Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2006-04-04FILE DATE REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2006 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK PRESENT Fred Wilcox, Chairpersons Eva Hoffmann, Board Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Members Rod Howe, Board Members Kevin Talty, Board Members Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Towns Nicole Tedesco, Planner; Carrie Coates Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk. EXCUSED George Conneman, Board Member; Larry Thayer, Board Members Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner. OTHERS Anton Egner, 408 West State Street; Gordon Nickerson, 522 Sheffield Road; Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design; Rick Couture, Ithaca College; Paul Levesque, HOLT Architects Jack Eisenbach, E &R Engineering; Joe Fitzgerald, CMC. 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 March 27, 2006 and March 29, 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 March 29, 20066 Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by. the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. PERSONS TO BE HEARD Chairperson Wilcox .invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters not on the agenda to come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the Board. 7:06 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed renovations to the Ithaca College Boothroyd Hall located in the southeast corner of the main campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41= 1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED renovation of the existing 70 -unit dormitory including window replacement, chimney reconstruction, fa5ade repairs and painting, existing sidewalk replacement and lawn and planting bed repairs. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and Gentlemen, for the record there is no SEQR review as this is a Type II action, meaning that the State of New York has legislatively determined that this action has no significant environmental impact. Sort of like convenient stores. Vincent, name and address please. Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design Yes. My name is Vincent Nicotra, architect, QPK Design, 450 South Salina Street, Syracuse, NY. Chairperson Wilcox — Are you going to give us a brief presentation? Mr. Nicotra — Just first I would like to point out that I have Rick Couture with me, Director of Physical Plant for Ithaca College, just came to provide support. Basically what we have is an existing 2 -story residence hall constructed about 1988. What we would like to do is take the bed count, which is about 100 beds or 100 students from 100 to 70, which is listed in your application. In doing so, we will be needing to remove and replace some windows on the back side of the building, which if you look at your drawing and go to 13A21, which is the architectural drawing, there are 12 windows that we will need to remove the existing windows and put 2 windows where there used to be one window. That is what is primarily driving the exterior renovation is this necessity to make the rooms on the inside bigger so the students .have more space and thus will be a reduction in the number of students housed in this facility. Additionally on the outside because we are doing these repairs and the removal and replacement of these windows, we will be recoating the exterior synthetic stucco system, which was basically just putting a coat of paint in the most common terms. We are going to be painting it the same color so that for all practical purposes nothing will change on the color of the building. The next item, if you look at your color photographs, I am assuming they are color, the ones that you have. There is a photograph down in the lower part of the page that shows an existing chimney that comes from the boiler room and it is masonry behind the synthetic stucco and you can see that it is in rather bad shape and deteriorating. So we want to demolish that and put up a metal chimney flute, which is shown on that same drawing that you looked at on A2.1, number 14 in the lower left hand corner. And that is just a flute that we will replace that rather unsightly masonry chimney. We are also adding an exterior louver in the laundry facility and replacing an existing louver that is also shown on that same drawing and pointed out and that is on drawing number 11 and drawing number 14 there is a small rectangular louver that will 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED either replace an existing one or be added. Then the remainder of the work is basically what I would consider to be minor site work, which is shown on 44. -8 -1.1 and what we are doing there is, there is some deteriorated sidewalk at the entrance to this building and we are removing it and replacing it like in -kind. There is also some sediment of soil around the corner of the building so we have to remove some bushes that are there now and then we are going to excavate that area and put in some new foundation insulation in because it has become damaged from the soil solvent and basically put the soil back into the original grade and replace the shrubs with the same kind of shrubs that now exist. And we are replacing an electrical transformer on the site and that is the extent of the exterior. Chairperson Wilcox — Is this one of IC's least popular Dorms? Mr. Couture — Yes, it is, as you might guess. Mr. Nicotra — Actually, if I could defend the building a bit, the freshmen housing is in this dormitory. There is actually a lot of love for it after they leave there that the experience is a good one. So they are just trying to provide a little bit more space so that the freshmen programs can work a little bit better with less students and little bit more room for each individual student. Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? Board Member Talty — What color is the flute? Mr. Nicotra — The flute is a metal color, aluminum. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, questions? Board Member Hoffmann — Not really. It's now a 70 -bed dormitory? Mr. Nicotra — No. I'm sorry. It is now a 100 -bed dormitory. That should be proposed 70 bed. It now houses 100 students. When we are done it will house 70 students. Chairperson Wilcox — All set, Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — Nicole, anything from you? Ms. Tedesco — No. Just a couple of small changes to the resolution then. Number 1 to change, as was just mentioned, in the first whereas, "the proposal involves the renovation of... How do we want to phrase that? Existing 100 -unit dormitory? Does 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED that work for you? Okay. Then this is very small. At the end of that whereas add a semicolon and the conjunction and. Chairperson Wilcox — Consistent with the structure for whereas number two. Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one present wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:14 p.m. Board Member Howe moves the resolution and Board Member Hoffmann seconds. Chairperson Wilcox - Susan, any other changes? Ms.. Brock — Paragraph 2 under the resolved clauses, I think it should be subjection to the following conditions. Just make that plural because there is more than one condition. Then on the back page, under the be it further resolved clause, I think the proper code reference is to 270 -67 instead of 62. Chairperson Wilcox — Anybody want to argue the point? That is the correct one. Board Member Howe and Board Member Hoffmann accept changes. Board votes on motion. PS RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -037: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval & Special Permit, Boothrovd Hall Renovations, Ithaca College, 953 Danbv Road, Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 =30.2 MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Hoffmann. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed renovations to the Ithaca College Boothroyd Hall located in the southeast corner of the main campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the renovation of the existing 100 -unit dormitory including window replacement, chimney reconstruction, facade repairs and painting, existing sidewalk replacement and lawn and planting bed repairs. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design, Agent; and 2. This is a Type II Action that, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.5(c)(1) and 617.5(c)(8), requires no further environmental review; and 0 i PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 4, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate plans entitled, "Ithaca College Boothroyd Hall Renovation, Sheets Q -1, A -1.1, and A 2. 1, " prepared by QPK Design, Syracuse, NY,. dated February 17, 2006, and other application materials; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed renovations to the Ithaca College Boothroyd Hall, as shown on the plan entitled "Ithaca College Boothroyd Hall Renovation, " prepared by QPK Design, Syracuse, NY, dated February 17, 2006, subject to the following conditions, prior to the issuance of any building permit; a. submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca; b. Submission of an owners' certificate stating that the owner of the land owns the land, caused the land to be surveyed and the site plans proposed, agrees to construct the project in the manner presented by the finally approved site plan and all related approved documents, and agrees and guarantees to construct any required infrastructure elements set forth on the finally approved site plan. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants a Special Permit to allow the Boothroyd Hall dormitory of Ithaca College in a Medium Density Residential Zone as provided for in the Town of Ithaca General Code §270 -67 (Principal uses authorized by special permit only, Medium Density Residential Zone), subject to the conditions of the Final Site Plan Approval, finding that the standards of §270- 200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met. A vote on the motion resulted as follows; AYES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Howe, Talty. NAYS; None. ABSENT Mitrano. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED The motion was declared to be carried. 7:15 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition at the Genex Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves constructing a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities. Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent. Anton Egner, Egner Architecture My name is Anton Egner and the address is 408 West State Street, Ithaca, NY. Chairperson Wilcox — Do you have a small presentation to make or not? Mr. Egner — No. As a matter of fact, I think the last c think, met the requests that were asked from the last little has changed since we submitted the first concept is just as it was then. We are ready to hand in tomorrow, all going well here tonight. I am ready to still have. Chairperson Wilcox — Members of the board? Board Member Howe — I don't have any questions. Board Member Hoffmann — I don't either. locument you got pretty much, I meeting. I would say that very documents to you. The building the application for construction answer any questions you might Board Member Howe — It is straightforward from what we've seen. Board Member Hoffmann — I just think we need to incorporate the suggested additions into the resolution that was mentioned in Jonathan's memo. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, did you meet with the Fire Department or representatives of the Fire Department? Mr. Egner — A number of times. Chairperson Wilcox — And...? Mr. Egner — They have no problems. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — We have a letter to that affect. Mr. Egner —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — We are all set here, Tony. Take a seat. Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one present wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:19 p.m. Board Member Hoffmann — I misspoke. Those conditions are already incorporated, of course. Chairperson Wilcox — The conditions imposed by the Zoning Board are incorporated by reference. Is there a reason to list them on our resolution or is it sufficient just to reference them. Ms. Brock I think it is clear enough what they are because we reference the ZBA's resolution by number. So I think that is okay. I did have a change to make it clear what it meant when we say we are incorporating it. Chairperson Wilcox — Be my guest, Susan. Ms. Brock — So just at the end of that phrase where is says, " "are hereby incorporated into this Planning Board resolution of approval," I would just add, "as conditions of Final Site Plan approval that shall be met prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the building addition." Chairperson Wilcox — And that is consistent with the ZBA's? Ms. Brock —Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Okay. Ms. Brock — I just wanted to make it clear what it meant when we said we were incorporating their conditions in our resolutions. These are conditions they have to meet before they can get their Certificate of Occupancy. Chairperson Wilcox — Did you catch that discussion? The discussion was that we would incorporate the ZBA's conditions into our resolution and they need to be met before the Certificate of Occupancy. I don't think we are imposing a burden or adding anything. Board Member Talty moves the motion and Chairperson Wilcox seconds. Board votes on motion. 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED PB Resolution No. 2006 -038• Genex /Monsanto Building Addition, Final Site Plan Aavro val, Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, 521 Sheffield Road MOTION made by Board Member Talty, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox. WHEREAS; 1: This action is Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition at the Genex /Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves constructing a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in an uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit has, on February 7, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application materials, and 3. The Planning Board on February 7, 2006 granted a Special Permit and Preliminary Site Plan Approval subject to conditions for the above described building addition, and 4. The Zoning Board of Appeals on March 20, 2006, granted a variance from the requirements of Chapter 225 of the Town of Ithaca Code to allow the construction of the proposed addition without the installation of the required sprinkler system, and 5. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 4, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a series of site plan maps and detail sheets for the Genex - Monsanto Building Addition Production Center #2, including C012 Swale Improvement Plan, C013 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, 2.04 Storm Basin, 2.06 Sloped Headwall, 2.08 Trench Cross Section, 13.12 Grate End and Trench Drain Detail, A101 First Floor Plan, A200 Elevations and Building Section, 2.01 Concrete Sidewalk and Bituminous Paving Sections, 2.02 Granite Curb, 2.07 Gravel Paving and Crushed Stone Paving, F Existing Site Lighting and Planting Plan, and C011 Site Plan, all prepared by Egner Architectural Associates, LLC, and dated 3117106, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED 10 That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition at the Genex /Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone, consisting of a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities, as shown on a series of site plan maps and detail sheets for the Genex - Monsanto Building Addition Production Center #2, including C012 Swale Improvement Plan, C013 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, 2.04 Storm Basin, 2.06 Sloped Headwall, 2.08 Trench Cross Section, 13.12 Grate End and Trench Drain Detail, A101 First Floor Plan, A200 Elevations and Building Section, 2.01 Concrete Sidewalk and Bituminous Paving Sections, 2.02 Granite Curb, 2.07 Gravel Paving and Crushed Stone Paving, F Existing Site Lighting and Planting Plan, and C011 Site Plan, all prepared by Egner Architectural Associates, LLC, and dated 3117106, subject to the following condition: a. Submission of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, or documentation that no such approvals are required, including documentation of approval by the Tompkins County Department of Health regarding the reclassification and modifications to the water system, as outlined by the Department of Health in its letter dated December 20, 2005 (John Andersson, P.E. to Anton Egner AIA), prior to the issuance of any certificates of occupancy for the building addition, and BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED. 1. That the four conditions of the variance granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in ZB Resolution No. 2006 -017 are hereby incorporated into this Planning Board resolution of approval, as conditions of Final Site Plan approval that shall be met prior to the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for the building addition. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.• Wilcox, Hoffmann, Howe, Talty. NA YS: None. ABSENT.• Mitrano. The motion was declared to be carried. 7:22 p.m. SEQR Cornell University Campus Road Segment 7 Rehabilitation 0 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Bob Chang, Cornell University My name is Bob Chang and my address is 202 Humphrey's Service Building, Cornell University. Chairperson Wilcox - Are you prepared to make a small presentation? Mr. Chang Only if it is necessary. Chairperson Wilcox — I think it would be a good idea. Mr. Chang — Okay. In case you are not familiar with the project site...well, I am here to present the project to reconstruct an existing roadway and that roadway is Campus Road between Tower Road and Judd Falls, which is here. I'II flip to the other one that shows the scope of work. This pretty much duplicates the information that was in your packets, I believe. The scope of work is basically to rebuild the roadway. We are taking the opportunity to widen it by 5 feet to incorporate bicycle lanes where we currently have none. We will also take the opportunity to divert part of the storm water runoff from the roadway and put that into an existing treatment facility. So that will be treated. We will rebuild the existing bus pullout so that it is concrete instead of asphalt. And other than that, it is just a road reconstruction project. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. Questions? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I wanted to ask if there are other bikeways in this area that this stretch will connect up to and if you could describe where they are. Mr. Chang — Okay. We do have existing bike lanes on either side of this segment of the road. This will provide a link between those. Also Tower Road has bicycle lanes on it. Board Member Hoffmann — Tower Road has bike lanes? Mr. Chang — Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann — My other question is, runoff. It says that storm runoff from part of treatment facility. Where is that facility located? in the description it talks about storm the site will be rerouted to a storm Mr. Chang — It is a pond that we built last year. West of this parking lot. Board Member Hoffmann — So it is north of this stretch of road. Mr. Chang — That is correct. The reason it shows up sort of tan colored is because this was taken before the vegetation had established itself. 10 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Mr. Kanter — Is that one of the reconstructed parking lots? There was a series that actually came through the Planning Board all together basically. So this is recent work. Board Member Hoffmann — Is that a photo of the way it looks now or is the parking lot drawn in? Mr. Chang — No. That is the existing parking lot. It was so new and fresh at the time that it really stands out. Board Member Hoffmann — But the pond doesn't have any water in it at the moment it looks like. Mr. Chang — It is not meant to be a continuously wet pond. The treatment process is through... Board Member Hoffmann — It catches water when there is a lot of it and holds it there. Mr. Chang — That is correct. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions with regard to environmental review. Town Attorney, Susan Brock, handed me a note before the meeting. In Sue Ritter's cover letter, she mentions that University officials are still determining whether they will need to provide access to a parking lot, which may be temporarily closed. Susan's note lists current Cornell University parking lots or parking spaces that are unavailable. A lot off of Tower Road, resulting from the Life Sciences construction. A lot between the Engineering Quad and the gorge, Linah Rink, has spaces closed. There are spaces closed around Bailey Hall and then the note that when they add an additional level to the Hoy Field garage that parking spaces will become unavailable. The question is with the construction going on and the reduction in parking spaces that exist today, will Cornell have to provide access to that lot during construction. Mr. Chang — I am finalizing that with our transportation office. At this point I think what the plan will be is to build a temporary access drive from this existing driveway to this parking lot to provide access during construction, but we probably will close off the other parking lot to the south of the roadway during construction. Chairperson Wilcox — Is that a commitment? Mr. Chang — No. Not yet. 11 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Mr. Kanter — How long would the road reconstruction project last about? Mr. Chang - It will be the full summer. So between alumni weekend and student move -in so June to August. Chairperson Wilcox — If that access was built, presumably then the area once it was no longer needed would be reseeded. Mr. Chang — That is correct. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, we will think about what we may want to add with regard to that. I'm all set. Board Member Howe moves the motion and Board Member Talty seconds. Board votes on motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -039: SEOR, Pre /iminary & Final Site Plan Aaarova/ and Special Permit, Cornell University — Campus Road Segment 7, Tax Parcel No, 63- 1 -2.2. MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Board Member Talty. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, and Special Permit, for the proposed Cornell University Campus Road Segment 7 Rehabilitation project located between Judd Falls and Tower Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves rebuilding the existing roadway, including widening the road by approximately S feet to add bicycle lanes, reconstructing the existing bus stop, rerouting and treating stormwater runoff, replacing the lighting fixtures and adding new landscaping. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Bob Chiang, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in this uncoordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, and 3. The Planning Board, on April 4, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, a. set of project drawings entitled "Campus Road Segment 7 Improvement Project; dated 2128106 and prepared 12 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED by Cornell University Planning, Design, and Construction, and other application materials, and 4, The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and Special Permit; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED: That the . Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the Environmental Assessment Form Parts I and II referenced above, in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Campus Road Segment 7 Rehabilitation project located between Judd Falls and Tower Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves rebuilding the existing roadway, including widening the road by approximately 5 feet to add bicycle lanes, reconstructing the existing bus stop, reroute and treat stormwater runoff, replace the lighting fixtures and add new landscaping. Cornell University, Owner /Applicants Bob Chiang, Agent. Chairperson Wilcox — Questions of Mr. Chang with regard to the site plan? Board Member Howe — No. If Nicole were here we would have to ask her about the bike lanes and fits in with all the schemes that she gave us. Chairperson Wilcox — She skid addled out of here very quickly. Board Member Mitrano — I just have a general question that may have been indicated by Susan's socho voche note to you Fred. And that is has there been a study done by Cornell establishing whether with all of the construction going on there, there really will 13 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED be adequate parking space for all of the staff /faculty throughout the construction period throughout this area. Mr. Chang - I guess I would have to defer to our planning office and transportation office to answer that. They are giving me the go ahead to proceed with the construction of this project and I take that to mean that yes they feel there are adequate spaces. Board Member Mitrano — Because process exists at the University such that that would have been an automatic part of the evaluation. Mr. Chang — All I can say is that I have been working with a couple of people in the transportation office to develop what I need to do as far as closing off these parking lots. So I take that to mean that yes they have an overall plan. So as I said, part of it is I believe we will build a temporary access to the one lot and then we will rely on spaces in the B parking lot, which is farther to the east for additional displaced parkers. Board Member Mitrano — Will that require significantly more distance that people have to walk in order to get to... Mr. Chang — About a block. Board Member Mitrano — Just sharing word on the street with you about concerns that are out there. My bet would be that Cornell has evaluated these things. It would be good to know that that really is the fact to mitigate some of the concerns. . Chairperson Wilcox — All set? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one present wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox — Anything with regard to the resolution as drafted that we might want to do with regard to the parking lot and potential access and if they give temporary access that it is put back in its original shape? Is that something that...? Mr. Kanter — It sounds like a good idea. Chairperson Wilcox — I am a little hesitant to say that they will provide access should they determine it is necessary because they will do whatever they want. 14 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED Mr. Walker — But if it is a matter of being necessary because people want to park there rather than going all the way out to the other end of the B lot. Let them park in the other end of the B lot because that is usually empty, isn't it, Bob? There is quite a bit of space in the B lot there, right? So you really don't need spaces other than they are closer. Let them walk. They need the exercise. Board Member Hoffmann — The other thing is if you have trouble walking there are busses from B lot to various places. Mr. Walker — Yeah. They have public transportation there, so I don't think we should let him disturb it. Chairperson Wilcox — Would someone like to move the resolution at drafted? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Eva, seconded by Tracy. What might Susan come up with? Ms. Brock — Well, this is a start, and you can work on it. Well add a "c" on page 2 under number 2. "If temporary access is constructed to the parking lot adjacent to Campus Road, the access area.shall be restored to its original condition and reseeded once it is no longer needed." Chairperson Wilcox — Sounds good to me. Acceptable, Ladies? Board Member Hoffmann & Board Member Mitrano — Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — Hard to argue with that, right? Any other changes, Susan? All set? Board votes on motion. PS RESOLUTION NO, 2006 -040: Preliminary & Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, Cornell University — Campus Road Segment 7, Tax Parcel No. 63 -1 -2,2 MOTION made by Board Member Hoffmann, seconded by Board Member Mitrano. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, and Special Permit, for the proposed Cornell University Campus Road Segment 7 15 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Rehabilitation project located between Judd Falls and Tower Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves rebuilding the existing roadway, including widening the road by approximately 5 feet to add bicycle lanes, reconstructing the existing bus stop, rerouting and treating stormwater runoff, replacing the lighting fixtures and adding new landscaping. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant Bob Chiang, Agent, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and Special Permit, has, on April 4, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 4, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a set of project drawings entitled "Campus Road Segment 7 Improvement Project'; dated 2128106 and prepared by Cornell University Planning, Design, and Construction, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the reconstruction of Campus Road between Judd Falls Road and Tower Road finding that the standards of Article "IV Section 270 -200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code have been met, and AND BE IT FURTHER RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed Cornell University Campus Road Segment 7, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel. No. 63 -1 -2.2 as shown in the set of site plan drawings entitled "Campus Road Segment 7 Improvement Project; dated 2128106, and other application materials, subject to the following conditions: a, submission of one original set of final site plan drawings on mylar, vellum or paper, signed and sealed by the registered land surveyor(s), 16 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED engineer(s), architect(s) or landscape architect(s) who prepared the site plan materials, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and b. submission of a revised Lighting Plan (&101) to reference the model number of street lighting fixture to be used, and Cc if temporary access is constructed to the parking lot adjacent to Campus Road, the access area shall be restored to its original condition and reseeded once it is no longer needed. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES.' Wilcox, Hoffmann, M/trano, Howe, Talty. NAYS. None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 7:37 p.m. SEQR Biggs Building Demolition, 301 Harris B. Dates Drive. Chairperson Wilcox - Peter, we can get started. I saw the suits out there, but as soon as you are ready we can get going because we can start with SEQR, which I suspect will take a little bit. Thank you, Susan, for the note. Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf Peter Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf. We are landscape architects here in Ithaca, NY, 1001 West Seneca Street. There are several other people here this evening. Just want to make sure the board knows who is here. Joe Fitzgerald from CMC, as you know. Kim Michaels, who is project manager at Trowbridge & Wolf. Jack Eisenbach, who is, as you know, is responsible for abatement in the building and Paul Laveque from HOLT architects. There were a couple of points that were brought up at the last meeting and we just wanted to address those initially. Perhaps we could just make our entire presentation before the SEQR determination, even though some of those issues may or may not relate to issues of significance. It will just take 5 minutes. It seems to us the two points that were most significant last time were issues that were brought up about the deposition of materials where the old steam plant was. The hospital did have a demolition permit at the time and it was indicated that all of the materials were fully abated when the steam facility was demolished and I think that Dan Walker can collaborate that as well. The second thing was a discussion of salvaging any portion of the building and we did look at that critically since our last meeting. One thing that did become very 17 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED apparent that any of the significant artifacts that are at the front of the building, the tower portion, or the small masonry component would not have a lot of structural integrity in and of themselves and probably more important is that there is no infrastructure, no electric, no steam, no water associated with them. So anything we could salvage would really not be a useable piece of architecture and would be fundamentally a rumen in a sense. So we did look at those things critically and felt that there really weren't elements that were stand alone that could be salvageable and practicable and cost effective. There are tens of these still issues and the hospital, as I said last time, did purchase the Biggs building primarily to secure and protect the resource that they have. That if there was a fire in the building, for instance, because of the near proximity there was issues of contamination and just nearness and given the wood structure of the roof. So we did look critically at there. We don't believe that there are stand alone pieces that would have integrity after we looked at the building. There were several items that came up that staff crafted as part of the contingency and I just wanted to address those very quickly as well. The final deposition of material whether it goes north or south whether it goes to Waterloo or Elmira, hasn't finally been determined. Once that has been determined, we will provide the Town and staff a truck routing and we will also make a determination of time of day for instance where truck traffic could occur. It seems to me that if trucks are going south to Elmira it is more of an issue of time of day where truck traffic wouldn't necessarily occur when there is rush hour. The second is mature trees and I think if we look at the plan we've dealt with things like doing shoring to maintain mature trees. So we have done everything practicable to retain the mature trees. Even the ones that are quite close to the building as a part of the demolition, right up next to the building foundation. We are preserving those. The hospital is quite committed to having a high quality landscape in the area. So they are quite interested in investing in maturing those. In terms of the buffer planting for the fill site that is down near the Black Diamond Trail, it is our intention with sedimentation and erosion control and with replanting that that would appear to be meadow. We don't believe that when the grading is done and when landscape is re- established that it would be an objectionable review, however the board feels the buffer planting is necessary. What we would suggest is fast growing thickety, deciduous shrubs that would be above eye level rather than evergreen trees that often time lose their bottom branches and you still have that kind of transparency. So if buffer planting is needed...on the other hand we feel that the site can be graded and re- landscaped and frankly along the Black Diamond Trail having a small opening in the landscape may not necessarily be an objectionable condition as long as that is well treated. The last three items I am going to ask Jack Eisenbach just to very briefly talk about items 4, 5 and 6 in the contingency. I just want to ask Kim Michaels if there was anything we needed to add before we ask Jack up here. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED Kim Michaels, Trowbridge & Wolf The only thing I would add to saving the mature trees is that we have done everything we can in the construction documents to have that happen. There is also a condition in the documents that if the contractor loses any of the trees that he has to replace them in -kind by caliber. So if he loses a 30 -inch caliber tree, he needs to replace 30 caliber inches of tree. So we are really working hard to make that happen and make those trees stay. Board Member Hoffmann — Sometimes when you have, and you know this better than I do I'm sure. Sometimes damage done to mature trees doesn't show up until a few years later. So is there some contingency to make sure that if a tree dies 5 years after the construction that it will be replaced? Mr. Trowbridge — There isn't any and that would be a very difficult thing to make some determination fora I think what we have done, Eva, is to show practices to save the trees that would do everything practicable to save them. I think it would be difficult years from now to provide some means for replacement once the contractor is done and the contract is finalized. Board Member, Mitrano — You probably might have a difficult time establishing probable cause. Board Member Hoffmann — That might be, but I would be willing to guess that people as familiar with landscaping as Mr. Trowbridge would have a good idea how many years it might take sometimes for a tree to die. Mr. Trowbridge — With some of those issues of damage, Eva, if we saw that on the site we would take those into account if we see actual damage during construction. So I would like to invite Jack Eisenbach up to talk about the last three issues. Jack Eisenbach, Eisenbach & Rumke Engineering My name is Jack Eisenbach. I am the president of Eisenbach and Rumke Engineering out of Utica, NY. Chairperson Wilcox — Before you begin, let me confess my sin. This is the notice on essentially every door of the Biggs Building announcing. that there will be asbestos remediation project starting and your name, of course, is on all of them as the contact. Mr. Eisenbach — Yes. One of the unfortunate parts of our business is that my home phone number goes on most of the job sites so if there is a problem they know where to find me. I would like to address the last three issues and the one thing, just to mention, there is a one -year warranty, but there is no way that we could ask the contractor to warranty open for 5 years. He is also responsible to maintain all of the 19 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED stormwater protection for one year after we complete work. That is part of the specifications right now. There were three other issues. One is about the asbestos samples. All of the earth sample results are available to the public. We will have them posted at the job site; if someone wants to see them we will be happy to share them. There will also be a set at the hospital, at the facilities office. If the facility asks us to make copies for anyone, we would be happy to. As far as other monitoring, we will be doing dust monitoring throughout the demolition work. It is a standard that our office follows. We download the data. If someone wants to see that data they could ask the hospital and we would be happy to provide that as well. We are taking precautions with the air intakes on the hospital as well and to reduce dust levels. We use dust mainly because it is sort of the easy thing to measure. It is also the monitor for most of the other pollutants that come out of demolition projects. We will be providing a weekly schedule to the hospital and it can be distributed to anyone the hospital asks. We have gotten the verbal permission from DEC to dispose of all the material on site as hard fill and we should have the letter this week from them. They called our office last Friday and told us the letter is on its way. So there are no other permits other than the Town permits to let us go. The reason we have to post the building, we are required to post the building 10 days before we start abatement, not demolition. So we have to put the postings up because we need to get started as soon as possible. Any questions? Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. I think you said that you have permission to dispose of all the hard fill on site. Mr. Eisenbach — We are only going to put what we list is there. If we exceed that quantity that we show on the plans, we will go elsewhere. The only quantity that we will put on site is that which we have shown on the plans. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So there is some that is going to go off site, too. Mr. Eisenbach — If we exceed the amount that we can put on site, yes. Board Member Hoffmann — I am missing one of the pages in the last handout so I just see a partial list. I am missing page 6. So item 3, hard fill, I didn't have the information. Thank you. Then when I read all the papers again, it listed all the various hazardous materials in the building that is to be demolished and one of the things it said is that there is peeling paint and probably lead based paint in there. It made me wonder how do you deal with that lead based paint. Mr. Eisenbach — We don't have to under demolition. It is not leechable in its present context and as long as the waste is less than half a percent by weight. If there is any peeling lead paint, it will be cleaned up ahead of time just because we can't clear the 20 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED work areas before hand. Anything that is adhered to the concrete block or the concrete would go out with the concrete. Board Member Hoffmann — So that would be part of the hard fill. Mr. Eisenbach — Correct. Board Member Hoffmann — So some of the hard fill that would be deposited on the site could conceivably have lead paint on it then? Mr. Eisenbach — It could. Board Member Hoffmann — And how do you handle it when it is being torn down in the demolition process? Is it possible that lead particles might be flying around in the air? Mr. Eisenbach — That is why we monitor dust levels to make sure that we don't have a problem with that. We monitor very carefully. We also keep the site wet. We will be watering everything down during the demolition, both as we start it, before we start demolishing something and as we are demolishing it, it will always be kept wet to keep dust out of the air. Board Member Hoffmann — So when you monitor it, if you see there is more than you expected of lead or asbestos and so on in the air samples, what happens then? Mr. Eisenbach — We stop work. We figure out what happened. We clear up any resulting debris and then we change work practices to make sure it doesn't happen again. My staff is standing there watching to make sure we don't those types of problems. Board Member Hoffmann — So there are different methods that can be used then? Mr. Eisenbach — Correct. Board Member Hoffmann — So you start out with one that may or may not release particles in the air and then you move on to more restrictive ones as necessary. Mr. Eisenbach — Actually, we go the other way. Board Member Hoffmann — You do? Mr. Eisenbach — We tend to be very restrictive upfront, especially with the conditions here where we have masonry with mastic on it that we have to be careful about. So 21 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED we will be very careful to make sure the material stays wet through the whole process because that is part of our arrangement with the State. Chairperson Wilcox — That results from the asbestos on the outside of the building. Mr. Eisenbach — Correct. Board Member Hoffmann — So I guess an additional question then is when you say that some of the hard fill that will be put on the site might have lead particles in it, is that something one needs to worry about? Mr. Eisenbach — No. It's not. That's why its ... DEC is well aware of all the conditions. We can dispose of hard fill with paint on it unless the materials is greater than half a percent by weight its not considered at all considered a risk in any way shape or form. Again, any loose debris gets picked up before hand because you can't work in the environment with all that dirt around and all the loose paint around so that all gets scrapped up any way. Board Member Hoffmann — I just thought of another thing, if you wet down everything as you were working with it, where does that water go? Mr. Eisenbach — We have stormwater protection and stuff inside the building. When we get it wet, it gets drummed up and disposed of as asbestos waste during the asbestos project. It gets filtered if necessary and again, any of the debris would get picked up, barreled and sent off site. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. I feel much better after hearing all that. Thank you. Mr. Eisenbach — You're welcome. Mr. Kanter — Just for the record, there is a very detailed description of all that in all the paperwork that was submitted. It sounds quite complicated, but if you read through it, it is really quite comprehensive. Mr. Eisenbach — We really tried to be thorough. We worked very hard as a team to make sure that it got done properly. Board Member Hoffmann — Good. Chairperson Wilcox — Other questions over here on the environmental review? Board Member Talty — Just on the coat tails of that, are there any weather conditions that would prohibit demolition? 22 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED Mr. Eisenbach — There might be if it is really windy. Again, no one wants to be working a crane when it is really windy outside. If there is extreme weather, I'm sure we're going to stop. No one wants to take a risk. It is our people. As much as it is the hospital, it's our people as well and no one takes the risk. If you are in the middle of demolition and you get high winds, you stop. You don't want someone getting hurt. Chairperson Wilcox — Shall we bring up the new issue, Dan? Mr. Walker — If you want to. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. I guess this one is my fault, right? Mr.. Walker — I confirmed it. Chairperson Wilcox - You spoke with Peter before hand so he is aware of it? Mr. Walker — And Joe is aware of it. Chairperson Wilcox — Here is the issue. I made a trip down to the disposal site yesterday and passed a construction fill area along this road that meanders behind the hospital and in the apparently unauthorized, unpermitted ... there is an unpermitted construction debris disposal site on the property between the hospital and the fill site for this project. Not only is there construction debris, concrete slabs and dirt, there is wooden pallets that have been dumped there. There are a couple of tires that have been dumped there. It is extremely close to the Black Diamond Trail in terms of where the fill has been bulldozed over the hill. I spoke to Jon this morning and apparently Jon spoke to someone else who spoke to someone else and Dan went out there and visited it and what is the result. Mr. Walker — Well, there's ... it looks like 3 or 4,000 yards of material that has been dumped. Probably from ... I'm assuming it is from the current construction project. Mr. Trowbridge — Dan, I'm not sure that that is the case. First of all I am not aware of that. I am not personally aware of that and I know that the hospital historically used that site for landscaping. They often times had leaf piles there or if a tree went down. So the current condition...the reality is...Kim did bring that to my attention just today as we found out about it. It was not something that we were aware of. Mr. Walker — Its been active fairly recently because there is no vegetation on it. I mean it may have been from last fall and it appears to be primarily... we'll track it down. It will be remediated. The material that is dumped there looks like it is mostly excavation. 23 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED It does look like someone dumped a load of pallets there. I think the tires that I saw have been lying there for a while. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, they are down at the base. Mr. Walker - If you look a little further down, there is another fill area that has trees growing out if it now so it was done many years ago. I think it was a steep bank. It was a convenient place to get rid of stuff. So my main concern on this is it is close to the Black Diamond Trail, but it is also an area just to the north of it that is a drainage way and its getting down into the drainageway so... Chairperson Wilcox —There is a 15, 20 400t deep creek through there. Mr. Walker — I will be investigating who did it. I'm sure it's a contractor that found a convenient place and I will work with Joe and we will get it remediated. Chairperson Wilcox — I also thought at the base, as I went around behind and looked at the base, it was almost like a hot water heater was buried under there. It was hard to tell what it was. Mr. Walker - I'm sure this was a convenient dumping place over the years for things, predating our fill requirements and out of sight, out of mind. We know it is in sight now so we'll get it taken care of. Board Member Mitrano — This is down on the cliff part not on the immediate part...? Mr. Walker shows the location on the. site plan. Mr. Trowbridge — All I can say is that the contractor was provided a site for clean fill disposal as part of the site plan approval for the current phases of work. As you know, we did provide an area for disposition of materials and it is going to be graded out. So I am not sure why this site has been used because it is very clear to the current contractors where disposition of soil materials could and should occur. Mr. Kanter — Part of the problem with it is, is that it is kind of unstable on the edges. The flat part off of the road is okay. It is pretty much like a pull -up area, but around the edges of it, it is uncovered, it's exposed, its not stabilized, and it goes right into the woods. Chairperson Wilcox — I wanted to thank the hospital for leaving the gate open so I could drive down in there and see it. Mr. Fitzgerald — Fred, we'll fix it. 24 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED Mr. Walker — I have a feeling I know which contractor might have been involved with this. I'll work with Joe on it and we'll get it taken care of. Chairperson Wilcox - Are you all set for now, Peter? Okay. Go ahead, Eva. Board Member Hoffmann — I have some more questions about that fill site actually because looking at the map of it, which is plan L301, it shows the existing grade and there is also a picture or photograph of it, the way it looks now in the papers and then it shows the proposed grade and it looks to me like there is going to be...I'm not that good at reading these grading plans and please Dan and Jonathan help me if I need help, but it looks to me like there is a flat area created in the western part of it and a rather steep slope created toward the eastern part along the area where the Diamond Trail is. At one point I was looking at the lines here and at one point it looked like the eastern edge of this more flat area will be about 16 feet above the existing line and that's a lot, and that creates a big slope down to the Diamond Trail. In the photograph of the site as it looks now, it looks fine, but it looks to me like you are going to regrade it so it will look very imposing and very steep from the trail and that troubles me. Is there something you can do to make that look like a more natural part of that landscape? Mr. Trowbridge — There are a couple of things, Eva. First of all the flat area on the western edge that you talk about, we need to intercept the grade. We actually need to go to come back up. You can see the drainage swale along the top. What we don't want is water to just sheet down that slopes. We are going to get a lot of erosion. So that flat area on top is then developed primarily to intercept storm drainage so it doesn't go over the edge. The reality is this gradient while it is steeper than it is now, I have walked the Black Diamond Trail because years ago we had been asked by the State to think about that as a project. There are some places where it is truly precipitous. So I think while there is a lot of grade change here and there is no denying that, I think if you walk along the Black Diamond Trail you will find that there are places where the slope is going to be equally steep. Board Member Hoffmann — I see. Mr. Trowbridge — So it's not going to be erratically out of character. There are some very big cuts, both downhill and uphill side along that railroad gradient as you move from Trumansburg to Ithaca. Board Member Hoffmann — What about in the areas right adjacent to this fill site, north and south of it? Will this created slope look very different from what it normally does? 25 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 . APPROVED Mr. Trowbridge — It is probably not as steep, but it is very steep on the easterly side of the Black Diamond Trail on the lower side. So its, again, I don't think it is going to be seen as being radically out of character as one traverses along the Black Diamond Trail. Mr. Walker — See that lower most heavy proposed contour line is connecting on either end of it to the existing contour. Where that roadway was, it has. flattened out quite a bit. It was excavated out because that is where they had a coal yard when they had the heating plant running. So if you are walking along the Black Diamond Trail what you will see is a bank on your left hand side about 4 or 5 feet high and back and right now it is not there because I drove right down that trail today and it is easy to drive on. You'll see a 4 -foot bank continuous all the way up instead of having to...so it will stay in nature with the rest of the trail there. The only concern I have is I think there has been a little artistic, I mean you have a fill line that is crossing your swale up there, which I don't think you are going to do. So we will be looking for more detail. Mr. Trowbridge — Detail. Absolutely right. Mr. Walker — I mean the concept is fine. The other thing is, is I don't think you want to fill over that gas line there. You are going to want to pull that back a little bit because that is a little bit higher in there. I think that is an active gas main. Mr. Trowbridge — Okay. We will take a look at that. Chairperson Wilcox — Heads up to Susan. I hear potential changes to the resolution. Mr. Kanter — I talked with Kim about this today. In reading the descriptions of the grading plan, it was clear that the boundary line between the Black Diamond right -of- way and the medical center property, the fill site, is not well established and they are going to have to survey that to determine where the actual boundary is. So it is not clear exactly where the edge of this fill area will be in relation to the actual legal boundaries of the properties. And because it already looks like it may be very close, again as Eva mentioned, its probably...the swale that's proposed is certainly within 10 feet of the trail area. The edge of the fill area is within 20 feet certainly. So depending on where the actual right -of -way boundary is, it could actually be closer than those numbers. We were thinking about the possibility of adding a condition that, well, we can get into some wording later that based on the actual survey boundaries of the properties that the disturbed edge of the fill area be no more closer than some footage from the actual boundary. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. That is what I would like to see, too. After I started looking at this a little bit more carefully and one of the things that I thought one could do to accomplish both perhaps a gentler slope and less fill close to the trail is to not 26 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED allow quite as much fill to go there, to lessen the amount of fill and have some more of it go off site instead of being put here. Mr. Kanter — Or I think there is also enough flexibility in that grading plan to actually have it reconfigured so that perhaps more could go farther up the hill and less would go down. There are alternatives to that. Mr. Trowbridge — I think we would like to explore that so it sounds like there are two things. One, we need to add some legal boundaries to the survey to address Jonathan's point and then finesse the grading to minimize the steepness of gradient and the closeness of gradient to what is right now undefined, but the right -of -way for the Black Diamond Trail for the state. Chairperson Wilcox — Right now there is a path that connects the road to the trail. Would that remain? Mr. Trowbridge — Well, the hospital currently has a set of trails that we talked about last time that staff use and are more logical connections between the hospital property and the Black Diamond Trail than between this fill site and the Black Diamond Trail and those are actively used trails by staff and we would like to suggest those be the logical connections between CMC and the Black Diamond Trail rather than through this area. Chairperson Wilcox — That's a no? Mr. Trowbridge — That's a no. Mr. Walker — It is apparent to me that there is a pretty active right -of- -way or path that is used. I imagine that the power company uses it to get down to their power line because if you follow that roadway down, it's pretty bare to the south. This is an easy access point for NYSEG to get in and maintain it. The gas main is mowed all the way up the hill except for that lower section down there and then the gas main looks like it dives down to 89 there. Maybe its not totally active, I don't know, but it looks like they are mowing it regularly and they are maintaining the signage so. Mr. Trowbridge — There is the access on top ... if that does continue to be maintained, there will be access within the gas right -of -way. Chairperson Wilcox — As an aside, it is an interesting site. The relics that exist down there. There are fire hydrants still down there, for example. There are concrete posts to protect vehicles from the small ravines that run through there and there is a sort of shallow bowl still remaining if you will, a shallow depression from the... Na PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Mr. Walker — That's where the fuel foundation was and they did not bring in a lot of material to fill that with. Chairperson Wilcox — So there is a depression that exists there now, which if you were walking along the trail you would look to your left. Mr. Walker — Are you trying to say that is an archeological site now? Chairperson Wilcox — Well, the fire hydrants are interesting. I have never seen ones that look like that. Mr. Walker — I bet you can have one delivered to the house. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. Sure. Board Member Mitrano — How did that trail get its name? What does it represent? Mr. Trowbridge — Its namesakes was the train that came into Ithaca, which was the Black Diamond so it's a namesake for a train service. Board Member Mitrano — Where did it come from? Mr. Trowbridge — I don't know exactly what the original origin was, but it came all the way down between the lakes. Board Member Hoffmann — I have a couple of more questions. In this stormwater pollution prevention plan and log book, on the very last page it talks again about this site, on site place where fill would be put and in point 9 it says in all areas to be seeded and mulched and where the slope exceeds a 10% grade, there will be a special fabric installed. Will there be areas with greater than 10% slope and how much of the site would that be? Mr. Trowbridge — There would definitely be areas of greater than 10% slope because much of the site currently exceeds 10% on either side of it. 10% is, as you, the upper block of Buffalo Street is 18% so it exceeds that by almost double. So 10 %, well it sounds excessive, really is not a steep gradient for this side of the lake. So we will use re- enforcing to make sure that surface erosion does not occur until such time that vegetation is established. Board Member Hoffmann — Do you know what the slope will be? ael PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Mr. Trowbridge — The grading plan currently shows the gradient on the slope and we could figure, out what percentage of it would exceed 10 %. I don't know off the top of my head. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, but it will be essentially the whole area where the straight lines are? Mr. Kanter - While they are looking, I came across a really nice aerial view photo of the Biggs Complex from an earlier project that we reviewed so I thought I would just pass that around. Chairperson Wilcox — What's the verdict? Mr. Walker — Its only 10 %. 3 on 1 slope are a stable slope and once the soils around here and this is a little flatter than that, it's a 4 on 1. If you are familiar with the project across the street, the Overlook project, that pond embankment there right across the street from the hospital is about a 3 on 1 slope, which is steeper than what this is. They have actually used a stabilization fabric there. You can see it is like a jute mesh with grass growing up through it. So it works well on those slopes. Board Member Hoffmann — Now, my other question has to do with what it says on the previous page. It is section II, sequence of construction. It talks about the order of how things jwill happen and only sort of halfway down the list after the buildings have been demolished does it say to strip and stockpile any existing topsoil and put that in a separate area. I'm wondering why the topsoil is not to be stripped and put aside before the demolition starts so that it won't be driven over with all this heavy equipment and brought off site in the tires and packed down and mixed with all kinds of building debris. Ms. Michaels — I think the plan is at first to leave the site untouched and to have the major access to the building be through all those pavements that are currently around the building and really to stay out of the vegetated areas. So I think they are going to be setting up their equipment in these driveways and in these loading areas and get the building out there. Then turn their .attention to the site, at which time they'll remove the topsoil before they start driving all over it. I believe that is the intention. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, if that is what will happen, I can see that, but most of the time on' sites like this the traffic goes all over the place and makes a big mess. Mr. Eisenbach — If we are going to be disturbing the topsoil those areas ahead of time then we will move the topsoil first, if we are going to be driving over it. We don't want to lose the topsoil. It is a valuable commodity we are going to use. 29 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — And you don't want to have... Mr. Eisenbach We would address that and once we get everything settled, then yes, if we are going to be driving over it we are going to move the topsoil and use it later on as coverage" because it is good topsoil. The idea was to minimize... if we took the topsoil off it first, we get rainy weather, we are going to have much more erosion problems so we would rather leave the grass there and everything else there as long as we can. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I can understand that, but when you drive over it a lot it become erodable anyway. Mr. Eisenbach — Correct and if that was the case then we would adjust the plan and then go through and let everyone know, then we would remove the topsoil, stockpile it somewhere on the site, and use it later. Mr. Walker "— I'm looking at L101, there is a pretty extensive driveway going into the midsection of the courtyard part of the building. Large over the road trucks they would be hauling the debris on doesn't like to go off pavement. So I am sure what they are going to end up doing is putting an excavator in the grassed area, leaving the trucks parked on the area and as they grab material they are going to drop it into the trucks, which will stay on that paved area until they get to the point where they may have to move off. Mr. Trowbridge — And with the heavy equipment is not stable on the soil so clearly the best practice would be to stay on the pavement. Board Member Mitrano — Did you find the room where you born, Fred? Chairperson', Wilcox — I was born in the hospital before this. I was born at the one on Valentine Place. I'm older than you thought. Mr. Eisenbach — One other thing I just want to mention is that with any of the soils, yeah, when,we start digging into them if we have any problems, we want to minimize our disturbance as well because it is going to make our work easier. Board Member Hoffmann — Do we need to put any of this in writing? Board Member Mitrano — No. Board Member Hoffmann — We'll just trust them to do it this way? Board Member Mitrano — Yes. 30 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Mr. Kanter - Again, most of the demolition plan and phasing is in detailed writing so I don't know that we want to get into anything more than what they have already said. Mr. Walker - Basically, they are required to keep the soil on the site and not let it run off. This slip is doing that. If there are any modifications to their work procedure, we will be inspecting it. It will be part of the demolition permit that they maintain sediment and erosion control measures. We will be monitoring that constantly. Board Member Talty — Okay. Mr. Trowbridge — And we do have to maintain an on site log of that as well. Board Member Mitrano — I move the motion. I know we have a public hearing. Chairperson Wilcox — No. We're still on SEQR. Any other discussion with regard to environmental review? I'll just point out that I walked... not only did I get down to the disposal facility on Monday, I also walked all the way around the building and looked in the windows that I could look in and as I said I stole one of the signs off one of the doors. It was an area around in back on the side where there was like 3 or 4 so I didn't feel too bad about it. Mr. Kanter — You are going to put it back, right? Chairperson Wilcox — The inside of the building from what I see is a mess. Board Member Mitrano — It's been that way for a long time. Chairperson Wilcox — You kind of pre - empted me when you asked me if there because the building I was born in on Valentine Place is a very useful, structure. I believe it is student housing with a restaurant in the middle, building that' has decayed tremendously if you look on the inside. Board Member Mitrano — I know. Board Member Howe — I was born there. Board Member Mitrano — Then I move... I was born functioning Here is this Chairperson Wilcox — I'm older than Rod. It's a shame. I know that we saw a couple of years ago' a local real estate agent had some plan to try to renovate it and turn it into office space. Board Member Hoffmann — I wonder which one of those buildings is older. 31 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED Board Member Mitrano — Between which ones? Board Member Hoffmann — Between this one we are talking about now and Valentine? Chairperson Wilcox — I'm trying to remember the date on the cornerstone there. 1939? Right in the entrance there, there is a cornerstone that says 1939. Would you like to move the SEQR motion? Board Member Mitrano — Yeah. Chairperson Wilcox - So move. Seconded by Kevin Talty. Any other further discussion with regard to the environmental review? Board Member Hoffmann — There is one point here in the SEQR form where they didn't mark it yes or no. On page 6 at the very bottom, will any waste not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill and then there is an explanation, if yes, explain. I think that maybe that should be marked as yes there. Chairperson Wilcox — We are on the bottom of page 6 of 10. Mr. Kanter- Are you on question 16? Well the answer no to 16 and a, b, c, d are only answered if you answered yes.. Then at the top of page 7 there is a listing of the hard fill. Board Member Hoffmann — It says if yes explain. It is a little hard to tell which yes they are referring to there. Ms. Brock Actually the answer is, they've checked no, but then it says only during demolition. Do you see that? So that really should be yes and then d should also be yes. Mr. Kanter Because that deals with the sanitary landfill. Ms. Brock — And then a is fine. Chairperson Wilcox — It is almost like it says will it generate solid waste, no but, which kind of means yes. Mr. Walker — If you look at it from the standpoint of when the project is completed will generated waste and I think that is the way they looked at. Chairperson Wilcox — When it is completed there will be no waste. 32 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Mr. Walker — The project is a waste generator. Chairperson Wilcox — So how are we changing this? Ms. Brock I think 16 should be checked yes and we can leave their explanation, which says only during demolition. Mr. Kanter — You could put n/a where it is not applicable. Mr. Walker — Well, actually their explanation during demolition kind of answers it. Ms. Brock — Well, I guess then under a the whole explanation probably gives us all the information that we would need. Mr. Kanter — Yeah, see explanation. Chairperson Wilcox — So I have 16 marked yes. Any other changes given that we. have the explanation in 16e? Ms. Brock — No. Board Member Hoffmann — So it shouldn't say yes under a then is what you are saying? Chairperson' Wilcox — Correct. Just 16 will be yes. Anything else? Any further discussion with regard to the environmental review? Board votes on motion: PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -041: SEQR, Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, Bi_g_gs Building Demolition, Tax Parcel No's. 24 -3 -2.24 and 24- 3-2.21, 301 Harris B. Dates Drive MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Tally. WHEREAS. 10 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval 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 +A 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 33 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED 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 21 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. In Resolution No. 2006 -025, the Planning Board proposed to establish itself -as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - referenced actions, and notified potential Involved and Interested agencies of its intent to serve as Lead Agency in a letter dated February 6, 2006, and 4. The Planning Board, at its meeting held on April 4, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, Part ll of the EAF prepared by the Town Planning staff, and has reviewed other application materials, including "Cayuga Medical Center— Site Plan Review: Biggs Building Abatement & Demolition'; prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, dated February 2006; "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Log Book, Cayuga Medical Center Redevelopment Site', prepared by Donald DeWolfe Ehre, P.E., PLLC, DBA Boulder Consultants, dated January 2006 (revised February 2006); "Hazardous Material Survey — Former Biggs Memorial Hospital'; prepared by Eisenbach & Ruhnke Engineering, P.C., dated January 13, 2006; a set of engineering plans, entitled "Building Demolition — Former Biggs Memorial Hospital, Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca'; including SP -1 through SP -3, SWPPP, C101 and C102, L101 and L201, WA -1 and SCH4, AS4 through AS -7, and EX4 through EX -7, all prepared under the coordination of Eisenbach & Ruhnke Engineering, P.C., and dated 2107106, and L301 "Hard Fill Area Grading Plan'; prepared by Eisenbach & Ruhnke Engineering, P.C., dated 313106, and other application materials, and 5. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed demolition project, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above - described action, AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: kri PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance for the reasons set forth in the EAF Parts I and 11 referenced above in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed and, therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Howe, Talty, NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. 8: 27 p.m. I= PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval 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. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent, Chairperson Wilcox — Questions with regard to site plan that we haven't already discussed as part of SEQR? Board Member Howe — No. Chair erson!! Wilcox — There being none you all set for right now? P � 9 ,Y 9 Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. With no one present wishing to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:30 p.m. Chairperson Wilcox- Are we all set? Board Member Mitrano — Yup. Chairperson Wilcox — Susan, you will have some changes, I'm sure. My only notes are in regard to sheet 301, which is the grading plan. I will move the motion as drafted. Seconded by Board Member Howe. Susan? 35 Ms. Brock — In the resolved clause, paragraph "submission of revised Sheet L301 for review Engineering, showing appropriate grading in the v swales." Dan, does that address your concerns? some language dealing with the proximity of the fill way. So I will let him read his language. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED 2, add subparagraph g, stating, and approval of the Director of icinity of the gas line and drainage Okay. And Jonathan had drafted to the Black Diamond. Trail right -of- Mr. Kanter — So I guess this would be h. This is my wording. You can adjust it if you want. "The edge of the disturbed portion of the hard fill area including the drainage swale on its eastern edge shall be no closer than (blank) feet," so we'll need to talk about that, "from the boundary line of the adjacent State right -of -way for the Black Diamond Trail based on the updated survey to be completed by the applicant." So I guess... Chairperson Wilcox — I had seen something in the materials about 10 feet. Mr. Kanter - I don't know if that was in my memo. What I was observing in my own memo is that it appeared on the plan that the proposed drainage swale on the eastern edge was within 10 feet of what appeared to be the trail and that the edge of the fill area was within 20 feet. So those were not meant to be standards to use... Board Member Hoffmann — No, those are too close, I feel. Mr. Kanter - ...just observations of what it looked like. Mr. Walker - That drainage swale may serve a benefit to the existing drainage on the upper side of that trail all the defined. So there are many areas where water goes acrc put into the proper location to protect that trail, it could be be rebuilt when builds the Black Diamond Trail. So I appropriate Location for the drainage swale. the Black Diamond because way along it is not very well ss that trail. If this swale is an area that doesn't have to recommend that that is an Chairperson Wilcox — Given the configuration of the fill area right now, you could potentially have a significant runoff problem across the Black Diamond Trail. Mr. Walker - If you don't collect it. Chairperson Wilcox — If you don't collect it, yeah. Right now given...it is kind of open right now. There's...the road is in bad shape. Clearly there has been water coming down that road and probably spilling. Mr. Walker — It doesn't make a lot of sense to put a drainage swale half way up the slope and then have another one down below it. They have the upper swale that is 36 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED cutting the water off. The only drainage would be coming off the slope itself and collecting it in one point is a better way to maintain it I think. Chairperson Wilcox - Do I get the sense of 20 feet from...? Board Member Hoffmann — 20 feet is too near. Chairperson Wilcox — Well, given that location right there, the vegetation comes...the trail itself I am guessing is 10 or 12 feet wide through that vicinity right there? Mr. Walker - Yeah. The old roadbed is there. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, if you will, the old railroad bed, which would comprise the trail is... Mr. Walker — 12 feet. 15 feet. Chairperson Wilcox - ...then there is vegetation certainly on the uphill side right up to it. But if they didn't !'get within 20 feet that would be...it would almost might look unnaturally... Mr. Walker I would say keeping...no closer than 20 feet would be appropriate. I think the drainage swale could be closer to the actual trail because of the natural configuration of the trail and also if you want to outlet it there is kind of a ... there is a major drainageway to the south, which is a general slope and everything is going. If you put it up the hill any further you are going to have problems getting water down into that drainageway, the outlet. You will have a more stable outlet if you keep the swale along the trail closer to the trail. Chairperson Wilcox — Did you get that? I'm not sure I follow you. Mr. Kanter - I'm coming up with some wording that might address that. Mr. Walker'— Think of it as a road drainage ditch. It is the road drainage ditch that is there and then it has to outlet some place and there is a big natural drainageway that it could outlet into and I think we should maintain that outlet, is what I'm saying. Board Member Hoffmann — What Jonathan's memo says on page 4 is that the edge of the proposed fill area is within 20 feet of the right -of -way of the proposed trail. Mr. Kanter — Well,, the right -of -way as shown on that map, which was not accurate because there is no current accurate survey of that. 37 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — So maybe one of the things we should put in is that there has to be an accurate survey to start with. Chairperson Wilcox — We already have. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Good. Then when I think of how it might look if one doesn't leave the swale just bare with grasses growing on it, if one were to require some other vegetation like shrubbery, shrubbery kind of spreads out and that will make the slope look like it is closer. to the trail. I'm not sure that we want to have it as little as 20 feet. I think it needs to be a little more, the edge of the fill, that is. There can still be a slight slope, but the additional fill shouldn't come that close to the trail it seems to me. Mr. Walker — The edge of the fill should stay on the Cayuga Medical Center property. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. For sure. Mr. Walker — And that is what we need to define. So the total of that slope should end there. I don't see a problem, but we would have to check with State Parks to get them to confirm that, but if they improve the drainage swale along the trail with permission from State Parks I think that would be to everyone's benefit. Then you would provide the silt fence between the swale and the total slope. Chairperson Wilcox — Peter, are you just listening or would you like to make comments? Mr. Kanter — I have some new wording to address... Chairperson Wilcox — If you want to make comments, please do. Mr. Trowbridge — I want to make sure that we have a very clear, legally defined edge. I know some people have been talking about the trail. There is no trail as such out there. So I think what we need to do is find with Sue Poelvoorde and State Parks where the right -of -way is. It sounds to me that as long as the fill all stays on Cayuga Medical Center property I think that makes sense. I also agree with Dan that there is very poor drainage in the area and the drain at the toe of the slope will really improve any future development that occurs on the Black Diamond. Board Member Hoffmann — By the way, shouldn't the drainageway be on the hospital property, too? Mr. Kanter — It probably should because it is part of that project site, but ... let me do this because I have been listening and this is a modification of what I said before. So I'll just re -read the new version of it. ''The edge of the disturbed portion of the hard fill PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED area shall be no closer than 20 feet from the boundary line of the adjacent State right - of -way for the Black Diamond Trail based on the updated survey to be completed by the applicant with the exception that the proposed drainage swale may be closer to the trail right -of -way subject to review and approval of the Director of Engineering." That would allow the drainage aspect of it to be fine -tuned as the plans develop further, but it would also say that the toe at the slope of the fill area would not be closer than 20 feet to the determined property boundary. Mr. Walker - I don't think it would be a problem to have toe of slope closer to that boundary if we know exactly where it is. Now 20 feet from an assumed boundary means it probably has a pretty good chance of not crossing the boundary. I think we could allow that toe of slope to start a little closer to that boundary because I think the existing slopes start closer ... I think the right -of -way boundary is on the hillside above those existing slopes. So I think it is workable in there. Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry. Say that again differently. Mr. Walker If say this railroad bed is 12 feet wide and the center of that is the center of the railroad right -of -way and it's a 60 -foot right -of -way, I'm just guessing. 30 feet out puts the edge of that right -of -way boundary on top of the slope that is adjacent to it most of the way out. In other words, it is not in the lower part. It is up above. It's on the bank that is above it. Chairperson. Wilcox Correct. Thank you. Board Member Hoffmann — It doesn't have to be flat. Mr. Walker — How about we put a clause in there that the actual grading plan put the toe of slope in the location that is mutually agreeable between the State Parks and the Town Engineer? Mr. Kanter — I still would recommend that the disturbed area be further from the trail right -of -way because the trail right -of -way really is a State Park area and sometimes and I don't , know how they are going to design it, but there can be other trail amenities within a trail right -of -way and it just sounds like if there is flexibility to design the fill area so that it can be a little bit further away from the right -of -way of the trail than it should be. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah. I think so, too. Chairperson Wilcox,— Meaning 20 feet. 39 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — I am still worried about the legal aspects about having this drainage ditch not be on the hospital property. If it is closer to the trail on the park property who would maintain it? I mean if this drainage swale that is necessary is off the hospital property, who would maintain it? Mr. Kanter — Well, ` I don't think anyone is saying that it should be off the hospital property. I,think what I have heard Dan saying is that it maybe able to be closer than the 20 foot limit that we are talking about. Chair ersoO Wilcox But it would remain on the hospital property. P P Mr. Walker As far as I am concerned, the only purpose for that drainage. swale is to protect the trail and the owner of the trail. Board Member Hoffmann — Well that's not the only purpose. Mr. Walker — Well, from the standpoint... I'm not sure why they even put the drainage Swale at the bottom of this anyhow because it is not helping the slope at all other than they can put some silt fences in there. If we provide the silt fence along the bottom of the slope, the swale is not so critical. Mr. Trowbridge — Dan is absolutely right. The water is all diverted at the top of the slope. So the drainage ditch at the bottom has a tiny little watershed. Its really only this are right here. All the rest of the drainage is diverted before it gets to that slope so that the swale at the bottom really is an insurance policy. It isn't about a bigger watershed. It's really about a small area that we are collecting water from. Board Member Hoffmann — From a steeper slope than there is now? Mr. Trowbridge — Than there is now, but the slope that we are proposing is actually shallower than the slopes on either side of our fill site. It's steeper both to the north and the south than to the gradient that we are proposing on our site. So it is going to look flatter than what is immediately adjacent to it. Ms. Brock — Is the swale located on the medical center property? Mr. Trowbridge — It can be. We have to define...I think we are fine with making all site improvements on CMC property. Chairperson Wilcox — Yes. Ms. Brock Eva, does that address your concern about at least who is going to be responsible for maintaining it? .I PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Mr. Walker — From a technical standpoint I'm not even sure why they need the swale there. Mr. Trowbridge — Its true. Mr. Walker —, Because if you have adequate silt fencing protection, you're really going to be...put thatiswale in you are going to tear out all the vegetation that is already there. Mr. Trowbridge — And I think we...could we assess that, Dan? Because as you said the watershed is really quite tiny. It's just that slope that we are creating. Mr. Walker - You might need to collect the water off the site that is generating more runoff, but we are actually going to be improving the site. Chairperson Wilcox - Because they are reducing the amount of runoff in that location. Mr. Kanter — There are a couple of other things labeled on here, though, that you should look at. First of all, it says establish this drainageway as soon as practical. I assume that means probably during the fill operation. Then down farther it indicates install permanent sediment trap, some filled with...this is toward the southern end of the drainage swale that then will drain into the ravine that is just a little bit further south. So the apparent function as least as indicated on this plan is that the swale is to protect the area during construction as well as after that there will be sediment collected in this trap and before it runs into the gorge. It really is more of a gorge than a ravine. So it appears to me that there certainly are some intended functions of it whether they are necessary or not, I don't know, but that's what was written on the plan. Chairperson !,Wilcox — All set? Mr. Trowbridge - All set. Chairperson Wilcox — Language so we ... do you want to read that again, Jon? The revised language. Mr. Kanter - Okay. So this would be condition h after the g.that Susan added. "'The edge of the disturbed portion of the hard fill area shall be no closer than 20 feet from the boundary line of the adjacent State right -of -way for the Black Diamond Trail based on the updated survey to be completed by the applicant with the exception that the al PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED proposed drainage swale may be closer to the trail right -of -way subject to review and approval of the Director of Engineering." Chairperson Wilcox — Yes? Mr. Trowbridge — Could we just add a clarification that we measure from the centerline of the right -of -way? Mr. Kanter - That is not what my intention number. Sure, I guess you could get that. would be, unless you want to have a new Chairperson Wilcox — We don't know how wide the right -of -way is at this point. Mr. Kanter - We don't know exactly where the trail within the right -of -way would be either. Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. One at a time. Peter, where are you going with this? Mr. Trowbridge — Which is exactly our issue. We don't know where the right -of -way is at this point and so measuring it...what we would like to do is have a discussion with staff when we understood what the right -of -way is and it just seems to me that we are dealing with an unknown at this point. We are certainly willing to work that out, but it could be in fact uniformly 60 feet wide. It could be irregular at this point. So it just seems to me we are talking about it as if it was a definitive corridor and we don't know that. So we would like to do the right thing, but we would also like to work with staff to define that rather than arbitrarily assigning numbers at this point to a right -of -way that we don't know. Chairperson Wilcox — I'll get to the people who are shaking their heads down there. If you even wanted to do it from the centerline, how would ascribe a number to it? Mr. Trowbridge — Well, if we didn't do it from the centerline I think what we would like to do...it may be, for instance, that the right -of -way is variable. It could very well be that is widens out at this point and it could be rather than a 60 foot wide corridor, what if it was all of a sudden 120 feet at this place and it was much deeper, wider than any of us are imaging. Chairperson ',Wilcox - Then you have to change your plans, probably. Mr. Trowbridge — No, I understand that, but it wouldn't necessarily affect the... I think the intent is;l, the impact on the trail. So it just seems to me having a coordinated effort between State Parks and the Town to make sure that there is no impact to the trail is the intent. If we don't know where the right -of -way is, you know, hamstringing the fill EVA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED relative to an unknown line just seems to me not very clear. So it would be great if we could survey it and then sit down with staff and legal council and define it if what we are trying to do is protect the resource of the trail. Chairperson (Wilcox It almost sounds like it should have been surveyed before you came in. Mr. Kanter — That's what I was going to say. I would be very uncomfortable, as staff, doing it that way, If it were possible there would be that much variation in the right -of- way boundaries then I really think that is something the board would want to see what the end result would` be. Board Member Mitrano — But isn't the problem that the trail isn't there? Mr. Kanter - The first thing I will say is that I doubt very much that there will be that much variation and I would assume that probably it is going to be similar to what is shown here, but we don't know that. Chairperson Wilcox — The trail is not there, but the right -of -way is there owned by ... do we know who owns the right -of -way? Mr. Kanter 'j State Parks owns that right -of -way at this point, that portion of it. They don't own every bit of it up and down there, but they do own this portion. Board Member Talty — So why don't we determine a point of reference? Do a readjusted number. Do a plus or minus and if it comes over that variance they have to come back. '(Why don't we do something like that? Chairperson Wilcox - Peter? Mr. Trowbridge — I can just...I we only do improvements on clearly is no violation of State from that and there would be there was a wide right -of -way on CIVIC property think that the Town and the Board is protected if in fact CIVIC property, wherever the right -of -way is. Then there lands or any other possible issues and it can be a setback no improvements outside our property in any case. So if here, we would still be limited to making any disposition Board Member Hoffmann — What do you mean when you say improvements? Mr. Trowbridge — Anything that we would do to the site. 43 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Board Member Hoffmann — You have to remember that this is an area that is being talked about as a Conservation Zone so I think the Town would be very interested to know what kind of improvements would happen there. Mr. Trowbridge — What I meant by improvements was fill. Any changes to the site. Board Member Hoffmann — It seems to me that a better solution would be, if this does not get cleared up, to take the fill somewhere else, like you do with some of the rest of it. Mr. Trowbridge — I think it has gotten convoluted, but this certainly can be made very clear. I'm not sure that it is ambiguous. I mean as long as we are doing all the fill on property land it can be set back as staff has suggested from the right -of -way. Mr. Kanter — If the as suggested part is agreeable, I would just go with wording that I went with and if it turns out to be something that is impractical in terms of where the right -of -way line ends up being then the applicant comes back for a modification. It won't hold up the demolition. It might hold up where the final edge of the landfill area goes. Chairperson Wilcox — How do we feel? Board Member Howe — Its makes sense. Board Member Mitrano — I'll defer to Jonathan, but I certainly have full respect for Peter. Mr. Trowbridge — No. I would agree with that. I think that if there were any extreme variation that we found with an updated survey that we would come back for modified site plan. Chairperson Wilcox - Joe, did you want to say something? Mr. Fitzgerald — No, I think what Jonathan just proposed is fine. I think we just sort of proceed that way. Chairperson Wilcox — Then if something comes up during the survey and the final grading plan ... here you are fighting for your client and your client says never mind. Thank you, Joe. Mr. Walker - On the tax map, the piece of ground it shows as owned by NYSEG, which is now owned by State Parks, shows I think it says 85 feet in width. It looks like it is fairly continuous width up to a point right about where they dumped the illegal fill ,. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED where there is 171 foot jog in it because there is a big stream there where it jogs back in. Then the railroad track looks like it is on the downhill side of the right -of -way. So it looks like almost at the lower driveway that is shown on the plan ,here might be within... Chairperson Wilcox — It could already be encroaching, potentially. Okay. We comfortable where we are with the language that Jonathan came up with? Okay. One more time. Ms. Brock and Mr. Kanter read their proposed additions to the resolution (g.and h). Chairperson Wilcox — Changes are acceptable to me. Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — There are several other points that Jonathan made in his notes for us. On page 3 he asks us to consider requiring both indoor and outdoor air quality monitoring during demolition and abatement to ensure that workers indoors are not exposed to excessive contaminants and that such contaminants are not escaping outdoors. Mr. Kanter — I put condition e ... (he reads proposed condition e). Mr. Walker — Actually, that is covered as part of the demolition permit and the Department of State... Chairperson Wilcox — I am sure the State is going to regulate this much more than we can. Mr. Walker — There are standard OSHA requirements for the air quality monitoring exposure. Mr. Kanter — We added the Tompkins County Department of Public Works at the request of the County Planning Director and Public Works Commissioner. That is why I repeated it there. Board Member Hoffmann — So that is in there already. Now the other one you mentioned on the next page is that the Conservation Board recommended that period hardware or fixtures from the Biggs Building be salvaged for reuse in other settings. Chairperson Wilcox — I think Peter addressed that early on in his presentation by saying that it was difficult at best. Mr. Kanter — That is why I didn't put it in as a specific condition. I thought that if the board wanted to discuss it you can, but it is hard to put in as a set condition. 45 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED Chairperson Wilcox — Susan. Ms. Brock — Maybe I misheard Peter then but I thought he was talking about certain structural elements. I don't know if you spoke directly to the hardware and fixtures. Mr. Trowbridge — All the hardware and fixtures will become property of the contractor and any of that material I am sure that has value will be salvaged and sold. Board Member Hoffmann — If it becomes property of the contractor that is fine. I suppose that we don't have any say about it then. I just think its nice to reuse what can be reused, but we are not doing anything about that. Board Member Mitrano — Correct because that is the property of the contractor. This feels a little bit like micromanaging. Board Member Hoffmann — Well anyway the next point here in Jonathan's memo is the Planning Board may want to consider requiring additional plantings adjacent to trail right -of -way in conjunction with the hard fill area reclamation plan. What do we think about that? Chairperson Wilcox — Peter offered it right up front, as a matter of fact. Mr. Kanter — I actually did include in condition c ... (he reads condition c). Board Member Hoffmann — Do we want to specify anything about what kind of plantings? Mr. Kanter — You could. Board Member Hoffmann — Do you have any proposal as far as that goes? Mr. Kanter — No. Chairperson Wilcox — You do. Just repeat it, Peter. Mr. Trowbridge — We had talked about several species up front that we would plant up front like gray dogwood that is a very shrubby native plant. It would do well in a situation like this and we felt that that would have a greater visual barrier than trees that would ultimately get branched up. Board Member Hoffmann — I think it would be nice to having plantings to break up those very straight lines of the new fill. I mean if you have clumps of shrubbery... EN Mr. Trowbridge — I think that is fine. would be happy to do. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED I think that is something that we offered and Board Member Hoffmann — Do we need to specify that a little more in the condition or is that enough? Chairperson Wilcox — No. We are all set. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. I think the last one here was on page 5 there was some mention about the truck routing plan. Mr. Kanter — We did a submission of a truck routing plan for review and approval of Director of Engineering describing the routes, number of truck trips per day and hours of truck hauling. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay and then the thing that came up tonight was the extra pile of fill there, which had come up without anybody knowing about it. What do we do about that? Mr. Walker — That will be remediated as part of the citation that I will be issuing. Board Member Hoffmann — I see. Mr. Walker — We have an earth fill ordinance that has been violated and I have been assured by CMC that they will be mitigating that. Chairperson Wilcox — So we will handle that as a separate administrative matter. Board Member Mitrano — Sounds good. Chairperson Wilcox — Any further discussion? Board votes on motion. PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -042: Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, ft gLs Building Demolition, Tax Parcel No's, 24m3"2.24 and 24 -3 -2, 21, 301 Harris B. Dates Drive MOTION made by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Howe. WHEREAS; M PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4. 2006 APPROVED 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board /s considering Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval 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. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent, and 2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to the proposed Biggs Building Demolition project, on April 4, 2006, made a negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, and other application materials, and 3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 4, 2006, has reviewed and accepted as adequate application materials, including "Cayuga Medical Center - Site Plan Review: Biggs Building Abatement & Demolition" prepared by Trowbridge & Wolf Landscape Architects, dated February 2006; "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Log Book, Cayuga Medical Center Redevelopment Site'; prepared by Donald DeWolfe Ehre, P.E., PLLC, DBA Boulder Consultants, dated January 2006 (revised February 2006); "Hazardous Material Survey - Former Biggs Memorial Hospital" prepared by Elsenbach & Ruhnke Engineering, P.C., dated January 13, 2006; a set of engineering plans, entitled "Building Demolition - Former Biggs Memorial Hospital, Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca'; including SP -1 through SP -3, SWPPP, C1 01 and C102, L101 and L201, WA M1 and SCH -1, AS -1 through AS -7, and EX-1 through E%V, all prepared under the coordination of Eisenbach & Ruhnke Engineering, P. C., and dated 2107106, and L301 "Hard Fill Area Grading Plan" prepared by Eisenbach & Ruhnke Engineering, P. C., dated 313106, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED; 1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists, having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied by the Town Board, and PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED 2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed demolition of the Biggs Building located at 301 Harris Be Dates Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No, s 24-32.24 and 24- 3m2.21, Planned Development Zone No. 3 and Low Density Residential Zone, subject to the following conditions to be accomplished prior to issuance of any demolition permit, unless otherwise noted: a. Submission of a truck routing plan, for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, describing the route(s), number of truck trips per day, and hours of truck hauling, incorporating limitations on truck trips during peak traffic hours on the selected route(s) if determined to be necessary by the Director of Engineering, and b. Mature trees on the project site shall be protected during the demolition project to the extent practicable, and C Submission of revised Sheet L301 Hard Fill Area Grading Plan to include additional plantings along the east edge of the hard fill area to provide a buffer from the adjacent New York State right -of -way for the future Black Diamond Trail, for review and approval of the Director of Planning, and d. Submission of record of application for and approval of all necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including but not limited to the Notice of Intent, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and other approvals relating to the abatement, transport, and disposal of regulated and hazardous waste materials, and e. During the demolition and abatement process, contractor shall provide indoor and outdoor air quality monitoring results to the Town of Ithaca Director of Engineering and Tompkins County Department of Public Works, and f. During the demolition process, contractor shall provide weekly schedules to the County Health Department, whose offices are located in an adjacent Biggs building, to alert them of the time and duration of activities on site that could impact that department, and g. Submission of revised Sheet L301 for review and approval of the Director of Engineering, showing appropriate grading in the vicinity of the gas line and drainage swales, and h. The edge of the disturbed portion of the Hard Fill Area shall be no closer than 20 feet from the boundary line of the adjacent. State Right -of -Way • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED for the Black Diamond Trail, based on the updated survey to be completed by the applicant, with the exception that the proposed drainage Swale may be closer to the trail right -of -way, subject to review and approval of the Director of Engineering. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: A YES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was declared to be carried unanimously. MINUTE APPROVAL PB RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -043; Approval of Minutes; March 21, 2006 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Mitrano. RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does 2006 minutes as the official minutes of the meeting as presented with corrections. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES .• Wilcox, Mitrano, Howe, Talty. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Hoffmann. The vote on the motion was carried. hereby approve and adopts the March 21, Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Kanter gives the board an overview of the April 18"' agenda. The board discusses who will be present at the next meeting. Chairperson Wilcox comments that he saw the first pod in the Town of Ithaca on Slaterville Road. He mentions that he received a letter from Fred Vanderburgh stating that Mr. Vanderburgh is retiring. Mr. Kanter and Ms. Brock give the board an update on the Cornell TGEIS project. ADJOURNMENT Chairperson Wilcox adjourns the April 4, 2006 Planning Board meeting at 9:15 p.m. 50 illy submitted, Deputy Town Clerk PLANNING BOARD MINUTES APRIL 4, 2006 APPROVED 51 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, April 4, 2006 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed renovations to the Ithaca College Boothroyd Hall located in the southeast corner of the main campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the renovation of the existing 70 -unit dormitory including window replacement, chimney reconstruction, fagade repairs and painting, existing sidewalk replacement and lawn and planting bed repairs. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design, Agent. . I . 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition at the Genex Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24 -5 -1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves constructing a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities. Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent. 7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Cornell University Campus.Road Segment 7 Rehabilitation. 7 :30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Campus Road Segment 7 Rehabilitation project located between Judd Falls and Tower Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -2.2, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves rebuilding the existing roadway, including widening the road by approximately 5 feet to add bicycle lanes, reconstructing the existing bus stop, reroute and treat stormwater runoff, replace the lighting fixtures and add new landscaping. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Bob Chiang, Agent. 7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination: Biggs Building Demolition, 301 Harris B. Dates Drive. 7 :45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval 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. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent. 8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary). 9. Approval of Minutes: March 21, 20060 100 Other Business: 11. Adjournment. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, Apri14, 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, April 4, 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 Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed renovations to the Ithaca College Boothroyd Hall located in the southeast corner of the main campus, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 41 -1 -30.2, Medium. Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves the renovation of the existing 70 -unit dormitory including window replacement, chimney reconstruction, faeade repairs and painting, existing sidewalk replacement and lawn and planting bed repairs. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Vincent Nicotra, QPK Design, Agent, 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed addition at the Genex Monsanto Building, Production Center # 2, located at 521 Sheffield Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 24- 5-1, Agricultural Zone. The proposal involves constructing a +/- 10,000 square foot addition on the west side of the existing building to house offices and research facilities. Genex Cooperative, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Egner Architectural Assoc., LLC, Agent. 7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed Cornell University Campus Road Segment 7 Rehabilitation project located between Judd Falls and Tower Roads, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -22, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves rebuilding the existing roadway; including widening the road by approximately 5 feet to add bicycle lanes, reconstructing the existing bus stop, reroute and treat stormwater runoff, replace the lighting fixtures and add new landscaping. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Bob Chiang, Agent. 7:45 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval 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. Cayuga Medical Center at Ithaca, Owner /Applicant; Peter J. Trowbridge, Trowbridge & Wolf, LLP, Agent, Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, March 27, 2006 Publish: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD SIGN -IN SHEET DATE: April 4, 2006 (PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES) PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION .f ' J� ; ✓jam 1� L-1-� ��" E f `1 �� UT ' +- ��' 0 / �i n /may I 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 Tuesdu, April 4 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. March 27, 2006 March 29, 2006 Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 29th day of March 2006. otary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20