Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-02-06FILE DATE 7-o 7 REGULAR MEETING TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2007 215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Wilcox; Board Members: Eva Hoffmann, Rod Howe, Kevin Talty and Larry Thayer EXCUSED: George Conneman STAFF: Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra, Planner; Esther Blodau- Konick, Planner; Susan Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk. OTHERS PRESENT. Stephen Rogers, Coddington Road; Joel Harlan, Newfield; Rick Couture, Ithaca College; John M. Keefe, Project Manager, Cornell University; Hollis Erb, Snyder Hill Road; Monique Morse, Harvey Hill Road; Mark Macera, Longview; Rich DePaulo, Northview Road; Dr, Bruce Aike, Asst. Dean for Diagnostic Operations, Cornell University; Robert Blakeny, Project Manager, Cornell University; Al Gantert, Director, Physical Education, Cornell University; Susan Blumenthal, Mitchell Street;David Schlosser, ALA, Syracuse CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:08 p.m., and accepts for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on January 29, 2007 and January 31, 2007 together with the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on January 29, 20070 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 Stephen Rogers, 152 Coddington Road, City of Ithaca We own the last house on Coddington Road within the City limits. Our property is adjacent to the Town line and bordered by Ithaca College on two sides, we're therefore immediate neighbors of Ithaca College. We attended the January 16th Planning Board meeting at which Ithaca College presented its sketch plan for a new athletic center and related construction fill site. PB Approved Minutes 2106/07 Pg.2 At that meeting, we expressed our concern about both the perimeter road shown in the plan for the athletic center and the proposed fill site north of.Emerson Hall. Tonight we are present to restate our opposition both to the prospect of a college road running behind our backyard and to the continued use of the Emerson Hall location as a dumping site. Both the road and fill site will have a tremendously adverse impact on our own and other residential properties bordering this part of the Ithaca College campus. The proposed perimeter from the college's back campus road would sanc and essentially turn our, long traffic island at the vehicular traffic from the Ithaca College proposes our back property lines. road runs parallel to Coddington Road nearly all the way entrance to where Coddington meets Route 96B. This Mich us, and our neighbors between two streams of traffic and other residential properties on Coddington Road into a edge of the City. We already have heavy pedestrian and college in front of our homes on Coddington Road. Now, to create traffic behind our homes by building a road along Just as alarming, is the proposal by Ithaca College to continue using the location north of Emerson Hall as a dump site for its dirt and construction debris. When we purchased our home 12 years ago we knew that we would be neighbors of Ithaca College and affected by some of its activities. We never dreamed, however, that this would include Ithaca College using the land behind our home as a dumpsite. Ithaca College has been dumping dirt and construction debris at this location for a decade already, apparently without seeking the appropriate approvals and permission from the Town. For years we have watched a mountain of earth edge closer and closer to our property line and home, and those of our neighbors. The dumping and the mound have steadily destroyed any buffer zone between the campus and its neighbors, disturbed our peace, intruded on our privacy and reduced the value of our property. As if the altered landscape were not enough, Ithaca College created a crude parking lot and installed lighting on top of this mound that looms over our backyards. Ithaca College has also seen fit, to bulldoze woods and create a parking lot for storage trailers on some of the remaining flat land in the area by Emerson Hall. This lot is conveniently out of sight for most of the campus but is all too visible to us from our homes and yards, from fall through spring. Ithaca College has clearly designated this area of its campus as a location for its most unpleasant and ugly activities and uses, in spite of the fact that it lies within a medium density residential zone within the Town of Ithaca in full view of homes in both the City and Town. With the noise, dust, and dirt of the dump trucks and grading machinery, the extension of the hillside, and the unsightly parking lots, Ithaca College has effectively destroyed our and other residents' fair use and enjoyment of our property. Of equal concern, and more tangible, is the monetary loss we face by the devaluation of our homes and property by these actions. PS Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.3 Now Ithaca College says it expects to use the area north of Emerson Hall as a dump site for the next "five or six" years. This is an eternity for people living in the neighborhood. During this time, not only can we expect to have our daily lives adversely affected, but our property, and that or our neighbors, will be un- salable for anything approaching a fair market price because of the noise and proximity of construction vehicles, and the growing mound of dirt, which Ithaca College says will cover at least another 3 acres of land and move their hillside another 100 feet closer to our property lines. This is not some public works project that is going to benefit taxpaying residents of the City, Town and County. This is a project pushed forward by a private, tax - exempt institution for its own benefit that guarantees its residential neighbors only more noise, more traffic, and greater intrusion on their privacy. Ithaca College gains a dramatic view from South Hill, while those of us who live on South Hill are subjected to an even more overbearing and dominating view of Ithaca College. At the January 16th meeting, Ithaca College stated that it has not considered or sought any other dumpsites for this construction material. By the College's own admission, the Emerson Hall site is simply the easiest location. We demand that the College choose another site for this dumping. Certainly there are alternative sites, away from residential properties on Ithaca College's 750 -acre campus. If not, then the College should truck the fill out. We intend to actively oppose the College's plans for a perimeter road and continued use of the site behind our home for dumping. We will pursue all legal avenues to prevent this intrusion on our privacy and disturbance of our peace and tranquility and to protect the value of our property. Tonight we urge the Planning Board to support us and other residents by denying approval to the proposed perimeter road and the Emerson Hall fill site. Chairperson Wilcox — Could we have a copy of the statement. Mr. Rogers — Yes, in fact I've made several copies I can pass out. Joel Harlan, Newfield I don't know if you are going to discuss this ... about the center? Can I say it now or are you going to... Chairperson Wilcox — In regard to the sailing center? Mr. Harlan — When's the sailing ... like down there near the lake? Chairperson Wilcox — When we get to that agenda item, which is not a public hearing, we will give you a chance to speak at that point. PB Approved Minutes 2106107 Pg. 4 Mr. Harlan — Cause I'm all out for it. Chairperson Wilcox — We'll give you a chance to speak at that point. Mr. Harlan — What about the activities center at Ithaca College? Chairperson Wilcox -- Ithaca College agenda item this evening should be relatively brief ... having to do with determination of the SEQR process. If you want to make some comments now, I'll give you that opportunity. Mr. Harlan -- I think it's a splendid idea to get this field house. The one thing it's lacking I notice is, Cortland State's got it, why not add into it a hockey rink cause Cortland State's got it and that's a Division 3 school. That'd be nice to have that all wrapped up in one. and also I thought I'd let you know ... Ithaca College is outdated with the football field. What they ought to do is like look into what Cortland State's got. Nice good sized bleachers that will fit everybody. Because someone is. going to get seriously hurt with what they got up there at Ithaca College. It's a very small, small place to sit people and when something like the Cortland Jug comes in, you got a lot people around there not sitting in seats but some on the grass and the hillside, all the way to the gate. And the football field needs ... like Cortland State, light, so they can have night games ad night activities. That field is so outdated compared to Cortland State. You been up there Fred? That's a nice stadium and they need something like that. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me point out that the current plans that we saw two weeks ago, Ithaca College has no plans to move the football field and football games from the existing site. Mr. Harlan — They need bleachers just like Cortland's got and they need lights. But I would say, if you're gonna build a good one then I'd build a hockey rink in there that you can do anything with...you know, take it apart when you need to or put a field on top of it . It's pretty outdated... Cortland State has got a hockey rink ... I don't think Ithaca College has got one. And it would be splendid for a lot of people like the local people use that instead of Lynah Rink. And that, you know,. that'd be good and that's what we need is something like that down here for ourselves. A sports arena like this. We need a state of the art somewhere around here for ourselves, either our neighborhood house because GIAC is getting too small or else ... state of the art sports arena for ourselves so we can do everything... just like the college kids. The college kids are getting everything for activities but we're losing a lot of it down here in downtown and that's why a lot of crime is picking up, because everybody is bored. Chairperson Wilcox — Joel... Mr. Harlan — I just thought I'd let you know....there's more violence because ... when you've lived here all your life, it's the same 'ol crap just a different day:.. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.5 Chairperson Wilcox --Joel ... everyone ... Mr. Harlan — Well, I'm all for it and I'm all for that boatyard too. Chairperson Wilcox — Save it for later. Mr. Harlan — Okay, I thought I'd say all I have to say but I welcome that sport arena and what they should do is put a hockey arena in there besides that. Then you can do what you want and you'll have many activities up there besides, you know. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Joel. Anybody else. Okay, the next item... Before we do, Mr. Rogers, if I may, a question. The concerns that you expressed in both your statement and in the written copy that you provided to us...have you expressed those thoughts previously either to the Town or to Ithaca College? Mr. Rogers — No. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:20pm. Discussion of the SEAR process for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41-1- 30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a +/= 300,000 square foot field house building (containing a 200M track, indoor field for practices and games, seating and floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving well, indoor tennis courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center, etc.) an outdoor= lighted artificial turf field and 400M track, and the creation of 900 +/= parking spaces (550 existing parking spaces moved and 350 new parking spaces). The project is proposed in several phases and will also include new walkways, access roads, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. The Planning Board may also declare their interest in being Lead Agency for the project. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent. Rick Couture, Ithaca College Chairperson Wilcox — The agenda item before us this evening is to make sure that we are all clear and agree to how we wish to proceed with the Environmental Quality Review process. Ithaca College verbally and through a letter in front of us dated February 1St has agreed to voluntarily provide a draft environmental impact statement, which I think is a wonderful gesture on Ithaca College's part. The Planning Board could determine this evening that it wants to take Lead Agency PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.6 status or request concurrence from other interested and involved agencies. Should there be no objection, then we could proceed to a scoping session. at some point, where in a public session the scope and content of the environmental impact statement would be determined and once that was agreed to then Ithaca College and their engineers and architects and agents would then begin preparation of the environmental impact statement. Did I miss anything? Ms. Brock — Well, just that if the Planning Board is determined to. be Lead Agency then the next step would be to make a determination of significance. which is anticipated would be a positive determination... Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, the Planning Board would make a positive declaration of potential positive environmental ... positive significant environmental impact. Ms. Brock — And then the scooping process would begin from there. Chairperson Wilcox — Rick, that's your understanding as well? [yes] Mr. Kanter — We did leave a draft resolution on the table tonight if the Board is ready to declare it's intent to be Lead Agency, then, based on that, we could go ahead and send the notification to other involved agencies. Chairperson Wilcox — Application... Based upon what we saw at sketch plan two weeks ago, Planning Board would be asked to provide site plan approval, and potentially the Zoning Board might be called upon for a height variance? Mr. Kanter — And also a special permit. Chairperson Wilcox — And also a special permit from the Planning Board. Are we aware of another agency that would have to grant a permit at this point? Mr. Kanter — Probably State Department of Environmental Conservation for the stormwater management for the SPDES permit. The County for Coddington Road work although that's not necessarily a SEQRable action. Chairperson Wilcox — So, given that and it's cases that we've seen before, the Town Board would most likely want to act as Lead Agency for environmental review and we have acted as Lead Agency for ... Mr. Kanter — Possibly the Army Corps of Engineers if there are any regulated wetlands but that's not been determined yet. Board Member Hoffmann — I was just going to say that it seems very appropriate to do what has been suggested. Motion is moved and seconded. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.7 Chairperson Wilcox — now, therefore, be it resolved: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and be it further resolved: that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department no later than March 6, 2007, Chairperson Wilcox — Any Further discussion? ADOPTED RESOLUTION PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 015 Lead Agency — Declaration of Intent Ithaca College Athletic & Events Center Tax Parcel No's. 41 -1 -30.2, 41 =1 -24 and 42 -1 -9.2 Ithaca College Campus Near Coddington Road Town of Ithaca Planning Board, February 6, 2007 MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board at its meeting on January . 16, 2007 considered a Sketch Plan for the proposed Ithaca College Athletics and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s41- 1-30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a +/- 300,000 square foot field house building (containing a 200M track, indoor field for practices and games, seating and floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving well, indoor tennis courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center, etc.) an outdoor - lighted artificial turf field and 400M track, and the creation of 900 +/- parking spaces (550 existing parking spaces moved and 350 new parking spaces). The project is proposed in several phases and will also include new walkways, access roads, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant; Richard Couture, Agent, and 2. The proposed project, which requires site plan approval and special permit by the Planning Board and possibly variance(s) by the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals, 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 construction of a facility with more than 25,000 square feet'of gross floor area, parking for more than 100 vehicles, and potentially, the physical PB Approved Minutes 2/06107 Pg.8 alteration of more than 10 acres (Section 148- 5.0 -1, 3 and 4 Town of Ithaca Code), and 39 A letter from Ithaca College, dated February 1, 2007, has been received, in which Ithaca College states that .. "the College will concede that there is the potential for at least one significant adverse environmental impact and that a positive determination of environmental significance by the Town Planning Board of this Type I action is warranted", and a Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, has been submitted by the applicant for the above - described action, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed actions, as described above, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by the Town of Ithaca Planning Department no later than March 6, 2007, AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, and Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was carried unanimously. Board Member Thayer — I wonder if we could suggest that Mr. Rogers be with us Monday when we do the look around? Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. You sent out an e-mail with the time that has been agreed to for the site visit, both for the proposed athletic facilities and the fill site and that time is... Mr. Smith — Next Monday the 12th at 2:00pm. Meeting at the Z lot. Chairperson Wilcox — Z lot is the parking lot on top of the fill Rogers and anybody else is welcome to come along with u weather will be a little bit nicer, the snow won't be too deep an d do our walk through on the site. Thank you Larry, appreciate it. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:28pm. SEQR Determination French Lavender Flower Shop, 903 Mitchell Street. site. Mr. And Mrs. s as hopefully. the we will go out and PB Approved Minutes 2106/07 Pg.9 Monique Morse, Mitchell Street and Susan Blumenthal, Mitchell Street I would like to open a flower shop at 903 Mitchell Street in the :space that was formerly Knitting Machine Limited and I am doing minimal things to the building. I am basically cleaning up the outside, painting it, doing some landscaping. There's very good parking there, the vehicular access from Mitchell Street is, it's a very wide entrance there, there is plenty of room to turn around. My business hours will be Monday. through Friday, 9 — 5:30, Saturdays, probably 9:00 — 3:00 and I'll be closed on Sundays. My delivery ... basically my deliveries that will be coming in are mostly during the day, once in a while I'll have an evening drop.-off but the drivers, in my experience, they are very quiet, there's minimal bother to the neighborhood. My deliveries going out, I have room for a delivery van in the parking lot and I'll be taking a few delivery runs during the day. As far as the interior of the building, it's basic clean up. Spackling, painting...it's been empty for some time and I am not doing anything permanent to the building, I am not putting up any walls or taking down any walls, I am just basically renovating a little bit and cleaning it up and that's about it. Chairperson Wilcox W- Are there any environmental impacts that you are aware of? Ms. Morse — No not that I am aware of. Chairperson Wilcox - I believe, for the record, I drove by on Saturday evening and saw some people working in there late at night on the interior. Questions? Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEAR... Board Member Hoffmann — I actually had a question, not that it really relates to the environmental review from our point of view but....1 remember when going into this building when there was a yarn shop there, that there was a very strong indication of mildew, moisture problems. Is that something that has been taken care of.... Ms. Morse — Yes it has. When I went into the building on December 31St basically, I had a ....there was a strong odor of mildew in the building. One of the main problems was that .the owner of the building had not put gutters back up, they were off the building for some time so some moisture did get into the walls. We have since reattached all of the gutters, we've cleaned up things on the outside, we've scrubbed down the interior walls with Clorox and water, we've painted the kills primer on there and we ... seems to have eliminated the problem. The basement is dry so it looks good. Board Member Hoffmann — I am glad to hear that since I was aware of that problem. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Resolution No. 2007 = 016 SEQR: Preliminary '& Final Site Plan Approval French Lavender Flower Shop 903 Mitchell Street Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16 Town of Ithaca Planning Board February 6, 2007 MOTION made by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed French Lavender Flower Shop to be located in an existing building at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves converting the former knitting shop space (approximately 1,128 sq. ft.) into a flower shop. The only exterior changes include minor plantings and painting of the building. Eunice A. McFall, Owner; Monique L. Morse, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is acting as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, and 3. The Planning Board, on adequate a Short Environ the applicant, and Part II applicant (dated January Business" and a drawing materials, and February 6, 2007, mental Assessment prepared by Town 20, 2007) includinc and photos of the has reviewed and accepted as Form (EAF) Part I, submitted by Planning staff, a letter from the a "Description of Property and property, and other application 4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance based on the information in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter 148 Environmental Quality Review of the Town of Ithaca Code for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, neither a Full Environmental Assessment Form nor an Environmental Impact Statement will be required. A vote on the motion resulted as follows: PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.11 AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, and Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:32pm. PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed French Lavender Flower Shop to be located in an existing building at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16, Medium Density Residential Zone The proposal involves converting the former knitting shop space (approximately 1,128 sq ft.) into a flower shop. The only exterior changes include minor plantings and the painting of the building. Eunice A. McFall, Owner; Monique L. Morse, Applicant. Chairperson Wilcox — Any questions with regard to the site plan review before I ask you to go back to your seat and give the public a chance to speak. This building-is very significant to me having grown up in the Belle Sherman area, this was Bud's Red and White. This was the neighborhood store for me and this is where you went to get your candy and hung out....boes the owner live right next door? Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board. Joel Harlan, Newfield — That's pretty good. I think it's pretty good. Anything to _help the little ... to help the people out is an improvement. I'm all for it. Hollis Erb, Snyder Hill Road I think it's a lovely idea to have a nice small business in there rather than a vacant building. The hours sound like they wouldn't be much of a light problem to the neighborhood but I'd like to be sure of that ... I'd also like to, for the sake of the neighbors, to know that there is going to be some nice neighborhood housing type of color scheme rather than something blazing and garish that says Hi, Flowers. That would be my only comment. But I am glad to see the building lot not go to ruin. There being no -one else, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 7:35pm. Chairperson Wilcox — What color are you going to paint it? Ms. Morse — I am leaving ... The front of the building, the bottom half is shingled and my husband and I have power washed it and we are going to re -oil or stain it pretty much natural the way it is. The top front of the building we are going to do a white trim and we are also doing white trim around the windows and then we are probably PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.12 going to do the center triangle in a lavender- tinted white, a very pale color. The same color will be on the side of the building, a very pale lavender color. It will be very soft and will be coordinated .... we are doing our plantings of our flowers in purples and lavenders and whites so it will be very soft looking. Not garish. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you have anything for sale that is not flowers or has not something to do directly with flowers such as vases or miracle grow or things like that? What else might you sell? Ms. Morse — I won't be selling soil but I'll have vases and containers a little bit of giftware, kind of typical florist things. Chairperson Wilcox -- Food? Ms. Morse — I was going to provide gift ... not gift, fruit baskets if people order them because that's something that florists usually provide for people. So little fruit baskets and chocolates and things like that that go with the flowers. Board Member Hoffmann — The color sounds fine to me because it sounds like it is going to be a fairly light shade so it wouldn't stand out but I was wondering about the sign. The signage hadn't been decided yet in the papers that we got. So if you could describe that and does it have some strong color. Ms. Morse — Right, I am going to ... what I'd like to do actually is ... it's a 1' x 4' sign which is what I can have since it is a residential neighborhood. I believe I am doing a, I haven't a 100% got this in concrete but, (Mike Smith holds up a copy of the proposed sign) That's basically the lettering and it's probably going to be a white background or a soft lavender background with a darker lettering, possibly a black lettering or so. We haven't quite figured that out but we'll \probably have to do that tomorrow morning. Chairperson Wilcox — For the record, Mike Smith is holding up a depiction of sign. Mr. Smith — A sign permit was applied for this week. Chairperson Wilcox — Hours of operation were mentioned. You mentioned what your proposed hours of operation were. Ms. Morse — Nine to five - thirty, Monday through Friday, Saturdays probably 9 -3 and closed most Sundays, except say if it's a major holiday or something, I might be open on a Sunday once in awhile. Chairperson Wilcox — Interest in limiting hours of operation to 8:00 in the morning until 8:00 at night or something like that? Board Member Thayer -- I don't have any strong feeling about that. PB Approved Minutes 2106107 Pg. 13 Board Member Hoffmann — I think the hours suggested sound like they would be better than what you said. Chairperson Wilcox — They are but I want to be reasonable here. I don't want them open at 1:00 in the morning, but you know, if it's Valentine's day or the day before Valentine's day and the delivery truck's coming in a 7:30 at night... Board Member Thayer — And you forgot to buy your flowers... Chairperson Wilcox — And you forgot to buy your flowers or something like that, Burger King is open til I think 10:00 or 11:00, the Rite Aid is I don't know 9;00 or 10:00 so I was thinking 8:00 would be not unreasonable. But that again is up to the Board... Board Member Thayer — So you're asking to limit it? Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, do we want ... Board Member Thayer — Put a limit on it? Chairperson Wilcox — It's up to this Board.- Board Member Hoffmann It sounds to me like it is more limited by the applicant already. Board Member Thayer — I think she's told us what she wants to do. Board Member Hoffmann — Since I don't have any objections to the hours they are proposing, I'm not going to request something else. Board Member Talty — I don't think the competition is open that late either, Fred.. Some of the other florists in the area. Chairperson Wilcox - - You're comfortable? All — Yes. Ms. Brock — Two things, one, Mike, 'I noticed that the lighting includes spotlights on the building. Does the lighting comply with the Town's outdoor lighting law? Mr. Smith — It's all existing. They're not proposing any changes or adding, so nothing is changing. Anything existing is grand - fathered unless it's creating a glare or light trespass or anything like that. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.14 Mr. Kanter — It says the spotlights are angled to shine towards the front door. Does that mean they are basically shining back toward the building .as opposed to away from it? [yes] Then that certainly sounds like it would comply with the law. Ms. Morse — The two spotlights that are on the side of the building into the parking lot actually shine down toward the parking lot, they don't angle out at all. They basically shine into the parking lot, towards the wall of the building. Ms. Brock — Are you contemplating any outdoor displays? Ms. Morse - The way the building is set up there's a little island in the front of it where there's a planter ... it's not a planter, I don't know what it was originally, but I am going to use it as a planter and I will have flowers and things in there and what I'd like to do in the spring is a ... put a little bit of ... I think I am getting a set. of garden furniture and might possibly put one or two small things out front on either side of the front door. But not a lot. I might put a couple of chairs or something, I have a lot of people from the walking trail that I border and they like to come in and visit so I might put a few garden chairs out there for them to sit. Ms. Brock — But these would be places for people to come and sit while they are shopping or their spouses or friends are shopping? Are there going to be any outdoor displays of goods that are for sale? Ms. Morse — No, the garden furniture that I would display is for sale but it's also some place for people to sit. Mr. Kanter — This is a residential zone so we really don't have any rules to go by in terms of that. I think commercial zones tend to limit outdoor displays, so, you know, the Board might want to think about some kind of condition that might limit it in some way, but I'm not quite sure how you would do that. Keep in mind this is a nonconforming commercial use continuing in a residential zone, so obviously you want to keep impacts away from the residential zone but... Mr. Walker — Right next door to the high voltage lab.. Board Member Talty — I would just say that as long as there are not pallets and trailers and things like Home Depotish, I mean, I'm fine with the business plan and how it states what she's going to be doing with that location. Board Member Hoffmann — By the way, that planter is where Bud's Grocery Store had a gas pump. Ms. Blumenthal — Can I just ask about the hours. Monique suggested some hours here in her application, does that mean, under site plan review, you have the ability to limit the hours and they would be limited to what it says here? Or how does that work? If you could just clarify that? PB Approved Minutes 2106/07 Pg.15 Chairperson Wilcox — We have in the past, as part of site plan review, stipulated what the hours can be. There seems to be, from members of, the Board, no inclination to include that in the resolution. Ms. Blumenthal — So regardless of what she has in the application, that its not... Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, if at some point the hours of operation should become a problem for the neighbors. Noise from people visiting, noise from the delivery vehicles, . then potentially, the...potentially, not this Board but the Building Department might be made aware of the problem ... not sure what would. happen. But it wouldn't be this Board. And that's the issue is that if there's a noise problem at 10:00 at night because of delivery trucks or hours of operation... Ms. Brock — Right, there's a noise ordinance that needs to...you should probably take a look at that because that would apply. This Board does not get involved with the noise ordinance per se, in terms of enforcement. Board Member Hoffmann — But when I look at an application, and it says various facts about it like size and things like that, and operating hours, I take the operating hours as a given, that this is what the operating hours are going to be, that you are suggesting today. I don't expect them to change. Board Member Howe — That's not how I would read it. I think this is a new business and they may have to experiment with the hours just a little bit here and there. Board Member Hoffmann — Then I think it's up to them to say that to us. Board Member Talty — I think they did though. It says "if the business demands" ...it says " if the business demands, it is possible the hours may be extended by an hour or two." I'm willing to give them the leeway. Board Member Thayer —Yeah. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, an hour or two is one thing but you were saying 11:00 at night, that's quite a difference from 5:30. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I believe I said from 8:00 o'clock in the morning to 8:00 o'clock at night is what I threw out there as a suggestion. But there seems to be no inclination to put that in the resolution. Board Member Hoffmann — But when I look at an application, I look at the material in the application and assume that that is what it's going to be. Board Member Talty — It is. Board Member Thayer — That's what she did. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.16 Chairperson Wilcox — The fact that it's in the application material but is not in the resolution means it doesn't have the weight behind it that it would have if it was stated in the resolution. Ms. Brock — That's correct. Board Member Hoffmann — But we can...So are you saying that we should include it in the resolution? Chairperson Wilcox — I am saying that if there is concern about it, we can not rely upon the statements made by the applicant in the materials, we need to put it in the resolution. Board Member Howe — These three are not concerned. Chairperson Wilcox — We are not concerned. Any changes Susan? I think we're all set. Ms. Brock — No unless you want to have any language about the outdoor display. Chairperson Wilcox — I think Kevin said that he was not inclined to have anything, and I didn't sense any disagreement with what Kevin said. For the record, we're being, you know sometimes I think we're ... and sometimes when we go through these reviews we are careful and we. deliniate all of the conditions in the resolution and this time I think we're giving the applicant the benefit of the doubt in that which is they won't do anything they're not supposed to, the hours won't go beyond reasonable. I want to make sure we understand that. Board Member Talty — But a lot of the applicants, Fred, are not as descriptive as this applicant. We normally have to pin down the applicant where this applicant came in, in my opinion, with a wonderful plan and outlined everything, it was very easy to follow. I'm in favor of how it sits right now. Board Member Hoffmann — We also have applicants where there is a history of a slippery slope starting and I mean, that's sometimes what makes me want to nail things down. Board Member Talty — I concur with that. Board Member Thayer — That's why we're letting her slide. Board Member Talty — I don't know if I'd say that. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg, 17 ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Resolution No. 2007 - 017 Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval French Lavender Flower Shop 903 Mitchell Street Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16 Town of Ithaca Planning Board February 6, 2007 MOTION made by Kevin Talty, seconded by Larry Thayer. WHEREAS: 1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed French Lavender Flower Shop to be located in an existing building at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16, Medium Density. Residential Zone. The proposal involves converting the former knitting shop space (approximately 1,128 sq. ft) into a flower shop. The. only exterior changes include minor plantings and painting of the building. Eunice A. McFall, Owner; Monique L: Morse, Applicant, and 2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to. Site Plan Approval has, on February 6, 2007, 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 February 6, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as adequate, a letter from the applicant (dated January 20, 2007) including a "Description of Property and Business ". and a drawing and photos of the property, and other application materials, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: 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 French Lavender Flower Shop located at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59 =2 -16, as described in a letter PB Approved Minutes 2106/07 Pg.18 from the applicant (dated January 20, 2007) including a "Description of Property and Business" and a drawing and photos of the property, and other application materials. AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Thayer, Howe, and Talty. NAYS: None. The motion was carried unanimously. Chairperson Wilcox — I need to let the public know what's. going on. Ladies and gentlemen it is 7:50 p.m, and the next scheduled agenda items have to do with the proposed Longview Special Care addition. We have a potential problem this evening. The potential issues, which I will give the Town Attorney a chance to provide her opinion on, is that the public hearing notice that was printed in the paper and posted states. that the new building would have up to 30 additional... would house up to, serve up to 30 additional residents. Subsequent to that language being printed in the paper and posted, it became clear to us that the proposed addition has 32 units. The question before us right now is if that is a significant material defect in the public hearing notice to warrant a postponement of this evenings proceedings, republish the public hearing notice and bring the Ithacare and the applicant back another date. Having said- that, - Susan... Ms. Brock — I do think that is a significant enough change that the Board should not vote tonight on preliminary site plan approval. That doesn't. preclude you from having, if you wish, to hear from the members of the public that are here as to their comments and for you to have a discussion on all of the materials that you have before you as long as you don't actually vote tonight and realize that when this is. ,then the public hearing notice is republished and applicant comes back to you at a future meeting that you will need another public hearing, an official public hearing at that time as well, even if you take comments from people tonight. Mark Macera, Longview Ithacare I agree and the issue of the misinformation, the oversight, you know, has been discussed with Planning Department officials is one of an evolutionary process through the original schematic reviews and program applications and we were, again, able to squeak out a couple of spots and I'll take responsibility, it was my fault and the consecutive and successive meetings that we had that those adjustments should have been made in the documents submitted ahead of time so that the documents being brought before this body for purposes of formal review, public comment and so forth and so on are accurate. So I don't see any problems with it and if it needs to be delayed it should be delayed and I think we should take- a very conservative approach and if there is any question then we should definitely delay. Chairperson Wilcox — Would you be prepared to make a short presentation with the materials that you've brought? PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.19 Mr. Macera — Absolutely. I'd take that one step further and for purposes of at least the discussion dealing with the preliminary and potentially final site plan review and then vote, that any discussions, unless that's prohibited, you know, we take advantage of the opportunity we have this evening to have that and even if it comes to another date to have the vote and repeat the discussion, but certainly take the opportunity we have this evening to flush all the issues out now. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, What's the pleasure of the Board? My opinion is I'd like to see them make the presentation. We have members of the public here that have ventured out on this cold night, they're here for a reason, we should give them the opportunity to see the presentation and if time allows, we should give them a chance to speak. Even though this will not be an. official public hearing, no votes will be take in regard to environmental . review or preliminary site plan approval or to the recommendation to the Town Board on changes to the language with regard to. ..I still want to say SLUD, the planned development zone, the PDA, that governs the land use. Ladies and gentlemen I hope you understood that. We have a defect in the public hearing notice so what we will do is we will give the applicant and his agent the opportunity to make their presentation, we will have a discussion, we will give those of you who-ventured out this evening a chance to provide comment this evening even though it's not a public hearing and then whether it's in our next meeting in this month or whether it's in March, depending upon our agenda. Ithacare, Longview will come back and we will go through this process again and we will have the public hearing, give you a chance to speak and at that point we will make a determination with regard to the environmental review and the site plan that's provided and potentially a recommendation to the Town Board with regard to, I don't want to say a re- zoning, modifications to the existing zoning that governs Longview. Having. said that, ladies and gentlemen, if you can not see the visuals you are welcome to come up around so that you can see them while the presentation is being given. Mr. Macera -. Direct your attention to the application and documents that have already been submitted and point out again that I believe this is the '3rd visit we've had with you, the previous 2 visits, I think, and I can be corrected, technically of a sketch view plan format and the documents you have are updated documents in addition to some new documents such as a stormwater management plan, issue of a traffic and parking survey and some additional information having updated the full environmental impact statement or study that is here involves the Ithacare proposed plan to expand on our current. community which you had previously identified that open approximately November of '98 to provide for an additional or advanced level of care to residents that are indigenous to our community here, recognizing their advancing age, frailty and need for additional services, arguably principally skilled and rehabilitation services. What we are proposing to do is certainly to add these ... I'll say 32 even though the original documentation suggested 30, 32 PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.20 additional private living units for 32 individuals who would require those services in the form of approximately a 24,000square foot expansion, an attached physical plan to our current physical plan and this essential.ly one -story facility would provide for the additional staffing and the residential care of these individuals on our current site. In addition to hopefully obtaining the approval of the Town Planning Board and we move forward with this, clearly we're in the process of addressing the financing for this project. Clearly we are in discussion with the New York State Department of Health in fielding one or more applications for what would be available licensing for this which could include essentially either a license as an assisted living residence, and ALR, with a certification for enhanced services as one avenue, and certainly, what would be our principal objective, would be to license this as a residential health care facility to provide, again, skilled and rehabilitation services, and that's related to what members of this Board and the community may be familiar with to include. our previous activities of the last approximately 24 months to try to secure new legislation from the state legislature and approval by our previous governor to basically have a demonstration program and provide for these services under a license that has since certainly been restricted given the healthcare and long -term care environment. Much has been said and much has been printed about the Berger Commission's Report and the issue of the situation with Lakeside Nursing Home and so on and so forth, but we're prepared to go forward with licensing this facility and one of several ways to provide these extended services. With that, unless there are questions about the narrative we submitted or perhaps to answer certain questions about the nature of the clientele, the residents and the needs, I would turn over to Dave Schlosser our architect who would be responsible for discussing the plans that you have before you. Board Member Hoffmann — I actually do have a question. Is there any recent news that you have gotten about whether you will in fact be able to use this as a skilled nursing facility which is how you're designing it, according to the papers we have received. Mr. Macera -- Eva, there is no additional news. I think until the governor's position is made clear relative to the previous governor's position to put in place a moratorium, basically no expansion of skilled nursing facilities and no additional licensed or certified beds, I can't answer the question of whether we'll be able to be licensed as a skilled nursing facility. If not, we will go the route of an ALR and provide those extended services under that existing license which legislation was passed in the Fall of '04 and even though it should have been available to us as recently as approximately a year ago, we are still awaiting the actual publication of the regulations and the public comment on that. So, we anticipate that will be available to us going forward on this project. Board Member Hoffmann —And ALR stands for.,. Mr. Macera -- Assisted Living Residence. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.21 Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Just so that I understand the difference between skilled nursing facility and this one, the ALR, ...Could you explain the difference in very simple terms... Mr. Macera -- I will try to do it in lay terms because there isn't necessarily consensus among us so- called professionals about what it is and how to define it but ... The assisted living residence, if you look at the history of the legislation, it was an attempt by State government to recognize long -term care by adding an additional level of care that was supposedly something beneath skilled nursing or nursing home facility and something above independent housing and licensed adult homes and this issue of trying to provide a more community setting for individuals who don't need what is sometimes characterized as institutionalization in a nursing home. Like anything else, the devil's in the details. What can this entity then provide. In the current regulations, which again are yet unpublished, are suggesting that it would be an environment that begins with the environment we have at Longview, and as a condition for licensure, you have to be licensed as an adult home which we are. You have to have a licensed as a home care agency to provide those services and from there you can begin to provide those aging in place services in the form of assistance depending on their needs. Adult homes historically have not been able to provide the kind of assistance that ALRs are authorized to provide under the current legislation so it will take it the next step. What the assisted living residents can't do that current nursing homes can do is nursing homes can admit people from the community. We will be restricted under the legislation to admitting people to that program and we can provide the same care that a nursing home would provide except only to the clients or the residents of the community as part of the program to age in place. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, so you're saying that if this is how you get licensed as an ALR, you can only work with the people who were already living at Longview, you can not take in other people into this ALR facility. Mr. Macera -- No we'I bring in people from admission, upon assE those skilled services, a nursing home for. I be able to take people from the community except we cannot the community that need that highest level of care upon �ssment, in those skilled services. But obviously, if you need that's exactly, in today's environment, what you're admitted to Board Member Hoffmann — I think I am beginning to understand. Part of the problem that I have with this, with what we are supposed to be doing here is that the assumptions that many of the statements are based on have to do with this is supposed to be built as a nursing, as a skilled nursing facility. So for instance, when there is discussion about the parking need and the traffic to and from, those figures are based on it being a skilled nursing facility but it may never be a skilled nursing facility. It may in fact be just more of what it is today, right? PB Approved Minutes 2106107 Pg.22 Mr. Macera -- Well if that's true Board Member Hoffmann — If you don't get eventually get the licensing for ALR. Mr. Macera -- Under those circumstances it would be licensed as an expansion of our adult home. Again, we have various avenues. I can't speak to the approximately sixty residents in our adult home but we may have one that owns an automobile and drives. So really what we are saying Eva, is regardless of what level of care is provided there either as an adult home or an ALR or a residential health care facility, the issue of parking really will not change in terms of the profile of the residents or the clientele being served. What we're trying to do is not to build, recognizing that we can't predict the future, we're trying to recognize, for purposes of the structure, taking anticipation that we would wish to be able to license it to provide any of these levels of care and therefore we want to build it to that code so it can be transformed without retrofitting and certainly a significant capital investments in the short term to have to, if you will, retrofit it to be able to become what it maybe can't be on opening day later on. Board Member Hoffmann — I understand that but, I think I understand what you are saying anyway but, I hope you understand that we have to look at this as an application that says one thing and assumptions are made or are based on what it says but then if that shifts, that's a problem. Chairperson Wilcox — Let me try this, in general, the materials that we've been provided reflect a use which is an expansion of the current facility in terms of the level of care that's offered? Mr. Macera -- The higher level of care, yes. Chairperson Wilcox — That's what's in front of us. The narratives, everything has to do with an expansion of the current level of care. Should you become licensed for a higher level of care, meaning, generally, people that may be older, may be more frail, may require more nursing or whatever, that would, in my mind, have an...would not have an impact on cars, for example or it may even have a positive impact on the number of cars as those patient are less likely to own vehicles and drive them for example. Board Member Hoffmann — But Fred I am understanding it in a different way than you are understanding it. When they talk about the number of parking spaces needed, they say there will be fewer parking spaces needed because the people who live in this facility will be people who are not going to be driving, they are going to be people who are more frail and less able to do things. That sounds to me like they are describing a nursing home facility patient, a resident. So they are saying they need fewer but in fact, if they don't get the licensing to be a skilled nursing facility or even an ALR, they are going to have the kind of people living there similar PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.23 to the people living there now. So they are going to need a ratio of parking spaces similar to what they need now. Mr. Macera -- No, no. I think you misunderstand. The issue...the threshold for whether this is an adult care facility or an ALR or residential healthcare facility identifies a population which if even one of them drives it would be a surprise. So, regardless of whether it's a RHCF, an ALR, an adult home, there is virtually no parking requirements on the part of the clientele living there. The only impact, and it's a marginal impact, deals with the staffing associated with that and the typical visits or visitors to someone whether you get visited more or less whether you're in a nursing home or whether you're in an adult home. I think what you're referring to, what you're reflecting on is the other part of our operation, which is the independent housing and where many of these individuals, parking study speaks to this, a large number, it may not even be a majority, own and drive, but that profile does not fit the characteristics that's in this application so there is no licensing that we're poaching that would then cause us to consider as you're suggesting that population who own and drive vehicles. That's not in, that's not in any of the options here. Chairperson Wilcox — I gotta move on. The applicant has stated that the materials in front of us reflect the proposed use, not the .anticipated use, at a later time, should they obtain the license. Board Member Thayer — Which won't affect the parking. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I guess I am reading, go ahead, I am going to look at this sentence again... David Schlosser, ALA, Syracuse, NY Maybe we will have an opportunity to reintroduce the site plan project at another time. Maybe what I'll do is just limit the discussion to the modifications to the last planning meeting. I think, with respect to the site, there are several issues. One, you mentioned the parking. We have, actually Jon Kanter basically addressed this a little bit in a discussion a week ago. We have produced a modified drawing in which we will be showing six additional parking spaces which we would like the Planning Board to consider being banked, essentially, as future parking spaces, but showing you where we could provide it if we ever needed it. That said, we would propose to maintain the eleven additional parking spaces as shown on the drawing. Additionally, some of the items that were addressed or requested by the Planning Board of us at the last meeting; 1) We modified all site lighting, all site lighting is shielded. The ornamental lighting that's on the building is actually shown as frosted. We did provide a cut and fill. We provided additional information on the site lines, the cut lines through not only the roadway but also the building indicating that the height of our tallest portion of the building, which is the connector, is about 17 -feet PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.24 below the existing roofline, therefore it is our suggestion that there is no sight issues with respect to view issues along 96B. The other question that came up was basically show continuity of nature walking trails. Which we have done on the new site plan to show that all trails are continues around the entire building. Not only from the pond and nature area but basically around the new addition and up around the front of the building using new walkways. And then finally, there was the question of relocation of recreation areas and we addressed that also, as to where and how we would do that. I believe with that we addressed most of the issues that were raised here and I guess with respect to the future meeting, if there is anything else. that anybody knows of, we would like to know it and we'll try and address that in the meantime. I would add one thing, Jon, I did finally get a hold of the State of New York as to their missing responses and you will have that at the end of the week. They misplaced our November 13th materials and surprisingly, they found them a day after I called. Mr. Kanter — I had proposed a determination for this Board anyway, in the absence of their... Mr. Schlosser— He said you would get a no effect determination letter, should be by the end of the week. Mr. Macera -- I would like to add this one additional piece of information at tale end of David's report with regards to the parking and the addition of approximately a half a dozen spots that could be included in the site plan or banked for future development, depending on how the Board wishes to address this matter, and I'll defer to Jon for the technical elements of this, but that wasn't necessarily a direct or in- direct result of any changes in our plan, but rather the recognition of the original public law that established, I think, the ratio of 2 or 3 spots to every 3 units or 3 people wasn't followed when we laid out that plan, so really that was a correction, providing what the existing public law says are the required number of spots and not withstanding any discussion of whether that should be changed, whether we should add or even reduce the number of parking spots. That's just to meet the existing public law. Board Member Thayer — I just glanced over some of the letters we.got tonight and it seems to me there's some problems with the existing Residents and the sight that they are going to lose, or the view that they're going to lose? That was just the first floor wasn't it? That the Residents were going to lose that? Mr. Macera -- What... I think it's a question of what they are going to lose and it's this one level facility is going to be located on what is described the back or the north side of the facility and as the plan suggests, it's going to be counter sunk approximately 4 feet, 5 feet, so it's actually offset from the first level. The people on that level one that you are referring to Larry, that now look on to an open lawn, will PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.25 now look on to a single story building that's slightly a little bit lower than where they are and that is being described by... Board Member Thayer — They will be able to see over that, you think? Mr. Macera -- Well, not to see the lawn behind it of course but whether they can see the horizon or the trees in the distance on the western side... Board Member Thayer — Have you had meetings with them to show them this? Mr. Macera -- We've had several meetings.... Board Member Thayer — The comments are quite negative, at least the ones I've glanced at. Seem to be a rather negative tone as to opposition to the addition. Mr. Macera -- We met with them as a body, as a group, both in public sessions where everyone was invited. We met with the Residents in the capacity of their elected councils of an independent population of an adult home. We've also provided them with the documents, for those that have requested it, that you have and met with them privately to go over these plans. Board Member Thayer — I remember you said that so I was surprised to see these letters. Mr. Macera -- And there is absolutely no doubt that the people, some of them and I think there are 13 units on level one, there are a couple of individuals, you know, consistent, you know, represented disappointment in any plan to develop that north lawn, to lose anything there. But that's not necessarily preceded because members of this body who recognize that we have come back to you to modify the site plan on a couple of occasions, for example, you may remember we put in that 6 foot wide or 8 foot wide what we call promenade walking path...those Residents living there objected to the loss of privacy because someone would walk there. You know, for the people in the part of the building we put in the pavilion, which benefits the community, there were some people who opposed or reflected their views .which were in opposition to that. So I think from our operation, from our perspective, we recognize that as a community we are in the business to provide residential and housing services to people with increasing levels of dependency, that what we need to provide as part of the continuum is a critical piece to that and quite frankly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. But we don't dispute the fact that in any proposed project there's going to be some people that for reasons of their own will oppose that and we recognize and we respect that but we don't feel that the issues of loss of a little green space, those individuals who are dependent upon the housing services would want to abandon the project in which countless numbers of people would suffer and then would have to be asked to leave going forward. So we feel it's a very modest loss, if you will, of whatever element of PB Approved Minutes 2106/07 Pg.26 quality of life that that view represents in our operation. But there will be lawns and trees and flowers. They just won't have that distant view of 200 feet of open lawn. Board Member Thayer — Right. Chairperson Wilcox —They are ... they clearly state their opinions forcefully. Board Member Thayer —They sure do. Chairperson Wilcox — A couple of items, let me follow up on that. we got, and let's just address these if you can pretty. quickly. comment that "the wildflower garden, a gift from Mrs vanish " ... comment: Mr. Macera -- I'm sorry Fred I was... One of the letters One makes the Roy Park will Chairperson Wilcox — That's okay Mark, one of the comments is that "the wildflower grass garden, a gift of Mrs. Roy Park will vanish." True or false. Mr. Macera -= False. Chairperson Wilcox — Can I get a little bit more. Mr. Macera -- Well there was one area of the for purposes of trying to include various wildflower garden, that area will be build upon of the site and certainly there are other areas don't consider that necessarily a significan moving it to another location. north lawn .that as part of the site plan environmental elements which is a We will move it to another open area where we can have wildflowers so we loss other than replacing that and Board Member Hoffmann — so you know where you might move it? Mr. Schlosser — We designated areas, actually, on drawings that were submitted because those are the questions that you asked. The recreation areas we discussed... Board Member Hoffmann — could you tell me which drawing to look at... Mr. Schlosser — Its on the site plan, with notes, we show the planter areas and we also show... Board Member Hoffmann — We have three different packets with maps here. Site plan C 1.1, is that it? Mr. Schlosser — One C one one. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.27 Chairperson Wilcox — While people are looking, the next one is the berm under the dining room will be excavated and the wall will have to be re- buttressed, a threat to the stability of the dining area." Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sorry, I would like to find out where this is indicated on the plan. Mr. Schlosser — On 1C1.1, there are squares with indicating notes, 1,2,3,4, ... and notes 4 through 7 if then you refer to the right hand side of the sheet it will tell you which note refers to what item. We have actually shown you where the planters would be replaced, where the recreation areas would be replaced. Recreation areas for the senior residents as well as for the head start. We have actually created a rather large patio area at the second floor level for the head start people. Board Member Hoffmann — And are those points shown somewhere on the plan? Okay, let's see if I can find them. So for instance, the planting area, the wildflower area that you talked about, where will that be relocated? Mr. Schlosser — It's shown, are actually shown right in here, (goes to the map and points to the areas) this entire area here. (inaudible) Note 6 indicated the relocation of the youth recreation area. Board Member Hoffmann — I'm sorry, I am having trouble locating 6, we have a much smaller plan than you have there. (Mr. Schlosser comes up and shows Eva) Chairperson Wilcox — Moving on. The berm under the dining room will have to be excavated and the wall will have to be re- buttressed, a threat to the stability of the dining area." Mr. Macera -- No. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you. "Three or four cisterns will be needed to collect water /sewage from.this addition and will undermine the stability of the slope which already drains a tremendous amount of water." I'm not even sure what that means when I read cisterns needed to collect water /sewage. Mr. Schlosser — You don't' collect sewage outside so ... There's a pretty significant stormwater management plan and erosion control plan has been submitted and essentially accepted by your engineer with comments with just some minor modifications for final submission so actually, the stormwater management will actually be improved as part of this project. Chairperson Wilcox — I didn't want to go through all of them, just some of them. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.28 Board Member Howe — I am sure one thing that will come up later on is how you, just the construction phase itself will have impacts on those living there, so when we get to the final, we'll have to talk about how do you take that into account, because this is in close proximity of where people are living. Chairperson Wilcox — There will be construction impact, certainly noise, possibly dust, absolutely, that will be an important consideration. Mr. Macera -- I agree, that will be an important consideration and we do have some experience, as the Town, perhaps Dan will recall, we had partial occupancy permits as we moved and expanded and completed construction so we have a good deal of historical experience of doing this and this is a much smaller expansion, of again, 32 beds as opposed to opening units of what is otherwise a 160+ living units where entire wings and entire floors were being opened episodically. We feel comfortable with that. Mr. Schlosser — With the next submission I will put a plan together for you. Chairperson Wilcox — Again, I just want to remind members of the Board, members of the public, that when we reschedule the environmental review determination and the public hearing, we will have David go through a complete presentation with the visuals and essentially start at the beginning. Tonight is for us to provide a little feedback, to get some information, and also give the public a chance. As I said, we will give those members of the public who are here a brief chance to provide comments. Having said that, somebody wanted to make a comment. Eva? Board Member Hoffmann — Just have on bit to follow up on what you were asking about Larry and that is, some people had commented to us that they are going to lose their views to the north and there is a site cross section called AA on page C1.8 which actually shows the land sloping off and the way the buildings sit on the land and I'm not. sure that I am interpreting this correctly but it looks to me as if the first level of this new addition that you are proposing is at the same level as the lowest level of the existing building. It's not ... okay, can you explain to me how they relate to each other. Mr. Schlosser — The finished floor of the new one -story addition, the primary, the 22,000 square -feet, is set 5 feet below the lowest level of the existing building, for purposes of bringing down the height so that the impact area was on those few residents that border north towards this particular project on the ground floor level, the lowest floor level. The second level up will be looking as if they basically look ... our roof line will be about the line of the top of their railing, so they will be looking directly over the railing, or over the ridgeline of the roof. Mr. Macera -- And for those of you who are familiar with the site now, we've had an application in to unlike what we've proposed so if you come on site and you notice that the wing that is basically inside the road cut, that's our C -wing, as you approach PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.29 the front of the building, the portico, you'll notice that that's offset and there's and alcove that goes in with round windows. It's a similar application there and we pointed this out to the Residents who have tried to ask us to represent kind of a mock up view of what this is going to look like and what this is going to feel like and for those Residents who have approached us and looked at that, it's allayed many of their concerns with regards to what I think anticipated was this building wall was going to be built, 5, 61 8, feet, if you look at the scale, it's a good number of feet away and that's going to be offset and then with certainly the landscaping, we feel that there will be very little loss for those individuals other than the concern that they have of losing open spaces, which we understand is a concern. I'll also add, going back to the issue of those wildflowers, I find it somewhat ironic that those who have expressed concern that that habitat will be lost, which can be replicated elsewhere, didn't comment that those Residents who had complained for years about the "tall weeds quote unquote and the breeding ground for insects and field mice that are promoted and would enter the building and for those individual Residents, they would view this I would think, as a godsend, to move it to other locations but apparently that was not submitted for the Boards consideration. Board Member Hoffmann — So you're saying that the new addition will be 5 feet lower..-.the floor of it will be 5 feet lower than the floor of the existing lowest apartment. Mr. Schlosser — That's what, actually, the section showing all the finished grades we gave you. We gave you grade levels in all the documents we've given you. The elevation of every floor level. Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, so that of course is not enough to...with a building which is I believe 30 feet from floor to the top of this.... Mr. Schlosser — We're talking ... the majority of the building is a one =story building with a 3 on 12. We actually reduced the pitch of the roof, 3 on 12 roof, to keep the roof down. That's the element that will impact Residents visually. The 3 -story element is a link, a small link which basically is a vertical core... Board Member Hoffmann — I know that. I'm not talking about that, I am talking about the 1 -story building and how the 5 feet, placing it 5 feet lower is not going to keep the view for the people in the current building, the existing building, who live on the lowest floor. Mr. Schlosser — if you are talking about the first floor, we have never disputed that. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, so my next question is, How many of the people who live on the lowest floor of the existing building are going to have their views blocked by the proposed addition? PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 - Pg_ 30 Mr. Macera -- As I mentioned a few moments ago, there are 7 on one side and 6 on the other side, I believe is the count, that would be quote unquote "impacted" by having this structure built in an area where it is. now open grass or open ground. Board Member Hoffmann — Thank you. That is what I wanted to {snow. Chairperson Wilcox — You said impacted, not blocked. Mr. Macera -- Yes, the. question about what does blocked mean, and as I think Dave is suggesting, to the extent that, you know, it is going to be offset by this 4 or 5 feet and certainly the roof profile is enough as I suggested to Larry's question, they're not going to be able to see the grass on the other side, you know, where does that high roof then relate to the forest or the trees behind it or where does it relate to West Hill, I can't speak to that, but once again, Board Member Hoffmann — Well, if I put it this way ... Will they still see the lake? Mr. Macera -- Absolutely, well, depending on their location. Board Member Hoffmann — The people who live on the first floor of the existing building. Mr. Macera -- Not all of them, but they can't see it now. Board Member Hoffmann — But, 13 units, well, if they have that view now then they will lose it, that's what you're saying. Mr. Schlosser — Not all of them. If you walk up there, you've got tree obstructions. The views are primarily from front parking lot and the state overlook at 96B. That gets you approximate 75 feet higher than that lower level which gives you the angle to look down at the lake. Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah sure, I understand that but I was just trying to get a feeling for how many people were going to lose a view that they valued... Mr. Schlosser — I wouldn't say ... I think we brought this up at earlier meetings, we went through probably a year and a half of committee meetings in which the Residents were represented and at each meeting we probably are in concept 10 where we basically looked at virtually every side of this building and this was the one that had the least impact for the fewest Residents and we ... Probably there are several Residents we've actually talked to on that side that actually look at this favorably in that it is actually controlling areas and giving them control of the patio area outside. Because nobody is being totally, 100% obstructed here. We have a building that is nearby but everybody's front door or patio door has views and has patio areas and some of them view that as pleasant. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.31 Board Member Hoffmann — I'm not...l just want to point out that I am not doubting that what you are presenting now is maybe much better than maybe what came before. I am just trying to get a feeling for what the letters that we got represent. Board Member Howe — So maybe this is a good time to turn to the public. Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I want to make sure we don't have any more questions. Board Member Thayer — I'm just curious Mark, where you lost the one room in the existing building. You had 160 originally and now its 161. Mr. Macera -- It's always been (tape ran out) just in terms of, to get back to your point, just to give you kind of a relative view, no pun intended in the situation, and I'll let the people who are .with me here that are Residents, Council President and Members of the Board which of course can speak to this from their own perspective but I believe on the third level from the dining room and the issue of the deck, you can not see much or some of the lake because of the trees that are out back in the lower area toward the college and Axiom's property and of course they'll continue to grow and I don't know what total or ultimate height they will be but that's on the third level so the issue of the view is like, on this property associated with the first level, don't know that any of those 13 have actually a view of blue water .looking from inside their unit because several hundred.feet out and then the lake and the bottom of the valleys so I don't know if there is even a view of the lake from there. Chairperson Wilcox -. Ladies and Gentlemen, thank you for being patient. For those of you who are here for either the sketch plan review for the Cornell University Diagnostic Laboratory or the proposed Cornell University Sailing Center, we will endeavor to get there as soon as we can. Having said that, ladies and gentlemen, if you are here this evening and wish to make a statement with regard to proposed extension of the Longview facility, you will have an opportunity at a later date when we reschedule the public hearing and correct the defect that was in the public hearing notice. Having said that, we will give you an opportunity tonight to make a brief statement. You may come back at the public hearing and make the same statement again or you may say other words but nonetheless we thank you for your patience, if you raise your hand I will call on you and you can come up and make a statement. Again, if you don't speak tonight, that's fine, you will have another opportunity, if you wish, .'There being no one.... Mark you want to come back up, David, you want to come back up. Is there anything else this evening that we wish to review? Let me point out, make sure you save the materials so we don't have to send out a copy. Most if not all of the materials are relevant, we may have to change some of the ... PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.32 Mr. Kanter — There will be some narrative, some EAF materials.that will be revised. Chairperson Wilcox — the draft resolutions will need to be changed. Mike left, I have to remember to talk to Mike and when we come up with the agenda, we need to add more time for this item. I think it is certainly going to take a while. Mr. Kanter — One question for the Board is that in the local law draft for the zoning change, besides, obviously, fixing the numbers for the dwelling units, we did want to get some feedback from you since we aren't going ahead with this tonight, on the parking issue. Whether you have any ideas. I did not put any draft language together since the public hearing notice defect came about. There are a couple of ways to handle it. One would be to simply change the parking ratio, number that's in the law which right now requires 2 parking spaces for every 3 living units. Another approach might be to keep the ratio as it is, but perhaps give the Planning Board some more discretionary authority, for instance, based on the submission of a parking needs analysis, which we have, to be able to further modify without it having to go to the Zoning Board which I think would be appropriate. Chairperson Wilcox — and that additional authority would only apply to this planned development zone. Mr. Kanter —Correct. Yes. Chairperson Wilcox — This Board generally has shown ... has been in favor of reducing parking to the practical extent possible. None of us particularly like too much parking. On the other hand, we realize that if you reduce it too far you have cars backing up, parking on the roads, on shoulders and things like that. Jonathan has commented that we have a parking analysis, a rather detailed parking analysis, indicating that the 11 initial spaces would be sufficient but it does fall under the way the current planned development zone language reads. We could have a bifurcated formula, how's that, where we have different formulas for different uses within Ithacare so that, for example, if you have the, again, we are going back to the level of care but there is a level of care in which people are more likely to drive, there's a level of care where people are less likely to drive, that's a possibility as well. I'm not sure ... do we care? Other than we can have the appropriate number of spaces and not be forced to have too many spaces. Do you care whether it is a different formula, whether this Board has the authority to set the number of parking spces within this planned development area? Board Member Howe — That makes more sense to me. Chairperson Wilcox — That we have the discretion? Board Member Howe — That we have the leeway. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.33 Chairperson Wilcox — Again, we should point out that this would not apply to any other zoned area within the Town, it would be specific to this, to the zoning that Ithaca re/Lo ngview operates under. Mr. Kanter — Okay, we could try that. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Mr. Kanter — It will be up to the Town Board. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely, it would be up to the Town Board. And I think we are comfortable with that leeway, that discretion, call it what you want. The other way is to change the formula in some way. I do, for the record, and you will understand this later, I do want to point out that the Town Board, this goes back to '05 1 suspect, the Town Board did suggest that the Planning Board be designated as the Lead Agency for the purpose of conducting a coordinated environmental review, so we will be the Lead Agency for the site plan and the recommendation. Okay. Anything you need from us this evening Mark? Mr. Macera -- No, other than Fred, we do have some of our colleagues and Residents here if you want to invite them to say anything regarding... Chairperson Wilcox — I gave the public a chance and they can ... and when you work with the Town Staff as to when we can reschedule and bring you back and start from the beginning and actually we'll have more detail available. Anything else? Thank you Mark, drive safely. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Do we have to do anything formally in regard to the public hearing that we are not holding, Susan? Simply just state for the record that public hearing has not been held tonight due to a defect in the public hearing notice. It will be rescheduled at some later time. That's sufficient? Okay. Thank you. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:39 p.m. Sketch Plan Review Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostic Center located off Caldwell Road in the northeast corner of the College of Veterinary Medicine Complex, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67 -1 -10.2 and 67 -1 -10.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the demolition of several small and outdated buildings for the construction of a new 4 story, +/- 126,000 square foot laboratory research building. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; John M. Keefe, Agent. John Keefe, Project Manager, Humfries Building, Cornell University and PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.34 Dr. Bruce Aike, Assistant Dean for Diagnostic Operations, Cornell University Mr. Keefe -- Tonight we'd like to give you sketch plan review for the Animal Health Diagnostic Center. Basically, we'd like to talk a little bit tonight about what the Animal Health Diagnostic Center is, what's the purpose of it, what service does it provide for the community, why we need a new health diagnostic facility and then I'll get into the more nuts and bolts and what the building is going to look like and those aspects. Dr. Aike -- Let me start by describing some of facets of the mission of the Health Diagnostic Center. As the name implies, our core mission is animal health diagnostic services. What that means is that we do tests on various samples from all kinds of animals, in fact everything except one kind of animal and that's the kind of animal that's sitting around the table up here, to find out what's making them sick, possibly what's killed them, in some situations so a large variety of tests. In concert with that, we also get involved in research on animal diseases and the prevention of those diseases. Our expertise in various areas is leveraged by a lot of other parts of the College of Veterinary Medicine and private practitioners to help them with their problems. We also have a component of teaching and outreach. It is teaching within the Vet School itself to veterinary students, graduate students etc, but also outreach to the public. We present programs to producers, private veterinarians, etc. that help them help educate them about animal diseases and prevention of those diseases. We also get involved with animal health policy development. One of the two logos you see at the bottom of theses slides, the blue, yellow and green one, is the logo for the NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets and they are our partner, with us in the formation of this laboratory and the operation of this laboratory and they are the animal health regulatory officials here in the State of New York. A big part of our mission is providing the testing and the expertise that supports their animal disease regulatory concerns. We're also involved in several other areas I have listed up here, including public health. That's because as you are probably aware,.there are many animal diseases that can cross over and become human diseases. We are involved in rabies control programs like oral rabies baiting and raccoons and things like that. E -coli, salmonella, other things that cross over into to the public health realm as well. Environmental stewardship... We provide a lot of testing expertise for some of the bugs that can actually contaminate the environment. Run off from farms and things like that get in the water supplies. And promote and economic growth, that's in terms of the testing that we do helps maintain the viability of the large agricultural industry and the companion animal industry in this state, other states in the northeast and throughout the nation. If you're not aware, NY is still the number 3 milk producing state in the entire United PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.35 States. A million dairy cattle in this state. So it's a huge economic engine out there that we try to help the growth of and maintain. So what does this boil down to on a day -to -day basis? Well, in a period of a year or so we perform over 900,000 tests in this facility currently. That's grown over the years to this point. Those 900,000 tests represent about 300,000 samples that come through the door over a year's period of time. So we're quite busy. We are also a founding member of what is called the National Animal Health Laboratory Network. This is a network of highly sophisticated animal diagnostic labs throughout the United States that has advanced capabilities, particularly for testing some of the foreign animal diseases like foot and mouth disease that ravaged the United Kingdom a few years ago. There are only a handful of laboratories throughout the states that have been designated as these special laboratories to augment USDA's own capabilities for detecting some of these foreign animal diseases early on and getting them under control before they are able to spread widely in the United States. We're the only such facility in this state and in fact for most of the Northeast we are the only such facility. We serve many, many veterinary practices, over 5,000 clients that we currently have, active clients. Our clients are the veterinary practices themselves, many of those, of course, are the New York State ones, but again, we serve practices from all 50 states. We even have international clients that send samples to us. And that's because we provide comprehensive veterinary diagnostic services. What that means is that in some state diagnostic laboratories, they may provide services in some areas, not in others, and they will turn to us for those services in those areas. So, there's almost no facet of veterinary diagnostic medicine that we don't have capabilities in to provide those services for folks. So why do we want to build a new facility. Well, we have several good reasons. The current facility that we're in right now actually facilities, but the main facility is a small building kind of in the hear of the Veterinary School complex, it's actually landlocked now ... That facility was built back in the '70's, funded largely by the State Department of Agriculture and Markets. At the time that it was built it was adequate for our needs but at that time we had less than a third of the people that work for us now and about, less than a third of the volume of what we do now. We now have over 200 people that work for our Diagnostic Center. Those people are actually spread out over 12 different locations over Cornell Campus and even extending off campus to some sites out near the airport along Warren Road and on the other side of the airport. So for business reasons it would be great to be able to consolidate those into one area. Be a lot of savings for us there. But there are also other good reasons having to do with our ability to improve the bio- containment laboratory spaces that we have and the ability to work more effectively with the agents that we have to work with every day. By bio- containment space, what I am referring to is different types of agents, different types of viruses and bacteria's are classified as to just how dangerous they are and there's a scale running from what's called bio - safety level 1, 21 3, and 4. The normal operating procedures for most laboratories are what's considered bio- safety level 2 and that's the day -today routine stuff. Bio- PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.36 safety 3 are for things like West Nile Virus you may have heard of, some agents that are more dangerous to humans and require more care in handling them. And then the highest level is bio- safety level 4, which is the really bad agents, something like e -bola virus, things like that. We don't do bio safety level 4, we don't want to do bio safety level 4, but we do have need from time to time because we don't necessarily know when any sample comes to the door, what we are going to get out of that sample and we occasionally come across an agent that has to be handled under bio safety level 3 conditions. We can do that now, but we have very limited capacity to allow for research on those agents and to deal with those agents and expanded capacity should there be an outbreak of one of those agents that we need to deal with. The current facilities are over crowded, as I mentioned. We have grown considerably from the '70's when the current facility was built. In fact the architects that we are working with right now, one of the things they did early on was to estimate for us; just to decompress the people and the equipment that we currently have from the space we currently have, to decompress them into what would be considered an acceptable amount of space would require almost doubling the space that we are currently in right now. For example, our virology laboratory that handles viruses on a day -to -day basis, when that facility was built back in the '70's, we had about 8 people that worked in that laboratory. Well the same space now has 22 technicians in it. So you can imagine they all have to get along; with each other, very, very well because they're packed in there pretty tight and they bump into each other from time to time. Then finally, when we, like many laboratory operations, we're subject to national level accreditation. There is a body that comes through and makes periodic visits and holds us up to certain levels. of standards for how we operate. That accreditation last time a site visit was done for us almost 5 years ago, a full scale site visit was done, they cited the fact that these facilities were over crowded, that they needed to be upgraded, as a reason for putting us in a provisional level of accreditation with the proviso that we would in fact seek better facilities... improvement in those facilities. The next site visit for this group is coming up, actually, at the end of this year, 2007, and we realize that without making substantial progress towards upgrading these facilities, that that accreditation could definitely be in jeopardy. And with that, I will turn it back to John to talk about the scope of this project. Mr. Keefe — Currently we are proposing a building that's about 126,000 gross square feet. As we were working through design, these slides were submitted in December, we've continued to work through design, obviously. We're really at about 143,124, but I think that's the ballpark, plus or minus a few percentages. We plan to locate the building in the northeast corner of the vet complex, and I'll get to that on the next slide where you can see the aerial photograph of it and I'll show you the area. It's going to be a sort of L- shaped building with an east -west type wing, which will run PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.37 three stories with a penthouse and a north -south wind which will run 4 stories with 'a penthouse in it. And as Dr. Aike was saying, this is more or less a ;typical wet type chemistry lab, which we currently have on campus and currently operate. This is a good aerial shot. If you look at this being north, here's Campus.Road over here, Caldwell Road running off in this direction the College of Veterinary Medicine's complex, Veterinary Research Tower, East Campus Research Facility, currently being constructed, and the Vet Med Center right here. The area we're looking at as I said, is the northeast corner, is basically back right in here. Currently in that area there's a number of small outbuildings, I'll date myself, they are cinderblock, not concrete masonry units any more. These are buildings that are old, really superseded their life expectancy. In fact, the buildings up in this location, all the functions here, are going over in the East Campus once we finish it in September. The area down here is our dairy herd, that will also have to be relocated and the dairy herd will be moved to a location which has yet to be determined. This gives you more.or less an idea of that the footprint is going to look like. We have, like I indicated, the 3 -story east -west wing and sort of a 4 -story north -south wing here. This is an all- weather connector to the D -wing of Sherman Hall and the purpose to that is, the building was originally supposed to be about 225,000- square feet. But as in most cases, we don't quite have the money to do the 225,000- square foot building, so we are hopefully going to build what we can afford and some of the units that would have been in here are going to be located in here, so that provides a link and it's almost like they're in the same building itself. We redesigned the landscaping and the contouring and the parking lot. In this area currently there's a gravel lot up here with an entrance to Caldwell Road, we want to eliminate that because that's a rather dangerous incline there in sight distances so we are going to pull it back here and come to the entrance to that parking lot off of Farrier Road. As I stated earlier, we submitted these slides back in December and we are progressing design and back in December we were looking at two options of what we call blocking and stacking or how we are going to put the building together, how we're going to access it. So you can really sort of ignore the top one because we have sort of gone and agreed to go to the bottom one and I just wanted to point out here that this is sort of a cut in the building, looking to the north. Our main primary entrance is actually going to be: in this area right in here, which is internal to the College of Veterinary Medicine, that is where most of the traffic will take place. That's where the loading would take place, in this area back here. Basically your main entrance is going to be internal to the College of Vet Medicine versus external to the building. No, this is not the color of the building, but this is sort of a 3 -d view of it. The yellow areas represent office space. We've got office space outboard to the building, to give people who work in the offices a nice view. The darker purple areas are more PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.38 or less what we call closed labs and those are smaller laboratories where more confined work will be done and the blue areas are open labs alo9ng this interior. sides over here and those are larger type laboratories where you wouldn't be confined in space. You take that 3 -D image now and kind of put it onto the site itself, it looks to be right in here, in this juxtaposition. Some of the positive aspects that we feel that this design has done is that, we've actually pulled back a great distance from the tree line and the drip .line which leads down to the gorge by eliminating all this building here. This will all be green area, this dirt area right here will also be all green area; landscaped.. We'll remove all these unsightly trailers in this area and when we did the calculations, we're actually increasing the pervious area by 10% versus decreasing it, which is normally the case with building, and we are sort of pleased to do that. This shows you our design timeline on the left and the right shows the timeline as it applies to the Town Planning Board. We would like to go through and do design and finish design sometime November, early December; go through a bid and award phase; start construction in early spring of 08 and we are looking for a 24 -28 months of construction for the building itself. Along the lines, we would be seeking SEQR determinations and site plan determinations in the spring and the early summer of 2007. Finally, with the SEQR process, we are planning on submitting a LEAF with attachments as we have in the past and these are the various areas we are going to do more research on, provide more and updated information for you. We have an ongoing transportation and parking study right now because we are bringing in approximately 42 people. from an area other than the Vet School, so where are they coming from ?; How much parking are they going to need ?; Is the parking adequate? We're going to look into that in great detail. We're also currently in the process of doing our archeological review, that's in process. We'll look at the exterior noise, the exterior lighting, we'll portray that out to see what that looks like. We'll make sure we're not doing any light problems that would cause in the area. Since this gives you the best view, I will leave it up here and address any questions you may have. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you John. When I went through the materials, my first two concerns were, stormwater management given the location to the steep slope. For those people like me who almost daily drive down Caldwell Road into Forrest Home, and know how steep that slope is which would be essentially behind the building, controlling stormwater runoff. The other thing of concern to me besides the ones they listed, is what do you do with the materials, whether the ... I don't know whether there are small amounts of radioactive materials that might be used on site, whether there might be other classified agents that you use. What do you do with the-animal samples that might be diseased. How they're disposed of. I'm not talking PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.39 about anything you don't know, but these are clearly things that I am interested in how they would be handled and dealt with onsite. The other thing is, these are not new uses, you pointed out that these are existing uses scattered throughout either the Cornell campus, the Veterinary School, or possibly even off campus. Any increase in employment resulting from the new building? Dr. Aike — No, nothing really envisioned in that right now. There is always the possibility of growing, a new program comes along, a new human disease rears its ugly head or something like that but no, actually this is just consolidating what we already have. Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to know where the sites are that you are using now and what will happen to those buildings that you are in. Are they going to continue to be used for similar purposes in addition to this? Or will there be other uses going in there for the Vet School, and if so what? I would like to know that in order to know whether I think this is a good idea or not. Dr. Aike — Okay. Most of the other sites that I mentioned, the majority of them are within the Vet School complex, just in other buildings within the Vet School complex and space is so precious there that I can assure you that nothing else, nothing like that will get torn down. Our existing laboratory for example, is kind of landlocked in the middle. We move out of that, I am sure it will be refurbished and turned into other lab and office space for use by the College of Veterinary Medicine. Our offsite locations, some of those are leased buildings and when we move out of them, the companies that own them are free to do whatever they want with them. We do have a couple out on the other side of the airport, one in particular where our analytical toxicology is located right now and we will retain that building for storage purposes, long -term storage purposes and that sort of thing. So. it really won't result in things being torn down that I know of, certainly not anything that is owned by the College. Space is still. precious. Board Member Hoffmann — And you won't continue using them? Dr. Aike — No, we won't continue using them ourselves as far as the diagnostic center but the College will certainly find uses for them. Board Member Hoffmann — And are the two north of the airport the only ones that are off the Vet School campus? . Dr. Aike — No, we, as I said, we lease some space on Warren Road in the Business Park, just off of Warren Road, we currently lease three buildings and those leases will be given up when we move into this new facility. All of those functions will go into the new facility. Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. So that's five total that are away from this area. That's it? PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.40 Dr. Aike — Off campus, yes. The rest of them are on campus. Like I said, the majority off them scattered throughout the other buildings within the Vet School complex. There is one function that's up near Hungerford Hill, up by the Baker Institute, Snyder Hill Road, up in that area. Board Member Hoffmann — Will that be moved to this new building too? Dr. Aike — The function probably will yes, the building, that space is actually the only bio -level 3 space, one of the only bio- safety 3 spaces we currently have and it will continue to be used as a bio- safety level 3 space because there is little of that available, it's very precious to us. But the function that is currently in there will go into this new building. Chairperson Wilcox — Eva you said something and I just had a side discussion with our Town Attorney, you said "I need this information in order to determine whether this is a good idea." And it occurred to me... Board Member Hoffmann — I may not have phrased that very well... Chairperson Wilcox — Well, let me point out that special permit will be required here, and therefore, Susan, you're about to read... Ms. Brock — Well, except there's a little twist on that. One of the criteria when you consider whether you want to grant a special permit is whether the use will fill a neighborhood or community need, which might encompass this idea of is this a good idea or not. However, there's also the following: "Except that all educational buildings are deemed to be adapted to the proposed use and are deemed to fulfill a neighborhood or community need. I$ Chairperson Wilcox — Which essentially means that "Is this a good idea" is not one of the criteria that we have available to us. Ms. Brock — But nonetheless, some of the other criteria include things such as: the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity or neighborhood character ... So there are many other things you're looking at that might get at pieces of what was being implied. Board Member Hoffmann — This is essentially what I was thinking about; If something currently exists in a place and know I know where it is and there's a proposal to move it to this area here, maybe it is more beneficial, no just for Cornell University but for the neighborhood where it currently exists, to move to this area. Or it might not be. And that's why I wanted to know. So that, I think one of the things that we do is we look out for everybody's interests, not just Cornell University's or Ithaca College's or the local residents, but we try to look out for PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.41 everybody's. Weigh the benefits against the disadvantages and then come up with what seems to be the best solution. Dr. Aike — Well I think that one thing that you could count on that side of the scale is that currently, because of the dispersal and these multiple sites, we have to use our own courier system multiple times a day to move samples from the central laboratory out to some of these other laboratories and so there is actually traffic right through Forrest Home now because of that, multiple times a day going out to Warren Road and to the airport facility that will no longer need to happen on a daily basis. So there's the traffic itself and the extra movement of samples going on because of that that will no longer have to take place. You did mention, one of the criteria is, is it a benefit to the local community and you should realize, I talked in terms of lots of samples and lots of clients but some of. those clients are veterinary practices right here in Ithaca. We test potable water for real estate agents and things like that, so, and obviously we employ people who live here as well. So I think there are some benefits. Many of our samples come from the teaching hospital itself just behind us there, and they are a referral hospital for pet owners as well as folks statewide and nationwide as well. Board Member Howe — I think I'm set for now. The environmental assessment list is a good list, I'm glad to see visual impacts on there because that will be something that I want to pay attention to. Mr. Keefe - -If I could add one comment to that. We did in fact, we met this past Saturday, the Forrest Home Association folks came up and we. sat down and gave them an overview similar to what you just heard here today. And then took them out for a little walking tour of that area back there to point out just how far back we are pulling the building from where they are now and the creation of green space. They were very favorable to the whole idea. There were really no big concerns raised by it by this group and they are obviously the ones with the most potential impact as far as looking up and seeing a building there and I think they, you can certainly ask them personally, but I think they were reassured that one of the reasons we are designing the building the way we are, as John described, with only three stories facing out towards Forrest Home is so that down from Forrest Home, looking out over that tree line, the building's really no higher than the height of the trees so from down below, in the winter time when there are no leaves on the trees, yeah, you may be able to see the building but I think we are trying to be very sensitive to the potential impact visually and otherwise that that building could have on our closest neighbors. Board Member Hoffmann — What is the height of this building compared to the ... that large main building, which, I never remember the names of these buildings. Mr. Keefe — Veterinary Research Towers...lt's much, much lower than that. As a matter of fact, if you envision East Campus, that would probably be equivalent or maybe even slightly lower, it's going to be lower than this building here and much lower than the tower itself. We're thinking the side facing Forrest Home is probably PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.42 68 -72 feet above the ground level and the four story would be closer to 80 feet. And the mature trees in that area are probably along the lines of 70 or 80 feet also. Board Member Hoffmann — I wasn't thinking from that point of view. I was thinking this, what did you say this building was called again...right, that very large complex ... it is virtually seen from South Hill there, from the Pine Tree Road and maybe even from South Hill, so I was looking at it from that point of view and how this building you're proposing might come up, compared to that building. Chairperson Wilcox — How many stories John... Mr. Keefe — It's eleven stories but it is also different floor -to- floor heights in the different buildings... Chairperson Wilcox — Even a 10 stories lets say, versus 4 for the new one and stories here, we're talking not 10 foot stories right... Mr. Keefe — They're probably 15, 16 feet per floor... Ms. Brock — Your materials mention a LEAD checklist, are you seeking LEAD certification and if so at what level? Mr. Keefe — We are yes, and as far as we can tell in .the design phase, we are seeking LEAD certification. We are probably looking at certified at this point. We may try to go to silver as we do an economic analysis of what that's going to take for us to do. We've identified green, and the minimal criteria should be no problem at all. Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and Gentlemen, once again, thank you for your patience. This is not a public hearing and probably in a couple of months when the University comes back with a formal application we will have a SEQR determination and we will hold a public hearing, consideration of site plan approval, possibly a. special permit, special approval, and possibly a recommendation to the Zoning Board with regard to height variance. Having said that, if you wish to make some comments tonight, and provide this Board and the applicants with information of concerns on your part, please come up to the microphone, name and address. Joel Harlan — This is good for the campus, you know, to bring everything together. may not be around cause I got other meetings to go to so I'm going to say it now cause I've been missing a lot of meeting here, doing others, so I'm going to say it now. This is a good improvement for Cornell but the only thing I don't like about it it's going to be off the tax rolls because it's an on campus major things. But if it's anything to bring everything together for science, and make this institution more well known around the world and bring it up in the rankings, let's get all what Cornell wants for research and stuff to make it a standing institution in the nation and around the world. They forgot one thing, they forgot the bird flu. That's going around and PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.43 they need that equipment to do research on it cause it could come here. That's all- I got to say. Chairperson Wilcox - John Keefe, do you have everything you need? Are you all set? Okay. Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 9:15p.m. Sketch Plan Review Merrill Family Sailing Center located at 1000 East Shore Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -2 -29, Lakefront Commercial Zone (LC). The proposal includes the demolition of the existing sailing center building for the construction of a new 2 story, +/- 5,466 square foot sailing center with a +/ -805 square foot lakeside observation deck. The project will also include the construction of a new 15' x 80' boat storage pole barn to the south of the existing bathhouse and improvements to the gravel boat launch. Cornell University has also requested that the Lakefront Commercial Zone be amended by adding educational and institutional uses as special permit uses in that zone. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Robert Blakeney, Agent. Robert Blakeney, Project Manager, Humphries Service Building; Al Gantert, Director, Physical Education, Cornell University and David Schlosser, ALA, Syracuse Mr. Gantert — Pretty much identified, Mr. Chairman, the things that I have to say. Dave will talk to the razing of the existing facility and the construction of the new planned sailing center. My piece of it, besides being intimately involved in the project and the representative for the Athletic Department, which is kind of driving the project, is I am the Director of Physical Education as Bob has identified and I am conducting educational programming among other things, at the sailing facility at 1000 East Shore Drive. We are also running a marina operation. We have about 60 boat slips and about 10 off -shore moorings. There is a competitive sailing program operating at East Shore right now and it's the men's and women's sailing club team. We have sailing classes in the spring summer and fall for the physical education program. We are running sailing classes for the Ithaca Youth Bureau, we're doing sailing classes for Cornell Adult University and that is exclusively a summer program for both children and the adults. We're running a summer program for the Cornell Athletic Departments' spots camps and Engineering Hydrology, Linology and that's fresh water analysis and natural resources. I will be using the lake and are using the lake right now and the facility for access to the lake there, a boat down at 1000 East Shore Drive to conduct their classes on the lake. What the new facility will provide for us is the opportunity for better classrooms, to deal with inclement weather and to run a small wet lab for the natural resources and the engineering classes. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.44 Are there any questions? I would like Dave to take over at this time and show you what we're planning. Mr. Schlosser — What we've got is the first two boards are, and these are just large blowups of the ones given to you, the one here on the left is an aerial of the existing site. The existing site that is currently owned by Cornell is approximately 6.7 acres. We run about 23,000 linear feet along Rout 34. From the main existing sailing center, it is approximately 1,400 feet to the first resident to the south and about 600 feet to the resident on the north. The, additional, through lease, is controlled two additional properties of approximately 2 — 2.2 acres each yielding approximately 11 acres under their control. Within that acreage you have the railroad that runs north /south as well as, obviously, Route 34 that border the property on the east and pretty much control the definition of the site on that particular side. There's an interesting boathouse on the site ... (microphone issues) :..There is a dedicated area for the Town Park which is approximately 3.3 acres at this location shown here and there is a single curb cut. That curb cut location, as we've been through over the years, I think everybody realizes that's the only location that one can access this site. As you head south the elevations, the elevations fro Route 34 onto the site right now is about a 3.5 — 4 foot drop as you enter the site and it gets down much more dramatically as you head south. As you head south, it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 -10 feet at this location. What's being, again, from a blowup standpoint, the existing marina with this slip at this location, a gravel parking lot shown here, 1,200 square foot visiting sailing center, small storage shed here, this is the Town Pavilion and then you have the railroad. (inaudible) The buildings onsite, we have given you photographs, this is a photograph from the north looking south. As you enter the site, the gravel driveway and the sailing center and then the boat launching area immediately to the south. This is just a blow up of the sailing center itself. Approximately again, 1,200 square feet, somewhere in the neighborhood of about 14, 15 foot high at the tallest point. What is proposed is to remove the existing sailing center, and essentially on top of its footprint, construct a new sailing center, a larger one of 5,500 square feet, approximately 50% of it underground, so you end up with a 2 -story building at this particular location. The ground is the building, the red that's shown in here is the paver area, patio area and deck area. There is no modification proposed, obviously, for the Town Park. There is no modification proposed for the existing curb cut, and its asphalt entry area. This is the asphalt parking for the park itself. The only modification to the parking lot that is proposed is actually a reconfiguration of the gravel area and I think that's ... when we present the preliminary information, we will calculate this out, but I believe you will end up with approximately the same amount of gravel area pre and post PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.45 development. The, were only straightening it out for better organization of existing parking which at the moment tends to be kind of all over the place and there is an existing pole in the middle of the existing parking lot that needs to be removed as it is rather susceptible to being hit. With the existing building, they have also had difficulty with accessing and launching boats from the angle of the existing boat launch area. There will be absolutely no modification or change to the marina area other than basically taking the existing boat launch and adding about a 45 degree angle to it. The mouth of it, to get it a better angle for launching purposes. It is proposed to have a storage shed, 15 x 80 foot at the, just south of the existing bath house that's located here. The storage shed is insinuated, 8' x ( ?) metal building pole barn, no slab and basically no services to it. It just basically allows the sailing center to store their boats seasonally at this particular location. The sailing center itself is also being used for seasonal boat storage as well. The view from Route 34 shown here in a rough preliminary sketch gives you approximately a 10 foot eave line. A relatively simple building shown here with a main entry and then a dormer area up here, which is basically designed for natural ventilation. The building, from heating and cooling utilization is heating only, no air conditioning, natural ventilation in the summertime, there is some mechanical ventilation in the wet areas, there's several significant wet areas in it, locker room areas plus storage of wet suits and a variety of things like that. That's the only mechanical ventilation proposed. Heating is being provided for the off - season usage which is basically to extend the season from early spring to late fall. There is very minimal usage of the building proposed if any proposed I think, for winter. The intent then is we will shut the building basically down, maintain a 55 degree temperature just for the building materials. The building composition is wood frame, slab on grade. Basically. there is a shed roof which sheds directly west for sun to basically capture heat and light and also for viewing the sailing activities up and down the lake. The orientation is also, has been reviewed by the various clubs and organizations using it and it's situated, again, to max out viewing north and south of the lake. Material is asphalt shingle roof. Cement poured double siding, and wood clad windows. Again, from a maintenance standpoint, trying to keep the outside giving it a very residential look, for maintenance free materials. The view from the lake, again, it ends up being 10 feet to finish floor. This is the deck, the observation deck, what's referred to as the great room and then basically this is the single story shed roof that we ..(inaudible) for maximum ventilation of that particular area. The, we've given you several floor plans just to give you an idea of the utilization. Utilization of the building, although basically the structure is going from 1,200 square PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.46 feet to 5,500 square feet, as an element, basically the program utilization, you may see exactly the same on the site. What occurs right now is that an awful lot of programs are functioning outside because of the limited square footage of the building and I believe Al has mentioned to me that a lot of the programs, in inclement weather, are either canceled or students are no shows. So they get the choice of picking better weather. So what this does is basically take the educational activities and provide space inside so we end up with is the training room, which is for the sailing club and basically storage spaces on it. Right now they have very, very limited locker room space and this is the expanded locker room space for the games men and women. Mechanical facilities... There are virtually no administrative functions or spaces down below now, so some cubbies or cubicles in the building, so it is basically giving the administrative staff some legitimate space to actually maintain there files at this location. Classrooms, the functions that are basically taught outside, being able to bring them inside in to two areas right here and then basically storage of all the gear. So this area right here, the training, area and of course the locker room areas are what we refer to as a relatively wet area. The second level, we have the main room for basically the regattas and things like that, again the people that are outside now have a place to congregate inside if there is inclement weather and -we have an observation deck to give them better views off of up and down the lake. Again, the stair coming down, the stair is.flared out here so the stair is actually used as an educational learning area where they can take some high school or younger classes, put them on the steps here and lecture to them. Educational office, the coach's office and then basically everything on this side of the building is one story. We have an attic space as the roof sheds down, that becomes the mechanical space, the training. room is just the two -story space itself. Then we also gave you a brief section and plan of the storage building and those sections of the road. The reason the location was selected was because of the building could conceal the building from the, road and the view. As you come down to the south, again as I mentioned, the height of the road is, the elevation between the road and the site is quite extensive. (inaudible) That's a very fast overview and I can take questions or comments and suggestions. Mr. Blakeney — I believe in the materials that the Board has we had also described that the Department of Athletics and all of the sailing and waterfront programs are really the primary activities that take place here. But the University also has some academic units that from time to time do come down to the site and that's been going on right now and there are activities associated with the College of Engineering and Arts and Sciences and also Agriculture and Life Sciences and I think that all of that is pointed out in the materials that have been presented as well. And hence the amendment and underscoring of the educational use of the site. So, PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.47 just wanted to make sure that you are aware of that. That's included in the description. Board Member Talty First of all, I didn't notice that there were any concessions or a concession area in the blueprints. Does that mean that there's going. to be only vending machines on site? Mr. Gantert — Yes, very likely. I can't tell you that some time in the future we might not put a soda machine or something that that in but it's not in the planning at this time. Board Member Talty — The other thing is, dumpster area, refuse. Mr. Gantert — There is currently a dumpster on the site, a small one. Just off to the south of the existing building. There is a small trash container. Board Member Talty - So is it going to be where it currently is? Is that correct? Or is it going to be modified and moved elsewhere? Mr. Gantert — I can't really answer that question accurately. It will probably be modified I would imagine. It's an eyesore for the building when we construct it. Chairperson Wilcox — Take that as plans should show where it will be located. Board Member Talty — Last thing ... when I was down there for a previous project, I noticed that the turn around area for people that are launching their boat is difficult. I think it was mentioned during the presentation that it's kind of willy -nilly right now. But I noticed on the current or existing site map verses the future, it looks to me as though it's going to be narrower and there will be less ability to maneuver your trailer and car to launch your boat. Mr. Gantert — I am trying to recall the positioning of the power pole... Board Member Talty — Well it's not just the power pole, it's where you said that little angle cut is going to be placed, because if I am looking at it correctly, the current site map, or the existing, it looks as though there is a lot more room on the gravel pavement to maneuver your boat and trailer. Because what they do, they come in and they make a big swing, and.then they have to back it in and it looks to me as if it's a lot narrower than it was before. Mr. Schlosser — I think what we can do is on the preliminary submission is we will basically give you turn radius' and actually draw angle radius' on to show you how a boat, a car with a boat trailer will make that turn. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.48 Board Member Talty — Last thing, in the future site plan, it wasn't ...it says no modification for the marina area, but I noticed that you didn't put in the leased parcel or the B marina. Is that going to maintain? Mr. Schlosser — There will be absolutely no change to any of the water...) didn't actually mention it but basically, to the shoreline itself, there is absolutely no change. Foliage, the edge of shore or any of the slips. Board Member Talty — Okay. So where your finger is that lower area ... you actually can walkout to, I want to call it like a temporary type of marina that's not on. that plan right there. Mr. Schlosser — Not intentional. Whatever is there is going to stay there. Mr. Gantert — There is a small dock extension and I didn't notice until you mentioned it and it shows on one of those... Board Member Talty — Yes it does, because that significantly alters how people can maneuver in and out of their slips. I don't know how far it is but it's gotta be 60 something feet ... it's pretty significant. Board Member Hoffmann — I -think -Esther -had a lot of good points in what she wrote up and I assume that you have gotten copies of her comments too, correct. Mr. Blakeny — Yes that is correct and we appreciate the comments and we'll address those as part of the preliminary submission. Board Member Hoffmann — I also just realized, when I see what other people have, I must have missed getting some of the materials... this is the only drawing or map that I have in mine. I didn't get all the rest of it, so I am just seeing some of these things for the first time tonight so I don't have a lot of additional questions, but as said, I think that what Esther wrote in her memo, there are a lot of things that we should follow up on there. Board Member Howe — Not so much for them, but I am just curious of this Lake Front Commercial Zone verses Educational Zone... Chairperson Wilcox — So am Board Member Thayer — interesting point. Chairperson Wilcox — I think the issue is the ... Cornell has requested an amendment to the Lake Front Commercial Zone ... Can someone explain why the amendment is needed if the use hasn't changed? I think I know the answer. Hold on, I am looking over here. Does the attorney or.. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.49 Mr. Kanter — Perhaps what is happening now is not according to the existing zoning. You could elucidate upon that if you want. Ms. Brock — No need to. I mean I don't know to what extent the existing building is being used for educational purposes as opposed to just classes going down and taking water samples off shore, things like that. All I can surmise is that now Cornell has determined that they actually want to have physical, constructed space within which to run educational programs and they've asked that the zoning be changed to explicitly permit educational uses. I don't know if the fact that perhaps some of these. activities weren't necessarily happening within the building made it okay, don't know ... I guess we just really should look to the future and if we think, in fact, the zoning should be amended to include educational purposes then this is the time to do it. Chairperson Wilcox — If the facility Was privately owned, the land and the existing building was privately owned, the use would be consistent with the zoning? Ms. Brock — I think it depends on what activities are happening with the building. Mr. Kanter — What do you mean by the use? Chairperson Wilcox —Let me try this ... If it was privately owned and the uses .going on in the building and on the property were consistent with lake front commercial, let's assume that's the status quo, if that building and land was purchased by Cornell University and the same uses continued, if the same uses then continued with Cornell as the owner of the land and the building, would that change? Would that create a need to rezone the property? Because it was privately owned and operated and then it became owned by Cornell University and the same uses continued to happen on the site. Would that require a need to rezone? I shouldn't say rezone, amend the Lake Front Commercial Zone. Mr. Kanter — I think you have to look at the actual description that Cornell's provided as to what they are and proposing to do there which is the actual running of classrooms. Ms. Brock — Right, your hypothetical ... are you saying under your hypothetical that a private enterprise is running classes? Chairperson Wilcox — Does the private versus public running of the facility change anything? Does that have an impact? Am I not being clear? Ms. Brock — No, you're being clear. I think it just depends on what each enterprises is doing on site. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, the ownership is not what's important, it's the activity that's actually happening. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.50 Ms. Brock —Yes. Mr. Kanter — Marinas are allowed in that zone. Chairperson Wilcox — Right, and they are allowed whether they are owned by a private individual or by Cornell University. Mr. Kanter — But it sounds an awful lot to us that the activities that Cornell is describing go beyond what you would normally find at a marina. Chairperson Wilcox — Which are the educational uses, whether that's research, whether that's classes, whether that's physical education. Okay, thank you. Board Member Howe — So it's best to make it conform to what the use is going to be. So that there is sort of a recommendation coming that we would change it to include educational uses. Ms. Brock — Yes, I think that is both Jonathan and my feeling, that it would be appropriate to amend the zoning to specifically include educational uses. Mr. Kanter — And so to address the County letter that said that you don't need to change the zoning and you shouldn't change the zoning, I think Susan and I don't agree with whether as a policy we should change it is one question but whether we need to change it in order to allow the proposed uses, I think Susan and I agree that you do need to change it because you can't... educational uses are not currently allowed in that zone. Ms. Brock — I mean, how do you conceptually see the running of PE classes at the site as being any different than the running of PE classes on campus? I mean, its part of the educational mission. Just because it's happening in a waterfront building doesn't mean it's not part of the educational mission. Board Member Thayer — I think the memo says it all. We will want details on lighting... Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead, go through them, for the publics benefit, go through them... Board Member Thayer — Details on lighting and signs and soil contamination and drainage... View shed is very important. We need to see all of that. Board Member Howe — Public access. Mr. Schlosser — Can ask one question about that in respect to traffic. We'll give you the traffic information, basically showing what's existing verses new and it basically doesn't change ... There is one item written here... basically, the applicant should PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.51 evaluate future entrance and exits ...I guess I'd like to know what is the Board looking for because I think everybody realizes that that entrance and curb cut is the only, there is virtually nothing that can be done economically to modify that entrance. There is not much that we can do to demonstrate any other alternatives. So what is the Board asking for or what would you like to see? Chairperson Wilcox —The fact that nothing else is economically viable is not important to me. I think that what's important here is... Board Member Thayer - How many meetings, how much traffic, how many people, on and on. That type of thing. Chairperson Wilcox - Safety ... The issues that we ran into with the Remington Inn proposal ... If special events are to be held in this building and with the great room and the deck, I am concerned that there are special events. Is there going to be stacking problems. Is ... sightline distances. When does the railroad come through. We just have to be very, very careful of the uniqueness of this site and the potential dangers of this site. Potential hazards, I should say and yes, the impact should be far less than the proposed Remington Hotel and Restaurant, but nonetheless, I agree it's a difficult site to work with in terms of the ability to get on the site and off the site, but we need to make sure that it can be done safely, both for the cars entering and exiting the facility but also the cars heading east and wet, excuse me, north and south on ... Board Member Thayer — And fire protection also. Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely. Getting a fire truck in there and it's got to be able to turn around an get to the building etc. Mr. Gantert — May I comment. Currently, the programming that we are doing is at maximum. I foresee nothing changing. All of the programming that I identified was occurring last summer, and the summer before. We are moving classes down to the East Shore site in a van and we have a class on Friday morning and one on Friday afternoon and one on Saturday morning and Saturday afternoon and one of Sunday morning and Sunday afternoon as well as a Thursday afternoon class. That's fundamentally the instructional sailing load that goes on at that facility. On weekends we cancel the classes when there is a regatta with the sailing team. The engineering and the biological science groups are currently using that facility and I foresee nothing changing. And of course the marina operation is in full swing. Chairperson Wilcox — The point is, I don't think we have much documentation about what exists today so to say that nothing is changing, doesn't help very much. Mr. Kanter — Right, that is the point that I was going to make. We have no base level information about what is there right now. We didn't know these classes were even going on until you guys came in and told us about them so we obviously need PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.52 that to start with and then any projections for changes. There also is the potential with this building to have other things going on and we need to. know what Cornell's position on that is. For instance, we. got this email message from the City which we handed out tonight which talks about requests that other things be thought about by Cornell to be able to add to the site, like this nautical emergency response center, that would consolidate the Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Ithaca Power Squadron, the Sheriff's Department and Ithaca Fire Department Lake Emergency Response Services using some of the boat slips for those facilities, using the sailing center for meeting space. We have no idea where that would go, but the City has made it known to the Town that that is something they would like. to see. If that's something that may happen, we need to know that as well as future things that may end up going on there. Sothis is a baseline, existing documentation as well as a discussion of what may happen in the future given that you will have a nicer, larger facility there. Board Member Hoffmann — Another thing related to that is, the same as with the previous proposal, the Remington Inn, that if there are special things happening, I can't imagine what they all might be, and there are more people coming at a certain time to this location and needing to park, there will be provisions made so that they don't park in the parking area that serves the Town park. Excluding people from using that and coming by car and parking there. Mr. Gantert — I don't think that has been a problem to date. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, no there hasn't ... there hasn't been the facilities there that you are proposing. To allow people to come and gather... Mr. Gantert — As I mentioned, I don't expect the programming to change because we have changed the building. Everything that is going on that will be going on, is going on. So the population usage, the traffic, the parking, I can't see how it can change. Board Member Hoffmann — Well, if you put facilities like a nice building with space for entertaining and decks and so on, and people are able to cater food and bring it there for some event which ... I mean, I can dream it up just as easily as you can probably, but there's lots of things that I can't foresee too that might happen and which might create a situation similar to having a. restaurant there and having as many people attending, in the summertime, obviously, but still, that is when the Town park will be used and so there will be a conflict there if there was spill -over parking from the Cornell activities into that parking area that goes with the park. Anyway, it is something that I would like to suggest that you think about and make provisions to ensure that there aren't any problems in the Town park. Chairperson Wilcox — The thing that comes to mind is wouldn't that be a wonderful place to have a wedding. Frankly, that's what comes to mind. The great room, the deck, so ... What you can do is 1) you can say no that won't happen, 2) you could provide us with documentation that says no, that won't happen. Okay, that's the solution to that, and whether we actually write it into the language, should we get to PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.53 reviewing this for potential approval, yeah, we can do that. But those are the concerns that are coming. Did we mention viewshed from the west side of the lake. Board Member Thayer — We mentioned view shed but not specifically. Chairperson Wilcox — We should mention... don't forge it's form the west side of the lake, looking across the lake, is as important as well. Ms. Blodau - Konick — You mention in your presentation, a wet lab, and I was just wondering where in the building it would be. Mr. Schlosser — It's in one of the classrooms down in the first floor and it's just a matter of bringing in wet materials from the lake and categorizing them and putting them in containers. Board Member Talty — Is this going to be a public facility that anybody can walk into it at any time? It kind of is now down there. You kind of just walk in and out. Mr. Gantert — there's an open community sailing program as part of our offerings and with a lobby and an office, lower right, in the floor plans, left side, that is the, there is the lobby entrance and we will have people operating in that lobby for the entire operating schedule of the facility from roughly 8:00 in the morning to slightly after sundown and then the building would be locked up. So, people can walk in there and ask questions and apply for membership and ask for private sailing instruction, which they do. So it will be a monitored facility for a reasonable time of the year and the day. The operating schedule of the facility is roughly, as I said, from about 8:00 o'clock in the morning until about half an hour. after sundown and from April 1St to November 1..What I would like to do as of November 1 is close the building, turn the heat to 55 and not let anybody in. Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board. Mr. Harlan — I'm all for it, it's an improvement because it looks like a dump down there right now and ... What they ought to do is put a light right there going in the entrance so you can stop traffic so you can pull off and get some warning or get a gate for when the railroad tracks. come by because you got the fire department and the ambulance in case someone gets hurt so you can run in there so I thought a suggestion would be to get gates in case the train comes through there or a warning. Also, if they really want to cool off that building, I know the cheapest way going about it for the summertime and they don't need air conditioning. Right close by there pipeline and they can take the pipeline and make an extension out of it and put it right in the building, it's right there. Why not put it to use, make and extension and cool off the building with the pipeline to the right. It'd be a good suggestion. Right PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.54 there in the property, Cornell owns everything down there so why not make the best of it, that's all I got to say. Rich DePaulo — I don't have the benefit of the memo that was apparently circulated and I am sure that some of these, most of these issues were probably brought up in the memo but of course the site soil contamination that was investigated during the lake source cooling site development... it's not clear to me from the presentation right now how much soil is going to be disturbed, it was presented as a slab on grade but I don't know how much grading has too be done. It's not clear from the presentation what would happen with any fill ... during the lake source cooling project the fill was basically trucked up the hill and dumped in an unceremonious fashion and it is also unclear, to me, whether the extent of the contamination and also whether any remediation needs to be done in advance of having all these people running around down there and sailing and whatnot. The other thing is that right now, the site is sort of a de -facto park. People .kind of come and go as they please and whatnot and now that there are, could be a much more valuable building to secure, I am somewhat concerned that the access would be monitored more closely, perhaps limited, especially during the hours when there are educational activities down there. And the last issue that I wanted to...lt's more or less a rhetorical question, I don't know if there are any tax ramifications of changing the zoning from a lakefront commercial to educational or whether or not the entire parcel is already off the rolls. I don't really know the answer to that question, so, other than that, that's all I have. Thank you. Hollis Erb — If I lived on the west shore and was looking across at this, I think I would appreciate the attractive design of this building: I would be concerned about light containment in the darkening hours of the evening because it's going to be a much larger building. I would also be concerned about having, perhaps, some decent landscaping to soften the view from the west of the view of the polebarn, the storage area, though I am very glad about it being sort of under car grade from the view from the road itself. So I think that the exterior actually looks like a very attractive summerhouse by the lake but I again would be concerned about light control, late afternoon, early evening and would like to see landscaping actively placed on the west facing side of the storage area if I lived down on. the lake. Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you very much. Rich, with regard to taxable property, generally this Board doesn't care about tax rolls and such. But I think the Town Board, I think that's a reasonable question to address to the Town Board. I'm not sure whether it's off the rolls or not at this point, I just don't know. Mr. Kanter — We can find out. PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.55 Chairperson Wilcox — I have a question I want to bring. up ... When we were discussing Ithacare, and I always say Ithacare and I should say .Longview, I made a point of saying that the Town Board had asked that there be coordinated environmental review with regard to Ithacare ... Now for this, if we have a copy of the resolution from the Town Board, and the last paragraph says: "resolved that the Town Board hereby recommends that the Planning Board and the Town Board each act as Lead Agencies for their respective actions for the purposes of conducting the environmental reviews." I'm confused.... Mr. Kanter — I wrote that... Chairperson Wilcox - You wrote that... Mr. Kanter — It's not that there is anything going on, it's that.this, as opposed to Longview, appears to be an unlisted action, and unlisted actions normally are done as uncoordinated reviews by separate Lead Agencies, The Town Board would be the Lead Agency for the zoning amendment, the Planning Board would be the Lead Agency for the site plan and the special approval. I think that we are getting pretty close to confirming that this is unlisted because of the size and amount of disturbance being below the thresholds that would make it Type I. That is why it would be, that's why the language in the resolution indicated that the Town Board and the Planning Board would be acting each as Lead Agency for their respective actions. Chairperson Wilcox — My concern was for the applicant having to go through 2 environmental reviews and also the load on the Town Staff, Mr. Kanter — That's how we almost always inevitably do them all the time. No different than how we normally handle them. Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, because I am all for reducing burden on applicants, whether it was the zoning changes to they are not as likely to go to the Town Board and then the Planning Board... Mr. Kanter — I don't think it will be duplication because it will be the same SEQR for both Boards, really. Chairperson Wilcox — While the applicants are still here, any more questions? Board Member Thayer — I still think that with a big, beautiful deck and lots of table and chairs out there, it wouldn't be hard for somebody to bring a keg of beer and start a big party. Chairperson Wilcox — The last thing I want is too much noise, people having too much to drink near the water, absolutely, so ... I think they're mindful of the ... Mr. Kanter — I think there was mention of an elevation map... Mr. Schlosser — We will be submitting that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB Approved Minutes 2/06/07 Pg.56 PB RESOLUTION NO. 2007 - 018 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: January 16, 2007 TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD February 6, 2007 MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer. RESOLVED, that the- Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the January 16, 2007 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said meeting. The vote on the motion resulted as follows: AYES: Wilcox, Thayer, Howe, and Talty. NAYS: None. Abstentions: Hoffmann The vote on the motion was carried. OTHER BUSINESS Agenda for the next meeting was discussed. Both Susan Brock and Guy Krogh will be at the Association of Town's meeting on the 20th, therefore, another attorney from the firm will attend the meeting. ADJOURNMENT Motion made and meeting adjourned by Chairperson Wilcox at 10:1.0p.m. Respectfully submitted, Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday, Februaa 6, 2007 AGENDA 7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes). 7:05 P.M. Discussion of the SEQR process for the proposed Ithaca College Athletic and Events Center located on the eastern side of the Ithaca College campus near the Coddington Road campus entrance, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 41 -1 -30.2, 41 -1 -24, and 42- 1 -9.2, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the construction of a +/- 300,000 square foot field house building (containing a 200M track, indoor field for practices and games, seating and floor space for large events, Olympic size pool and diving well, indoor tennis courts, rowing center, strength and conditioning center, etc.) an outdoor - lighted artificial turf field and 400M track, and the creation of 900 +/- parking spaces (550 existing parking spaces moved and 350 new parking spaces). The project is proposed in several phases and will also include new walkways, access roads, stormwater facilities, outdoor lighting, and landscaping. The Planning Board may also declare their interest in being Lead Agency for the project. Ithaca College, Owner /Applicant, Richard Couture, Agent. 7:15 P.M. SEQR Determination: French Lavender Flower Shop, 903 Mitchell Street. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site P1an.Approval for the proposed French Lavender Flower Shop to be located in an existing building at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves converting the former knitting shop space (approximately 1,128 sq. ft.) into a flower shop. The only exterior changes include minor plantings and the painting of the building. Eunice A. McFall, Owner; Monique L. Morse, Applicant. 7:25 P.M. SEQR Determination: Longview Special Care Addition, 1 Bella Vista Drive, 7:25 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a zoning amendment for the proposed Special Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 =1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 24,000 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building to serve up to 30 additional residents. The proposal will also include approximately 11 new parking spaces, a new driveway, new walkways, and additional stormwater facilities. The Town Board has referred the proposed zoning amendment of Planned Development Zone No. 7 to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent. 8:00 P.M. Review of a sketch plan for the proposed construction of the Cornell University Animal Health Diagnostic Center located off Caldwell Road in the northeast corner of the College of Veterinary Medicine Complex, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 67 -1 -10.2 and 67 -1 -10.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes the demolition of several small and outdated buildings for the construction of a new 4 story, +/- 126,000 square foot laboratory research building. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; John M. Keefe, Agent. TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Tuesday, February 6,2007 By direction of the Chairperson of the.Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, February 6, 2007, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters: 7:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed French Lavender Flower Shop to be located in an existing building at 903 Mitchell Street, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 59 -2 -16, Medium Density Residential Zone. The proposal involves converting the former knitting shop space (approximately 1,128 sq. ft.) into a flower shop. The only exterior changes include minor plantings and the painting of the building. Eunice A. McFall, Owner; Monique L. Morse, Applicant. 7:25 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and a recommendation to the Town of Ithaca Town Board regarding a zoning amendment for the proposed. Special Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction of a +/- 24,000 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building to serve up to 30 additional residents. The proposal will also include approximately 11 new parking spaces, a new driveway, new walkways, and additional stormwater facilities. The Town Board has referred the proposed zoning amendment of Planned Development Zone No. 7 to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent. Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings. Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 Dated: Monday, January 29, 2007 Publish: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 Wednesday, January 31, 200,741 THE ITHACA JOURNAL F Tuesday;--" i February 6,.2007'; ` t:. direction4of. the Chair, e;; Jthaca; N.Y'.;` at the wing times and•_66 the wing matters 15 P W.Conside'rdtion Preliminary, and -Final 'Plan: Approval ,for -'the" )used- French Lavender ier =Shop to •be- located -' in; `existing_ building at 44Mitcfiell Street,' Town thaca_ .Tax =Pdreeh:No. )-16; :Mediur6 Density' dentialZone;' 'The: pro- 3I =: involves.'Sonverting former ::knitting' shop e approximately 26 sq ft;� into a flower The «onlIyy exterior. iges include.,., .,,minor dings: and the `pinting ie building:' Euhice A.', dII;Chvner;•Monique L:, of Ad- an 'Zone °No:47, I involves the' vays, and 6ddit_iondl tormwater ";facildies, =The.: own Board has referred. ie�' 'propose d`= zoning; imendment of Planned' De-: elopment Zone: No.'7, to'1 le- =Planning' :Board 4or ca.: ecommendation: I- -' Ith ocare '. ;enter = ,Service `Company;'. Oviner /APplicant;,, dark A. -MOcer , Executive' Xrector, Agent.' ,r 'Said - Planning Board =will•'. it . said - times_ and said^ ilace'+heor allr4persoris - -in . upport-of such matters of bjections4hereto Persons3 iay.appear_by,agent or in Person. ' ' Individuals` with" isual impairments, hearing npairments or 'other 5p al;needs;- wilfbe provided'_' rith. assistance'as ,necesso- yy upon.irequest:''Person3. esiring 'assistance =r, must; iake' such ;a request, not'' A`ilhari:48.hours prior to iec-time' "of;, the.:public-i eanngs .• Jonathan Kanter; A1CP Director of Planning 273=1747 laced Monday,.^ '3• i January' 29, 2007 ublish: Wednesda ', January 31;-2007y • . Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street February 6, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN4N Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name 5JWR�C2� C(,V Idk l'046 16zS W/'l^l . IL� J NN (\4 .1L-tZ =F { vW�(- s `F, 4u ��- A; Z ► 5� 2- ( Address (1IL4 9TU. Cc R-N`LL �12� UNIVLJY\' �i Wa W i y i4,q'sU [4/C c 12 01 f- c;4r4W � -t, 109 WcW kovN "j W& I -7 Wes. 1 raa Town of Ithaca Planning Board 215 North Tioga Street February 6, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN -IN Please Print Clearly, Thank You Name c ( ) t 1)Ctc 0 1 ^� X13 c 4, no Address 1 14 'rn 6' < 1 �L�z�,a2�Q� 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 Tioaa Street Ithaca New York on Tuesday, February 6, 2007 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 January 29, 2007 January 31, 2007 6%•tdn.a- 06-& . Sandra Polce, Senior Typist Town of Ithaca STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this 31" day of January 2007. Notary Public CONNIE F. CLARK Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 CL6052878 Qualified in Tompkins County Commission Expires December 26, 20