poor. As they said, it has been through a lot of freeze thaw
cycles. Going around the building, a lot of the materials are laying down.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann — Just to follow up on that. Are those conditions true
everywhere in the building or is it only on certain floors or certain parts of the building?
Mr. Runke— It is basically in a state of disrepair, the entire building is. The walls, floors,
ceilings. The structure is actually being sacrificed because. of decay in some areas,
according to the fire marshal's report.
.X
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — I read something that was here tonight, which indicated
there were some leakage in the roof that made be think that maybe most of the damage
is water damage on the upper floor and it is not necessarily all the way through. Is that
right?
Mr. Dousharm — The majority of the damage is not always .necessarily water damage.
A significant portion of the building has been affected by leakage, condensation, and the
paint peeling on the walls. I've walked it several times and there are not many areas
that I would consider. occupiable at this time. If you walk through the building, there is
water damage. The water damage is obvious. The rest of the damage is just over a
long period of time with warping of the materials on the floor and ceiling. It's the result
of just letting go over a period of time. That's pretty much what we see.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, I am glad that the hospital wants to take some action
with an abandoned and deteriorating building. It looks like the plans for what will be
there subsequently will be very specific.
Chairperson Wilcox — We are all set. Peter, are you coming back? Okay. Thank you
gentlemen.
Mr. Trowbridge — I just ... there is rather specific disposal strategy for materials that have
been discussed. The florescent light bulbs will go to one location. Various materials go
to others. At this point, the project is out to bid and we won't know who the successful
bidder is. There are two off site locations for ,disposal,. Seneca Meadows or Painted
Post. So at this point we don't know which direction the successful contractor will go in,
but when we come back for preliminary and final site plan approval, we. will have a
successful contractor and will understand what the disposal route is going to be. I know
there is concern..about truck traffic and .routing. We really can't speak to that tonight
until we know exactly what the disposal site will be.
There were also conversations about the relationship between the hospital site
and the Black Diamond Trail. And as most of you know, a roadway that will be used as
a haul road because it is hard, on site disposal. I think most of you being as part of the
old steam plant for the sanatorium. It was demolished and most of the materials
currently are on site and we are.. going to use that haul road and that location for
disposal of other hard materials from the building as well. As related to that and again,
all of that site will be restored, the landscape restored once we have materials disposed
of. There will be a landscape cover and landscape restoration of that site. However,
there was a conversation about access down to the potential Black Diamond Trail..
Once again, the hospital staff and the hospital use a set of trail. networks that come off
of the current hospital out to where it legally... those trail networks that the hospital uses,
staff uses, and maintains. It is probably a better connection down at the Black Diamond .
Trail than necessarily through this particular site.
A couple other issues, this project will not generate any new traffic other than
construction traffic during a very specific period of demolition. There, also, I think you
41
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
saw the letter from SHPO, State Historic Preservation Office. This building was
assessed with many of the buildings in and around the area at various times and
because of alteration and condition SHPO feels that this cannot be a designated
building. They go on to say that their opinion or their decision is not reversible. Never
has SHPO been so definitive about a building and its condition and its disposition.
And just a few other issues. Our L201 plan does show grading and landscaping
as part of the packet. As I said, I think the other submissions we intend to provide will
subsequently be provided. The disposal sites and truck routing, those. will all be
answered for preliminary.
Chairperson Wilcox — We don't have any grading plans down near the old steam plant...
Mr. Trowbridge — No. That would be something that we will need to provide
subsequently.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay.
Board Member Mitrano - Looks good.
Chairperson Wilcox — I know at least one member of the public wants to make a
comment, so Eva, go ahead.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have some questions about the incinerator ash.. You
mention on page 7 of the document that we got from you that there is hazardous waste
in the incinerator ash and I wanted to know which incinerator you were talking about
here. Is it the current heating plant, which I assume will remain that produces that?
Mr. Runke - No. It is the old incinerator that. is abandoned in the building.
Board Member Hoffmann — There is an incinerator in the building?
Mr. Runke — There used to be, yes., A small one.
Board Member Hoffmann — I see.
Mr. Runke — That has ash in it classified as hazardous waste. It will be part of the initial
cleanup and disposal.
Board Member Hoffmann — Now related to that, I wanted to ask about the former
heating plant, the really. old one that is further down towards the lake, which has been
taken down and buried on the site. What kind of fuel was used to heat there? Does
anybody know?
Mr. Walker - It was coal fire.
42
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. I thought probably that it would be.
Chairperson Wilcox "- Right near the train track to supply coal.
Board Member Thayer — Sort of makes sense.
Board Member Hoffmann — Now my question has to do with what happened. What
happened to the hazardous waste there? Was it just buried on the site because there
must have been some in that old building, too and there all kinds of different pollutants
in incinerator ash depending on where the coal came from? There can be cadmium
and there can be selenium and all kinds of things like that and if it is buried on that site,
has that site been tested or will it be tested so that we don't just potentially put more
stuff on top and then it all leaches underground to the lake where we get our drinking
water.
Mr. Runke — I don't know if there have been any studies done on that site yet. I do
know that when the buildings are demolished in the past, they would use most of the
coal and the ash would be cleaned on a regular basis during the operation. So to think
that there would be a significant amount of ash there to cause a problem would be...l
don't think so.
Board Member Hoffmann — Will that site be tested as part of this whole operation of
perhaps using that as a dumping ground for fill from the Biggs building?
Mr. Runke — There are no plans for that
Board Member Hoffmann — I think that would be a good idea.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me try this. Peter, can you guys go back and find plans or
specifications for when the old steam plant was taken down? I'm countering Eva a little
bit and he's where I'm countering. If you had plans that said, we're going to this. We're
going to do that, then do we test or don't we test and I'm thinking to myself, well, if you
come back to us in a month or two, we go through the preliminary site plan, the final site
plan, you go out and you perform... nobody's going to go out and ask you to test the soil
to make sure that you did it. There are going to be other procedures. There are going
to be other legal requirements in place that force you to follow the rules. So I am
wondering if you have got something or Noel back there, you know, .down the bowels of
the hospital or...
Board Member Mitrano — Is this all on the same tax parcel that we are talking about
here?
Chairperson Wilcox — They are dumping on that site. They are planning to put more fill
on that site.
43
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Mr. Trowbridge — There are several tax parcels. As you can see the diagram, there are
various parcels.
Chairperson Wilcox Noel, just wanted to... name and address.
Noel Desch, Cayuga Medical Center Board Member
Just very briefly, I am very sure ... for most of its life as you probably recall, the ash
would have been spread on our highways by the highway department. So I don't think
there is very much left on site.
Mr. Walker — I have „a slight insight into this. I observed most of the demolition of that
building and I don't think there were detailed plans other than they were going to knock.
it down and bury. In observing the site, I did not see big piles of ash. There were no
major accumulations of ash or anything in the building. When they knocked the
chimney down with dynamite, it fell in a nice... it fell just like a tree. It was pretty
interesting and everything fell into the main building area and then was just covered up
and covered with soil.
Chairperson Wilcox Now what we are proposing to do is put more hard fill there and
then...
Mr. Walker — And then over the top of it.
Chairperson Wilcox And then over the top of it and then put whatever appropriate
layer of fill or dirt.
Mr. Trowbridge — Under the current procedures will all comply with all the State
requirements. I am not sure what the ability is to mediate any conditions on site. There
are probably other conditions on site as well that are not necessarily directly related to
the demolition of the heating plant. I mean to the extent to which we have records other
than oral histories, I am not sure what we will be able to find, but we certainly could look
and see if the County of anyone had anything more than was transmitted tonight by
Noel or Dan.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Peter.
Mr. Ranke — As part of our proposal to put the fill in the area, we were going to get an
agreement from DEC, Environmental Conservation, that they agree with us and concur
and allow us to dump it over there.
Board Member Hoffmann — Have you gotten that or are you planning to get it?
Mr. Ranke — Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, since they are talking about ash which is remaining in
the incinerator in the building and they are talking about cleaning out that, presumably
..
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
there might have been remnants of maybe not just ash, loose ash, but build -up inside
the chimney in this old steam plant, too, and therefore remnants in what fell into the
ground there. I just think it would be a good idea to find out what is there before it is
covered up because the ground there is such that I suspect, I don't know this because
am not knowledgeable in that area, but I suspect it is possible that the water will leach
through this ground, through shale and through soil and get into the lake and that is just
such a potentially dangerous situation that it is better to check it before burying it.
Mr. Ranke — If we get approval from the DEC to use the area for fill...
Board Member Hoffmann — Pardon? Could you say that again?
Mr. Ranke — We need approval to use that area for landfilling from the DEC. Would that
be considered acceptance from the Planning Department?
Board Member. Mitrano
— If we
knew more
about what the DEC does in order to provide
that approval maybe we
could
answer that
question.
Chairperson - Wilcox Well said.
Board Member Conneman — Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox — So it might be sufficient. We would want to know more about
what their criteria are. Are we all set?
Board Member Thayer —Yeah.
Board Member Talty - What happens to the ash after it. has been hauled away in a 55-
gallon drum? Apparently before they used to use it on our roads. What happens to it
now?
Mr. Ranke — In this case there are heavy metal that are leachable. If they are put into a
landfill, they will leach out. They will stabilize it through mixing it with concrete.
Board Member Talty — So do they bury the ash in the drum in the concrete? Is that
what you are saying?
Mr. Ranke - I'm not sure how. It goes through a processing plant and they will mix it
with other wastes of the same characteristics and then stabilize it
Mr. Dousharm — I think just a little clarification. I think that the ash that we are talking
about from the hospital is from the waste and materials of waste that was used by
the ... (not audible) ... possibly things of that: nature. The ash that you are referring to in
steam plant is for heating. The types of materials and hazards that are generated, I
believe, from both of those would be different. Also the ash that would be in this
building that we are proposing to demo was so insignificant amounts, still requires some
45
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
treatment, but we may be talking about a 5 gallon pail of materials as opposed to 55
gallon drums. That is about as much material is left in there. It is really minimal
material. It is a very small incinerator that was used to take care of those wastes.
Mr. Ranke — I have done investigations on a lot of properties that have been built in the
past and I find ash in ground on most all of them, especially urban areas and the. tests
that come back shows it doesn't cause an impact in the soil. It raises some levels, but
the leachable levels are really insignificant. So it is not an uncommon situation to find
ash in fill material, but it doesn't really cause a problem.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, if you could show us that that would help.
Chairperson Wilcox - We all set? Gentlemen, do you want to take a seat? Ladies and
gentlemen, even though this is not a public hearing we try to give everybody a chance
to address the board. Should and if the hospital at some point comes back before this
board for preliminary and final approval and at such time there will be public hearings,
but if you would like to speak this evening, Mr. Meigs has indicated a desire. I'll let.him
go first and if someone else wishes to speak on this particular agenda item I will give
you an opportunity as well.
Jonathan Meigs, 235 Culver Road
I am Jon Meigs. My home is.at 235 Culver Road. I have been a resident of the City
and Town of Ithaca for most of the last 51+ years. I was surprised to learn just recently
about this proposal to demolish the Biggs complex. To me as a resident of the City and
Town of Ithaca for such a long time and as an architect, city planner and the aficionado
of historic ... (not audible) ... the Herman Biggs Memorial TB Sanatorium... and especially
this front portion featuring a sort of gothic style tower and associated. out buildings has
constituted an iconic part of the rich architectural heritage of Tompkins County.
Architecturally it is related to the similar Baker Dorms across the lake at Cornell's west
campus as well as the Fingerlakes School of Massage and other buildings just down
Route 96.
Historically it° represents and reflects the period in our national life when
institutions strove to inspire public trust and confidence by building solidly and in time
honored forms. Further, its historic importance as the remainder of healthcare
institution that served the public welfare should not be overlooked when considering its.
future fate. Notwithstanding the fact that the State's historic preservation office has.for
whatever reasons chosen to write the Biggs complex off that is not a conclusive end to
the story. I most strongly urge you, the Planning Board, to recognize the complex's
longstanding significance and importance to the local community, to the Town of Ithaca
and Tompkins County and New York State as well as the healthcare profession by
encouraging the Cayuga Medical Center not to destroy this symbol of its and our
heritage, but instead to seriously commit to a renewed effort to save at least the most
striking portions remaining in this once sprawling complex. I recognize that some such
effort has been made in the past and that the application before the board details
problems that saving the entire remaining complex would entail, but I would suggest
46
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
that perhaps these constraints might not be so prohibitive if the aim were to convert only
the tower and flanking structures of the remaining complex, to an adaptive reuse.
Something that would benefit employment in the local economy.
If such an effort were successful, we in the Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County and
the medical community would have an attractive reminder of local history and of the
institution of our medical practice of the time strove to return to health, many who were
stricken by perhaps the most serious and widespread disease of its era. It would be
something tangible to link us to that important history. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox. -Thank you. Would anybody else like to make a comment tonight?
Doria Higgins, 2 Hillcrest Drive
I didn't come prepared to say anything. Unfortunately these hearing aides ring and I
can't really respond to what was said, but one of the questions I made when I came into
the hospital group is why are they destroying this building. And I was told that it was in
such bad condition, so if it is in a condition.,. but having worked _there ... :in the old days
when I came to Ithaca.-the mental health clinic was in the old hospital. So l have some
fondness for it. So I didn't realize that Mr. Meigs was going to speak in support of it, but
I, do think that just in terms of economics in this fine world that there should be good
reason for.destroying it as the building itself got functioning satisfactory. Maybe you
have given that. That is why I was so embarrassed to talk because I couldn't hear what
was being said. That is all I want to say. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Doria. Anybody else? All right. Peter, where are you
back there? You have everything you need from us this evening? Questions?
Feedback? Okay. All set over here on staff side? Eva? Go ahead.
Board Member Hoffmann — I like the suggestion that Jon Meigs had of saving part of the
building, the part which faces the front and which is the part that was built to look more
impressive. If that could be.done, because the other thing that I noticed in the handout
that we got from the fire department, I think it was, from Thomas Parsons, assistant fire
chief.. He says in a couple of places that the building is structurally sound still, even
though it has a number of problems that have appeared because it hasn't been
maintained and if that front part that Jon_ Meigs mentioned is still structurally sound,
maybe that could be saved. I think that is a very nice idea, actually. I am also .
interested in historic preservation.
Mr. Trowbridge — I am not sure that the folks from the fire department were really in a
position to make a determination on the structural soundness. I think they were mostly
responding to safety. or firefighters in the building.
Board Member Howe But also in the letter that we got from Eisenbach it does say that
the building was structurally sound so even the engineers say that it is structurally
sound. I concur with Eva. It would be nice, also.
47
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Peter, can you look at it? Thank you.
Board Member Talty Also in the letter from the fire department they indicate very
specifically that the and I quote, "the Ithaca Fire Department would be supportive of
demolition ". Okay? I just want to make sure that we are not excluding any part of the
letter.
Chairperson Wilcox — We need to do one piece of...
Board Member Hoffmann — Maybe we could give a copy of this letter to the applicants.
Chairperson Wilcox - I am sure that they have a copy.
Board Member Thayer — I'll move the resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. - We have such a-large number of people of here; I just
don't want anybody to think that we are doing something underhanded so we have one
resolution to deal with, with regard to this.
Chairperson Wilcox reads the resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Larry, seconded by the Chair.
Mr. Kanter — And one correction if I could, in the first resolved where it says coordinate
the environmental review of the proposed site plan approval for the proposed
abatement, if we could scratch the words of the proposed site plan approval, although it
is a site plan approval, we are doing a review of the proposed abatement and demolition
project so we are coordinating the review of the overall project. So if you could just
scratch of the proposed .site plan approval.
Chairperson Wilcox — Larry and I are fine.
Board votes on motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -025: Lead A_gency Designation, Biggs B
Demolition, Tax Parcel No's. 24 -3 -2.24 and 24- 34.21. 301 Harris B. Dates Di
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox.
WHEREAS.
1. The Town of Ithaca. Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the
proposed demolition of the Biggs Building located at 301 Harris B. Dates Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24-3 -2.24 and 24 -3 -2.21, Planned Development
Zone No. 3 and Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves removing
the entire building, consisting of 167,000 +A square feet on multiple floors, and
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
demolition of some existing site improvements such as driveways, walks, curbs;
and lighting. The site will be graded and landscaped as lawn and meadow. The
project also includes disposing of some of the hard fill on an adjacent property
owned by the Cayuga Medical Center, which will be covered and seeded as
meadow. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Peter J.
Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent, and
2. The proposed demolition, which requires site plan approval by the Planning
Board, is a Type I action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act,
6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code regarding
Environmental Quality Review because the proposal involves the demolition of a
non - residential facility with more than 25,000 square feet of gross. floor area
(Section 14&5.C.4 Town of Ithaca Code), and
3. A report regarding "Site Plan Review: Biggs Building Abatement and Demolition"
(February, 2006) and a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, has been
submitted by the applicant for the above - described action,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead
agency to coordinate the environmental review for the proposed abatement and
demolition project, as described above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests
agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said
the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty da,
of the involved agencies, said notification having been
interested agencies in a letter dated February 6, 2006.
A vote on the Motion resulted as follows:
the concurrence of all involved
concurrence to be received by
Vs from the date. of notification
sent to potential involved and
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe,. Talty.
NAYS: None.
The Motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 9:15 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed
rezoning of a portion of land between Taughannock Boulevard and Trumansburg
Road from Low Density Residential Zone to Conservation Zone.
Chairperson Wilcox Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for being patient.
I •
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 9:18 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - We have been provided of a draft of the proposed local law. We
have been provided with a draft and a revised draft of a proposed resolution. When we
came in this evening, there was a letter from Rosalind and Salvatore Grippi of Orchard
Hill Road dated 2/21/06. Hopefully you have all had a chance to read that. And of
course we have the Indian Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area Report
prepared by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department.
Do you or Jon wish to make any sort of statement? I mean I noticed you just set
the maps up so is that for just in case you need them?
Ms. Ritter — Yeah. Whatever your preference is.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions?
Board Member Mitrano - Let's open it up..
Board Member Howe— I just have a question. Since we approved the revised zoning
not too long ago, why didn't this get sort of embedded with that?
Mr. Kanter = Because it really involved a little bit more work than what we were able to
do at that point and I think when we did the revised zoning we clearly indicated that
there would be a couple of .other Conservation Zones, which would be this one and the
Coy Glen zone, which we will be working on soon, which we are already working on.
So it just took more time and it actually took a few months to put that report together
that Sue was basically responsible for. It also took quite a bit of work with the
Conservation Board and the Codes and Ordinances Committee.
Chairperson Wilcox - We all set at this point? Ladies and gentlemen, this is a public
hearing. If you have been sitting here patiently you are aware that. we ask for a name
and address. We ask that you stay on topic so that we can give an opportunity for
everyone to speak. If you'll raise your hand, I'll sort of just call on you in random order
and given you an opportunity to express your thoughts this evening. Doria, you are first.
Ms. Higgins — One concern that I have as a resident on Hillcrest Drive is that when I
moved there in 1976, 1 had the most magnificent view the world has seen. I could see
the lake all the way up to Lansing. Now because the trees have grown up I cannot see
anything except for directly in front of Stewart Park. So I would be, oddly enough, in
favor of a little development to cut down a few. trees to open up what was one of the
most wonderful vistas in the entire county. I do not see what protection... I'm just ... any
building that would be done on the land that is there now would still have to be
presented to whatever boards it is to get approval and because of the... (not audible) ... it
will probably be turned down in many cases.. I mean that is probably why there has
been no building to date on that property. So I don't see the purpose of rezoning it.
50
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
The qualities of the land itself protect it from excessive development and I wish that
some of the trees could be cut down so that we could again see the land over there in
Lansing. Probably if you make it a Conservation Zone that will never happen. Thank
you very much.
Warren Allmon, PRI
I just wanted to express on the behalf of PRI our full support of this rezoning. The
property immediately behind us is part of this property and not only are we concerned
from our own proximity basis in terms of development that might occur there, as you all
know we are completely out of space on our site. We are right at the setback so
everything that happens around us there is no buffer around us. So we are acutely
concerned about any development that might take place immediately to our east, but
beyond that, though, that space is the.only space that conceivably in the future could be
used for educational program space for the Museum of the Earth. Any kind of
significant development on the easternmost part of the site, it does have a gorge, it
does have some streams on it, would render that impossible. Sue has made me aware
that the Conservation Zoning would probably not affect the piece of property that abuts
our property, which is the most buildable, unfortunately. So we understand that zoning
may not be the solution to all of our concerns, but we are absolutely supportive of this
rezoning and we are very concerned about the prospects of significant development on
that property.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, sir. Sir?
Ed Hart, Updike Road, Town of Danby
I am so glad to hear Warren Allmon tell about this property, this area. I think it really
should be rezoned because I happen...I used to be an ophthalmologist and was in a
dark room for most of my life. I practiced for about 40 years and now I am free: So I
hike a lot and I bike 'a lot. I have hiked this area and I have hiked there a lot. This is a
very unique area. You go around all the other lakes, Skaneateles, Canandaigua,
Owasso, there is no place else where you can walk close to the lake, walk. over the
beautiful gorges and the growth that is on the side of the Black Diamond Trail is
especially nice and you don't want to go along and have a nice view or enjoy the flowers
or the birds or whatever and all of sudden it comes to a stop. Right now it is pristine
and I think it is a forward move for us to protect it. There is no place else. The other
side of the lake you can't do. This is one of the last pristine parts of a lake that you can
really enjoy. The kids will grow up to appreciate this. All generations will appreciate
saving this land. The only way to save it is to rezone it. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox' Thank you, sir. You want to hold on for a second. I just want to
make sure everybody is aware of what conservation zoning is. It would restrict the
number of lots that a current lot could be subdivided into equal to the number of acres
divided by 7. So if you own, lets make the arithmetic easy, if you own a 49 acre piece of
land in this Conservation Zone that would give you the right to have 7 lots. Now that
doesn't mean 7 7 -acre lots because this board, I'm sure, would require that those 7 lots
be clustered maybe as. 2 acre lots in one corner where it is most buildable leaving 35
51
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
acres open. So it doesn't remove the potential for... it doesn't .remove all buildings,
residential buildings from what could potentially be rezoned residential,. but it certainly
restricts it and limits it and concentrates it in certain areas. Just to make sure that we
are all aware. Thank you.
Krys Cail, 3110 Dubois Road
I live at 3110 Dubois Road and that would be the third property to the north of the
proposed area into the Town of Ulysses. We own 24 acres there that also contain part
of the continuous Unique Natural Area. We are on the opposite side of another Unique
Natural Area that is just to the north of where yours ends. That is particularly an area
with geological special characteristics that are really rare. I think that...I first became
interested in seeing this land treated with some kind of conservation consideration
before the Black Diamond Trail property was purchased by the State. That was a long
time ago. I had fond hopes of eventually being able to bike there, but that was
before... (not audible) ... so that has been a long time coming. When I first got a hold of
Sue Ritter about it, it,was interesting that you put it up... (not audible)... and she assured
me that they would get to it.
It is a very unique area and I think a lot of folks don't realize that because there is
not good public access there. When I first moved here, no, I was actually with folks
from the power and "electric company and you could drive it at that time and they did.
There has been a lot of work done by the State in terms of clearing the area so that
there is now better views back into some of the spaces, but as the gentleman before
mentioned, it is very unusual to be able to see that kind of the sheer, steep slope with
so many little gorglets running through it. It is not something that is available elsewhere
in the area and I think it is a really valuable tourist asset particularly. I think that there
are a lot of positive aspects, not just from recreation, but from an economic
development kind of asset as well. I am particularly happy that this is happening. It
seems very appropriate and all of the information seems very well-done and -1 just
wanted you folks to know that I have contacted folks who are on the Town Board for the
Town of. Ulysses and suggested that perhaps once you folks have. gone through the
process of actually enacting this, which I hope happens, that they could protect that
extension further and .make it as far as the portion of that land that I own. I would like to
see that happen.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else?
Joe Burns, 1089 Taughannock Boulevard
I live at 1089 Taughannock Boulevard, which is one of the northeast segments of, the
Conservation Zone. 1 have a tiny piece of property there and with some embarrassment
I admit that I was unaware of the Town's long -term plan for this area and I appreciate
the foresight that you have had to protect the area:. This is, as you know, a very narrow
strip of quite little area. I think we are in a fortunate position here because we had
several test cases that have occurred within this area to show us what would happen if
we allowed development. As many of you are aware of, there is now a property built on
this slot, which is just an abomination to be quite honest. It has destroyed the beautiful
52
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
area. When we get visitors who haven't visited us for a while they say what has
happened to that piece of property and I don't want them to say that about the rest of
the land along that strip. At the same time, we also see an analysis on the opposite
side of the lake. I have lived there for 40 years and on the opposite side of the lake
there is now lots of development. The area, which was pristine, which looked like. the
lake did back centuries ago no longer, looks like that. I think it would be a shame if the
west side of the lake ended up in the same position. It seems to me we have to ask
ourselves, is the current proposal good for the present owners of the property. I would
say most owners of that property would be in favor of what you are planning to do. I
think that most of the future residents of the Town, especially those who will be using
the Black Diamond Trail, would appreciate it if you make this a Conservation Zone. I
also think that the local plants, trees, and soil will appreciate it if you will keep this
pristine property.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, sir. Who wants to be next? Sir, back in the corner.
Tom Myers, 3110 Dubois Road
I live on 3110 Dubois Road and I have done quite a bit of hiking in the area of this
conservation, district and I am really, really happy you guys are thinking about doing
something to help the soil out. I have .lots of anecdotal experience with what can
happen there. The soil is quite fragile. It is shale type soils where there really is not a
whole lot supporting' that. Back 8 or .10 years ago, a developer bought some property
below Orchard Hill. It comes down the hill and ends in this area and proceeded to
layout plots, they are probably a 1.5 to 2.0 acres, having no concern whatsoever about
the lay of the land and I looked at a couple of site maps. There were small gorges,
drainage swales and there had been some equipment there that tore up the ground
pretty well and it wasn't excavation equipment. It was some sort of large machinery that
could get through there and it took many years just for that damage to become no so
apparent. So the area does have quite fragile soils and its really good to see somebody
have some forethought about requiring people who are developing it to have larger
areas so the impact is reduced. That would be really wonderful in my book and I do
think the negative impacts of not thinking about it ... the house that was mentioned
before on 89, outside looking ugly, which is personally for me, but the trouble that they
had with the erosion there was very present. Whenever there was a large rain, the silt
and mud would break through the silt fencing that they had and end up on Route 89 and
it just underscored how much care you have to have in making sure stuff like that does
not happen. So, way to go guys.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Sir, in the back.
Peter Rogers, 1221 Trumansburg Road
I own some property at 1231 Trumansburg Road and I am in between the nursing home
and the church. Has anyone spoken against this.rezoning yet?
Chairperson Wilcox - Has anybody spoken against it? Not this evening.
53
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Mr. Rogers — It doesn't appear that anyone is and I always think there should be
another side to something. The people that are there are happy. New construction and
new development is fine as long as it is not next to me or in my back yard. I think that at
this point to rezone that is overkill. It seems like you have the authority to take it case
by case. I don't think there has been a lot of development there. I am familiar... my son
and I walk the old railroad bed. There is not an awful lot of land there that is conducive
to redevelopment. In fact, there are a couple of large parcels of land, the one in back of
me and then I think a couple north. I am surprised that someone isn't here to represent
them. It seems like they would have a negative interest. I have no ax to grind either
way. I just think that if you make a decision, it seems like this rezoning is going to take
a lot of time and a lot of effort. It is not a simple thing and maybe this time it is overkill.
That is all that I want to say about that I guess. I guess that is it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, sir. Would someone else like to speak this evening?
Richard Berggren, 119 Williams Glenn Road
I own one of the 17 parcels. I own probably the least developable piece of the whole
range of properties there. Personally I don't think that this conservation zone is the way
to go. We have a conservation easement for some of the farms... (not audible) ... if you
want to keep it in the conservation area, which I think we are all willing to go for. But
basically I feel right now there are a lot of things that the Planning Board hasn't taken
into consideration. As you go down across the octopus bridge you can see that they
have an extra lane that goes off to nowhere. Now that lane, the DOT had intended, had
brought Route 96 ... extended it out as a shortcut eventually. I think the fact that it was a
feasible thing. Now the Town had a previous times have mentioned a feeder route
coming down from the hospital down to the old airport. Now I think that is still a
possibility because there is enough traffic on Cliff Street. I think these are things that
the board should consider before they go ahead and enact the conservation area.
Holcomb owns 24 acres and I own 17, the rest of the lots are small and it won't
make much difference. I like to see the woods and I enjoy the woods and trees. I do
love the trees. I think that the conservation easement is a possibility. This Holcomb
has done a lot of work next to my property. I don't think it would be quite fair for the
Town to pull it out from underneath him. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir. Anybody else?
Mark Macenas, 188 Westhaven Road
I come to you as a lifelong resident of the Town and an informal representative of
friends who own 105 acres that is encompassed in your proposed rezoning.
Chairperson Wilcox — Before you begin, you had a business relationship with this group,
right?
Mr. Macenas — I do.
l•A
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — You still do.
Mr. Macenas — Informal.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you here on their behalf?
Mr. Macenas — They have asked me to come to this meeting and speak, yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Go ahead.
Mr. Macenas — I would encourage the board and the community to perhaps not take
what might be seen as perhaps a lesser version or type of eminent domain. I feel that
this is, we feel that this is sort of a heavy- handed effort. I would like to say that the
group that owns this 105 acres would like to work with its neighbors and community to
come to some arrangement that could benefit everyone; not that everyone is going to
get 100% of everything they want, but everybody could have a good round of what they
want. Perhaps rather than say well, lets take this approach of rezoning, which has
these problems, lets try to work with what is already there and people like PRI, you
know, there is probably something there; a compromise there that we can scratch each
other's back and have everybody happy. I would say that the group would like to invite
all of its neighbors to the table and say, hey, what would you like to see and how can we
help each other rather than lets just go to war here and take a very strong approach to
addressing a situation that everybody is a little uncomfortable with because people don't
know each other that well. So I guess lets try to be better neighbors, is the message
and friendly neighbors as well. Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Mark
microphone as they say ?.
Someone else Like to step up to the
John Abel, 1001 Taughannock Boulevard
I live at 1001 Taughannock Boulevard and we have lived there for 29 years now.
would.like to speak in favor of rezoning to conservation district. I think that because this
is a Unique Natural Area that the Town should do everything possible to help foster and
preserve this portion of the landscape. We have had the experience of just a short
ways south of where we live, in the 900- block, where Mr. Petucci has taken a piece of
land and put a house on it on the west side of Route 89. In addition, he apparently owns
a strip along that place and has cut down quite a number of trees, left many trees in the
creeks that have fallen, including the creek that runs down through our property. We
worry about if there is going to be extra erosion because of this. I think there is also
plant life there that needs conservation. And I think this future resource, it is a current
resource, but I think the future will be even more utilized with the Black Diamond Trail. I
also think that the Town should go as far as possible in trying to regulate how drainage
and other things are affected by. any development that is allowed within this district.
Chairperson Wilcox — Noel, are you going to represent the hospital?
55
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Mr. Desch — You have already heard from the hospital. The hospital is in favor of it with
certain conditions.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody else? Then I will close the public hearing at 9:45 p.m.
Thank you all very much. Before we get to any discussion or a vote, for those who may
not be familiar with the process, the Planning Board this evening has been asked by the
Town Board to provide a recommendation. We will take a vote and provide that
recommendation. The Town Board has at their first meeting in March, I believe, will
then set a public hearing for the rezoning. Said public hearing would be at their meeting
in April, probably.
Mr. Kanter — If it is April, I think it is April 10th
Chairperson Wilcox — Right now I would speculate that April 10th would be the Town
Board's public hearing for actually rezoning the property or it will be the earliest date for
the public hearing. Whether they make a decision that night or defer it to another
meeting, I don't know. But again, this board has been asked for a recommendation.
Questions? I want to make sure we all. know what is going on.
Board Member Thayer — What did happen to that proposal at time of a highway up
the old Black Diamond Trail?
Mr. Kanter — It was I abandoned, to put it politely and there is little to no chance that
whatsoever that a new one would ever be brought up again, mainly because of the
environmental characteristics of that site, of that general area. We actually talked about
that in our Transportation Committee and as part of our transportation planning and you
will not find that type of a road, connector road, in the transportation plan or on the
Town's proposed additional map.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do I understand that State Parks has acquired part of the form
Lehigh Valley railroad right -of -way?
Ms. Ritter — Yes. Part of it. Not the whole section.
Chairperson Wilcox — I don't think they would be inclined to sell it to DOT; would they? I
don't know if they legally could. It would be interesting if they even legally could. I was
thinking about the City and the issues with the City trying to take designated parkland
and deparking it.
Attorney Barney — The State can do things that cities and towns can't do.
Board Member Thayer — That road couldn't happen with the new zoning, correct?
Mr. Kanter — It actually could. If there was support for a road, it really doesn't matter
what the zoning is per se. It's just that...
56
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Board Member Thayer — I'm looking 50 years ahead.
Mr. Kanter — I mean there is nothing in the Conservation Zone that would preclude that
kind of a road necessarily, but it is pretty steep.
Chairperson Wilcox = Especially at that end.
Mr. Kanter — That is what precludes a road. The topography and the natural
characteristics of the site.
Chairperson Wilcox — If I'm not mistaken, some of the steeper slopes, 20, maybe
upwards of 25% are on the eastern side near the Black Diamond Trail.
Ms. Ritter — All along the Black Diamond Trail those are going to be the steepest slopes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Which makes it even more difficult to build through there where
you have exposed shale, for.example, because of the erodable soils.
Board Member Conneman — Pictures are worth 1,000 words. If you look at figure 3 on
page 3 of the material that we have, it seems to me that that would be a shame to do
anything with that area or the streams running into the lake. It is just a marvelous
picture.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. It actually might be to the Town's advantage that there are
at this present time only 4 significant landowners.
Board Member Conneman — And I have to agree that whoever, I guess it was John Abel
who talked about how bad that house was on the west side of the lake. I have to say no
more. It's just bad.
Chairperson Wilcox - Its truly unfortunate.
Board Member Conneman — Its just too bad because I think that when that was
approved, not by us, but when that was approved no one thought that was going to
happen. No one thought they were going to cut down .all the trees. I think there are
solutions for the hospital also. My personal feeling is that the hospital could very easily
combine all of their parcels into one, including the hospital, and make it one big area
that they control .and make it possible for the hospital to do something, but I doubt
because the State would have to approve that that hospital is going to change much in
the next 25, 307 40 years. I just find that difficult to believe. I know a lot about eminent
domain because I taught the farmers appraisal course at Cornell for 20 years and I don't
consider conservation zones to be eminent domain by any stretch of the imagination. It
is a pristine site. That is all I have to say.
Chairperson Wilcox — We all don't have to make a statement, but go ahead.
57
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to say that from everything that I have heard and
that I have read in all the materials that we have had over the years and .I have been on
the Conservation Board for a number of years and we have talked about all the different
conservation zones that we have already established and that we are working on. From
all of that, I really feel nothing but support for wanting to create this protected area in the
Town.
Board Member Howe — I am in support of it.
Board Member Thayer — I would agree with it
excellent. Super job.,
Board Member Talty — I concur.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, Sue
the resolution.
Board Member Howe — Seconded
I would also like to say that this report is
I, too, think it is a wonderful idea. I would move
Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Rod Howe. We had some revisions in front of us
when we came in, in red. They caught the only revision I wanted to make, which was to
note that the report was prepared by the Planning Department.
Chairperson Wilcox reads resolution for the public.
Board votes on the motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -026: Recommendation to the Town Board Re_garding a
Proposed Local Law to Amend the Town of Ithaca Zonin_g Ordinance (Chapter 270
of the Town of Ithaca Code) and the Official Zonin_g Map To Rezone Certain Lands
Along and West of Taughannock Boulevard from Low Density Residential Zone to
Conservation Zone
MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Howe.
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Comprehensive Plan (1993) recommends protection for
environmentally sensitive and unique natural areas in the Town, and has indicated on a
map entitled "Anticipated Land Use Patterns" that a portion of land along and west of
Taughannock Boulevard from the City of Ithaca municipal boundary to the Town of
Ulysses municipal boundary should be considered for Conservation /Open Space, and.
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan (1997, )
recommends Conservation Zoning as a means to protect lands with steep slopes,
gorges and ravines, key stream corridors, and other significant natural areas, and the
Plan includes a map entitled 'Potential Zoning for Open Space and Purchase of
Development Rights Target Areas, If that identifies an area along and west of
WOO
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
Taughannock Boulevard from the City of Ithaca municipal boundary to the Town of
Ulysses municipal boundary, as "recommended for conservation zoning'; and
WHEREAS, the Unique Natural Area Inventory of Tompkins County (revised January .
2000) conducted by the Tompkins County's Environmental Management Council,
identifies the "Indian: Creek Gorge and Lake Slopes" (Site Code UNA -97), located along
and west of Taughannock Boulevard, as a Unique Natural Area, and describes the area
as a steep lake valley slope cut by stream gorges, having scenic and aesthetic value,
and containing areas with rare and scarce plants, a mature trees stand with trees over
150 years old, as having been identified by the Tompkins.County Greenway Coalition
as serving as a biological corridor, and that "the main threat to the site is from
development'; and
WHEREAS, the Tompkins County Comprehensive Plan (December 2004) identifies the
area to be rezoned as part of the "Lake Shore" area, one of the "Natural Features Focus
Areas'; that the Comprehensive Plan recommends be considered for conservation
efforts to insure protection, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Conservation Board and Codes and Ordinances
Committee have examined the area in and adjacent to the Indian Creek Gorge and
Lake Slopes area, have examined the Planning Department report entitled "Indian
Creek Gorge & Lake Slopes Unique Natural Area — Its Significant Natural Features and
Need for Protection" (1212105), and based on that documentation, have recommended a
delineated area to be re -zoned to a Conservation Zone based on the need to protect the
areas rich ecological and scenic resources, I
and to minimize long -term impacts posed by
development on the steep slopes (and erodible soils), including uncontrolled erosion
and sedimentation, degraded water quality, increased stormwater runoff, and concerns
for slope stability,. and
WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town- of Ithaca in Resolution No. 2006 -050 has
referred the request to rezone the above - described property to the Planning Board for a
recommendation, and
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has held a public hearing on February
21, 2006 to consider comments from the public regarding this rezoning request,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
pursuant to Section 270- 236(H) of.the Town of Ithaca Code, hereby finds that:
1. There is a need for a Conservation Zone in the proposed area to protect valuable
natural resources and environmentally sensitive lands, and
2. The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be
adversely affected by the proposed rezoning, and
59
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
3. The proposed rezoning is in accordance with a Comprehensive Plan of
development of the Town, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby
recommends that the Town Board adopt ,a local law to amend the Town of Ithaca
Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 270 of the Town of Ithaca Code) to rezone Lands Along and
West of Taughannock Boulevard from Low Density Residential Zone to Conservation
Zone, denoted by shading as "Proposed Conservation Zone" on the map attached to
the draft local law.
A vote on the Motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman; Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT.- Mitrano.
The Motion was declared to be carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Board Member Conneman commented that he wanted to have Susan Brock's memo to
the Planning Board attached to the minutes and he thought the minutes should reflect
that. Ms. Coates Whitmore explained the memo was attached to the February 7, 2006
Planning Board original minutes and was indicated as such in.the minutes. The minutes
are filed in the archival vault for permanent retention. Mr. Kanter added that the memo
would also be found in the Planning Department project file.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -027: Approval of Minutes: February 7, 2006
MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Talty.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the February 7,
2006 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said
meeting as presented with corrections.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, :Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mitrano.
The vote on the motion was carried.
sc
Planning Board Minutes
February 21, 2006
Approved
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Kanter gave the board an overview of the items on the March 7, 2006 Planning
Board meeting. He mentioned that there would be room on that agenda if the Board
wanted to discuss the Conifer bikeway. Board Member Hoffmann thought that it would
be helpful to have a` serious bicyclist come in and talk to the board. They should also
look at it from the more casual biker's point of view. Ms. Ritter stated that a multi -use
corridor for bicyclists and pedestrians.
The Planning Board'' discussed the Town Board's request that to report back to them
their decision on the Conifer bikeway. After discussion, the Planning Board determined
that they would report back to the Town Board through the minutes of the board
meeting and adopted resolutions. During this discussion, Chairperson Wilcox stated for
the record that he considered resigning after the January Town Board meeting, but
decided not to after consultation with friends and colleagues.
The Planning Board discussed inappropriate communications from Cornell University
employees.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the February 21, 2006 Planning Board meeting at 10:17
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
karrie Coates r
Deputy Town d-e k
61
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. SEQR Determination: Raponi 4 -Lot Subdivision, Pennsylvania Avenue.
7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Subdivision approval for the proposed 4 -lot
subdivision located on Pennsylvania Avenue northwest of 116 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 54 -7 -2, High Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the existing +/-
29,585 square foot parcel into 3 new building lots with an additional +/- 977 square foot lot to be attached to
an adjacent parcel (725 Hudson St.) located in the City of Ithaca. Mary Raponi, Owner /Applicant.
7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval for the
proposed Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit
independent living and affordable rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a 9.0 +/-
acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1- 13.12 and 27- 1- 13.162, Multiple Residential Zone. The proposal involves construction of a +/- 80,555 'square foot,
three -story building, with an 82- space. parking lot, stormwater facilities, landscaping, and associated utilities.
The project also includes a secondary "emergency only" access drive to NYS Route 79 using Cypress Court
on Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 713.18 and 27 -1- 13.17. The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property are proposed
for future development phases over a period of years depending on market conditions. Conifer Realty, LLC,
Owner /Applicant; John H. Fennessey, Agent,
7:45 P.M. Consideration of a sketch plan review for the proposed demolition of the Biggs Building located at 301
Harris B. Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 24 -3 -2.24 and 24 -3 -2.21, Planned Development
Zone No. 3 and Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves removing the entire building
consisting of 67,000 +/- square feet on multiple floors and demolition of some existing site improvements
such as driveways, walks, curbs, and lighting. The site will be graded and landscaped as lawn and meadow.
The project also includes disposing of some of the hard fill on an adjacent property owned by the Cayuga
Medical Center, which will be covered and seeded as meadow. The Planning Board will also consider a
resolution proposing to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposal.
Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent,
8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of a Recommendation to the Town Board regarding the proposed
rezoning of a portion of land between Taughannock Boulevard and Trumansburg Road from Low Density
Residential Zone to Conservation Zone.
7. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
8. Approval of Minutes: February 7, 2006.
9, Other Business:
10, 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, February 21, 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, February 21, 2006, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, .
N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and
located on Pennsylvania Avenue
Parcel No. 54 -7 -2, High Density F
+/- 29,585 square foot parcel into
be attached to an adjacent parcel
Owner /Applicant.
Final Subdivision approval for the proposed 4 -lot subdivision
northwest of 116 Pennsylvania Avenue, Town of Ithaca Tax
.esidential Zone. The proposal involves subdividing the existing
3 new building lots with an additional +/- 977 square foot lot to
(725 Hudson St.) located in the City of Ithaca. Mary Raponi,
7:15 P.M.. Consideration of Final Subdivision Approval and Final Site Plan Approval . for the proposed
Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community, consisting of a seventy -two (72) unit
independent living and affordable rental project for seniors 55 years of age and older, located on a
9.0 +/- acre parcel north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Tax Parcel
No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.162, Multiple Residential Zone. The proposal involves construction
of a +/- 80,555 square foot, three -story building, with an 82 -space parking lot, stormwater facilities,
landscaping, and associated utilities. The project also includes a secondary "emergency only"
access drive to NYS Route 79 using Cypress Court on Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.18 and 27-1 -
13.17. The remaining +/- 49 acres of the property are proposed for future development phases
over a period of years depending on market conditions. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant;
John H. Fennessey, Agent,
8:15 P.M. Consideration of.a
Recommendation to
the Town Board regarding the proposed
rezoning of a
portion of land
between Taughannock
Boulevard and Trumansburg Road from
Low Density
Residential Zone
to Conservation Zone.
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, February 13, 2006
Publish: Wednesday, February 15, 2006
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: February 21, 2006
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME
PLEASE PRINTADDRESS /AFFILIATION
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 February 21, 2006
commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tioga Street.
Date of Posting
Date of Publication:
February 13, 2006
February 15, 2006
a
0
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS;
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 15th day of February 2006.
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01 CL6052878
Oualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 ®C
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGWIN SHEET
DATE: February 21, 2006
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT -NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION.
O-V%-
a
i
� r
(::� !E�
Cc
j
rA
44rrN aoCA4�
l O�
144 < oi met 0 UV6 h �t
14
^� J
r
I lag
C.
0
1 J
i NAe ,�%/k-,ve /'r
1
Z I � I (c vas f � v � � , 1'zs�►
=5s