HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2007-04-17FILE
DATE
REGULAR MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, April 17, 2007
215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
7:00 P.M.
PRESENT
Chairperson Fred Wilcox; Board Members: George Conneman, Eva Hoffmann,
and Larry Thayer
Absent: Board Members Rod Howe and Kevin Talty
STAFF
Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; Daniel Walker, Director of Engineering
(7:28 p.m — 9:26 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant Director of Planning; Susan
Brock, Attorney for the Town; Paulette Neilsen, Deputy Town Clerk,
OTHERS PRESENT
David Herrick,T: G. Miller & Assoc.
Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road, Ithaca
Joel Harlan, Newfield
Hank Roberts, 253 Coddington Road, Ithaca
Ed Corvinelli, 328 Coddington Road, Ithaca
Frank Butler, 332 Coddington Road, Ithaca
Carol Oster, Conifer Realty, 183 East Main Street, Rochester
John Spence, Ithaca Better Housing Bureau, 950 Danby Road, Ithaca
Lisa Goodberry, Conifer Realty, 183 East Main Street, Rochester
Lawrence Hoetzlin, Cornell University
Howard Blaisdell, 300 Spruce Street Columbus Ohio
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:05 p.m. and. accepts
for the record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of
Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on April 9, 2007 and April
11 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 April 9, 2007.
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.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 2
Chairperson Wilcox opens the first agenda item at 7,05 p.m.
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board. There was no one
wishing to speak at that time.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:07 p.m.
DRAFT SCOPING DOCUMENT
Presentation and discussion of the draft scoping document for the
Environmental impact Statement (EIS) regarding 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. Also, consideration of scheduling a public scoping
session to hear public comments on the draft scoping document for the
Athletic and Events Center EIS. The proposal includes the construction of
a +1- 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 1015 +1- parking spaces (553
existing parking spaces moved and 462 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,
Chairperson Wilcox — Before you get going David, I want to remind those of you
who are here for this particular agenda item that we are going to get a relatively
short presentation, I believe, I don't believe it will take that long, and then the
Board will proceed to discuss the draft scoping document that is in front of us,
and that, if deemed sufficient, we'll likely move to setting a public scoping
session. When David is done, and the Board has had discussion, we will give
the public a chance to express their comments and concerns at that time. The
floor is yours David.
David Herrick, T.G. Miller Engineers and Surveyors, Ithaca
Thank you for having us back tonight.
Chairperson Wilcox —Thank you for being patient with us,
Mr. Herrick — And being first on the agenda, we appreciate that this evening. I'd
like to acknowledge that Howard Blaisdell who is the prime consultant for the
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 3
master plan in Phase I, from Moody Nolan, is here with us as is Steve Dayton,
who is a project coordinator for the college.
I think you are all familiar with what was presented back in January. I have
brought 2 of the presentation boards from the January 16th meeting, at which
time we presented these sketches. The one to my right is the master plan that
put forth the total of building improvements, field improvements, parking and loop
road access. To my left is a plan that represented the first phase, the anticipated
first phase improvements of the multi - phased project. Again, these are drawings
that were originally presented for sketch plan consideration, nothing new or
revised tonight.
We have put together the draft scoping document for Town Staff, Planning Board
and now, public comment and we feel that this document, as it has gone through
several revisions in response to Town comments, is sufficient for public critique,
and, perhaps, modification. It's been prepared consistent with the SEQR law. It
has identified those concerns that were presented in Part III of the full
environmental assessment form. We have provided some approach as to how
some possible impacts will be mitigated. It does not go into depth, that's the
whole purpose of the draft EIS, but we have prepared enough information, we
believe, to sufficiently allow public comment and critique. I would be happy to
address any elements of the scoping document that the Board has questions.
Chairperson Wilcox — Questions, Board members? I want to remind everybody
that the purpose here is not to finalize the scoping document but to determine
whether it is sufficient to ... to make it available to the public, so to speak, and
then schedule a meeting for public comment on its completeness. Anybody?
Board Member Thayer — David, was there any thought about moving the parking
area further over away from Coddington Road?
Mr. Herrick -- The ... this document acknowledges that that's a concern that was
raised by the Board and also by some of the residents at time of sketch plan and
we will be analyzing alternate locations, alternate arrangements for parking, here
and throughout campus. So, what you will find, in the proposed methods of
mitigation is a suggestion or, not a suggestion, but actually a. commitment to
show the Town what the alternatives are for parking and if they, in fact, can be
relocated from where they were shown in these sketch plans.
Board Member Thayer — I think that would be important.
Mr. Herrick — Yes, and that is part of our scope and we are committed to
providing that information to the Town.
Board Member Hoffmann — Would the same be true for the loop road...lf it is
needed, first of all, or if traffic situations for special events can be handled in
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 4
other ways, like for instance they do at Cornell University, they essentially reroute
traffic after special events or before, by having campus police and maybe other
police directing how people drive ... So you're going to look into that too?
Mr. Herrick —There are two parts to your question, I believe, one was, would we
consider*alternate alignments for the loop road; the answer is yes. And we'd also
be looking at developing, in concert, with local law enforcement agencies, some
temporary traffic control for large events that would require such control.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I guess, would you also look into whether you
actually need the loop road, or not? Or if handling traffic some other way would
take its place? That it might not be necessary, because I thought that at some
point somebody said the loop road was there to help guide traffic through Ithaca
College's campus in connection with special events. But it seems to me there
are other ways of handling that traffic and that if that's the main reason for the
loop road, then maybe it's not necessary.
Mr. Herrick — I think there are multiple reasons for having a modification of the
loop road. One of them would be consistent with an earlier master plan that was
done that suggested that there are potential conflicts between pedestrian
movements and loop road movements that could be mitigated if some of those
loop roads were relocated. So, there may be more than one reason, other than
just the A &E center to modify the layout, the current layout of some of the loop
road. Now, could we mitigate all of the traffic impacts in some other manner?
Possibly.. I can't answer yes or no to that. I. think that might come out of our
analysis and be a possible mitigation strategy in the document.
Board Member Conneman — David, I have the same concern in a little different
way. I think for both the parking area and the loop road, you should come with
alternatives. Alternatives are good to look at because sometimes they work and
sometimes they don't. If we see what the alternatives are, we can, perhaps, get
a gauge of what we really want to do. So in both those cases, I think we need to
see the alternatives.
Mr. Herrick - If you want to, if you haven't already, looked at what the
alternatives are, they're on page 6 under section 5 and we do make mention of
modifications in the layout of parking areas and moving the loop road corridors.
So you will see some alternatives to what had been presented in the sketch
plans.
Board Member Conneman — I read that, I just want to emphasize it.
Mr. Herrick — Sure, very good.
Board Member Conneman — I have another question that is not directly related to
this but I'm sure that some people in the audience are interested in this...
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 5
The...l ... This Board said that they would look at the fill sites separately from this
and I, do you have any idea when Ithaca College plans to bring that proposal
back to us? Because that was a bone of contention, I think that's the way to put
it.
Mr. Herrick — It is likely that in the presentation and the consideration of
alternatives, the fill site may or may not remain on the table. It's very possible
that some alternatives for the loop road may impact that, may prove that we don't
have the need for the fill site or it may be altered to look different than what it is
today, so...
Board Member Conneman — I think you should be sure that Ithaca College
realizes that we think that ought to be looked at, probably separately, because I
think we...
All — we decided it would be separate.
Board Member Conneman — I know, I know, but the question is when do they
come back because the more ... the later you come back, the more this other
project will be delayed, if that's the agreement, to do it first.
Ms. Brock — If my memory serves me correctly, I think Ithaca College actually
was in violation of the Town Code provisions regarding fill permits, and so,
regardless of what impacts different alternatives from this project might have on
their location and layout of any extensions of the fill site, I think the College
needs to come back to the Town and straighten out the situation regarding the
current fill site, to make that a legal site.
Board Member Conneman — The other point I wanted to make is that 2D, the
Community character, is very important. My recollection is that when this subject
was first presented, that that was one of the issues that a lot of people talked
about. So I hope that that's a complete analysis of that item.
Mr. Herrick — You'll find that we have a very extensive visual impact program to
develop and bring to the Town and we will be looking at visual impacts, in
addition to noise, both from distant and afar. Or near and far, excuse me.
Mr. Kanter — You want to talk, David, just briefly about the list of view sites that
we went over. The applicants have put together their own preliminary list and
then Planning Staff got together, looked it over, and added some of our own
suggestions. So this is basically a composite of those, but if you have any
comments on any of them...
Mr. Herrick — Well, they also incorporate those potential important view sheds
that the county acknowledged as being important, so, it's a compilation of 3 or
more sources of concern.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 6
Chairperson Wilcox — Some of those sites being on South Hill and some also
being on East Hill, which is appropriate.
Mr. Herrick—' Correct, and one being down at the East Shore Park,
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes.
Board Member Hoffmann — And I think it's quite possible that we might identify
other sites where this could be seen. So, you know, whatever you can do to
survey and see where this site might be seen, to anticipate that, and including
other sites, I think, would be good. Because it's amazing...
Mr. Herrick — Yes, we developed our own list of possible sites and as Fred has
mentioned, many of them or most of them were from the East Hill perspective
because that does appear to be the vantage point where most of the visual
impact will come.
Chairperson Wilcox — It is very interesting, having lived on Juniper. Drive for 19
years, which is off of Coddington Road but which slopes down, we could not see
most of the fireworks from there. Just because of the change in height, because
of the trees and everything else, very, very interesting. Now this would be at the
top of Juniper where it hits Coddington Road, which would be somewhat higher,
but, the hills do certainly have an impact. And certainly that's why we have to
look at East Hill given the Town and its situation, sometimes the impact is not
next door, the visual impact is seen across the valley to another...
Board Member Thayer — Yeah, we can see the fireworks very well.
Chairperson Wilcox — I want to remind everybody that we're not going to solve
everything tonight. The intent is not to necessarily finalize the draft scoping
document but to determine whether it is sufficient to make it available to the
public and to schedule a public scoping session. And I suspect that the
comments that we've made tonight will be brought up again during that public
session and, either by the members of this Board and /or by members of the
public as well. Any other questions or comments at this point?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I just wanted to ask about the, ..you say on. page
4 that you are going to be recording the sound levels in the area, or in various
areas around the site and compare them to the Town of Ithaca noise ordinance.
When are you going to do this and at how many locations? And how many times
of day? Or over how many days? Can you tell me a little more about the details
of that.
Mr. Herrick No I can't, I don't have our consultant who is going to be
responsible for that analysis with us here so I don't know if, Howard, if there's
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 7
anything more that we can expand on at this point, in terms of the types of events
or the frequency of the monitoring. Perhaps that's something we can embellish
and come back to at the public hearing.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think it's important to have such recordings made at
a variety of times and a variety of events so that one gets an idea of what's a
really noisy event and what isn't and just what the background noise is in various
parts of the area around there.
Mr. Herrick — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ithaca /Cortland State football game. There we go.
Board Member Hoffmann — And I don't know how things like that are measured,
but I think sound can travel quite far too, especially in the winter, and I don't know
if sound travels across a valley from hillside to hillside like light does, but it would
be interesting to find out about that.
Mr. Herrick — Okay, I will look into that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Anything else at this point?
Ms. Brock — To follow up on what Eva was saying, I just wanted the Board to be
aware, there are no longer any standards, as measured by decibels, in our noise
ordinance. That was all taken out when the Town Board revised the. noise
ordinance last year. So, when the scoping document says "sound levels will be
compared against any applicable quantitative noise standards of the Town of
Ithaca noise ordinance ", I'm not exactly sure what that will entail, because there
aren't any decibel levels that are now listed in the ordinance. There are certain
prohibitions against certain types of tools being operated so that they can be
heard a certain distance away, and things like that, but as far as trying to do
come kind of quantitative analysis, we might want to think about what it is we
really want them to be doing.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, right. Well, do we instead, I've forgotten, do we
have some language that says the noise is not supposed to go beyond the
boundaries of the parcel where it occurs? Something like that?
Ms. Brock — There's some language about construction and other machinery.
That the noise shouldn't travel more than 25 feet from the source of the sound,
and things like that. During nighttime hours. Yeah, I think most of the
requirements are really for nighttime hours. There's some other requirements for
radios and tv sets and things like that. Sound amplifying devices, things like that,
that apply during the daytime hours, but in terms of the types of noise you might
expect from this development, I'm not sure that the ordinance has any
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 8
quantitative standards that might apply. There are prohibitions against
unreasonable noise, but that's more of a qualitative...
Board Member Thayer — So it's more or less a judgment call, eh...
Ms. Brock — Right, there are a number of factors set out to help determine
whether or not that noise is unreasonable, but, there are no decibel levels
specified in the law.
Board Member Hoffmann — but still, it wouldn't hurt to know what the decibel
level of current conditions are to compare with anticipated decibel levels of what
you are planning to do.
Mr. Herrick — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right, and
potentially some reference point as
noise you can expect to hear with a
or students on Fountain Day, for
obviously, something being 68 dec
reference point, or reference points.
I think that's what's being proposed and
to a normal background noise is this and
marching band playing, or a football game,
example, or whatever. Yeah, because
;ibels doesn't tell me anything. I need a
Board Member Hoffmann — Right. But there are reference points. I am sure
there are lists of what a dishwasher... how many decibels you get from a typical
dishwasher, or normal conversation in your living room, or something like that.
So...
Chairperson Wilcox — Right. And if we have a problem with the language, we
can tighten it up when we get to the public scoping session. I mean, frankly,
we've given David and 2 of their consultants a good idea of what we are looking
for anyways. At least today, we can modify that the next time we meet.
Okay. Anything else at this point? Alright.
Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board. Ladies and
Gentlemen, as always, I should say its always been, certainly while I have been
Chair, the Board likes to get public comment as early as possible, even when it's
not a public hearing, we're not going to solve anything tonight with regard to the
scoping document. The purpose tonight is a short presentation and to set, and to
set a date, presumably, for the public scoping session. Nonetheless, if anybody
wishes to address the Board tonight on this particular agenda item, once again,
we invite you to come to the microphone, ask that you give us your name and
address, and we will be very interested to hear what you have to say this
evening.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 9
Come on up. If you mention the City of Ithaca once, I am going to cut you off.
How's that.
Joel Harlan, Newfield
I'm going to pinpoint it right on the button.. I like the idea, but the only thing is,
still say they need to remodify that football stadium and make it like Cortland
State and get a hockey rink in there since it's so big so people can use hockey,
cause Cortland State's got one. And it's the same division school as Ithaca.
But you now what the problem is, I'm trying to fight for it Fred, what's in it for us?
You gotta find out if the local people can use, cause, you know, GIAC and all
them, they may need to send their people up there after it's done and use if for
activity because there's nothing down here anymore. You know what I mean.
We need to upgrade our own local area to compete with these colleges so we
can't, so we don't have to use that. But right now, the colleges got the money
and the City and the County ain't got nothing for money. You know, that's a good
idea. I'm all out for it, but what's in it for us? You know, that's what I'm getting
at...
Chairperson Wilcox — Since this is not a public hearing, I can, I can really ask you
to focus on the point here.
Mr. Harlan — That's what I'm (inaudible) counting on, you know, I'm all for it. But
what's it for. I went up to that noise, community center... that's something like I'd
like to see downtown...
Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, Joel...
Mr. Harlan -= ...here like GIAC.
Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, I give you lot's of discretion during a public hearing,
but I'm not going to give you that discretion here.
Mr. Harlan — Well, I'm all out for that and that's what I'm gonna be preaching.
But I want to know what's in it for us. As for noise, they're gonna have rock
concerts in there, you know that, 75,000 seats. That's a good place for a rock
concert. Barton Hall, all them college's are gonna have rock concerts. Why can't
we have something for a place to go to for the local people. You have to use the
college's, you know what I mean. That's what ... they're gonna have just about
everything, that's gonna come in handy, including rock concerts. Hey, there's
only one place to put em and that's in them college arenas.
Chairperson Wilcox — Joel, if we should get through the environmental review
and get to the site plan review...
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 10
Mr. Harlan — I'm all for it, but I'm looking for the best interests of all the
communities, including the college kids, but us.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Joel.
Hank Robert, 253 Coddington Road, Ithaca
I am right across form the site, so one of my questions is; I haven't seen the
environmental impact, what they're working on, exact form of it and all, but I'm
thinking that with this huge building there, I'm concerned about the quality of air
in our neighborhood. So from two different sides; one is taking all those trees
and that wild area out of our neighborhood, what that will do to us and number
two , I mean, there are many things that I am concerned about with this, but, two
that just come to mind to me this evening, is... what will happen to the air quality
in our neighborhood. The animals that live, a lot of animals live in that area. And
also, with a building this size, I am assuming they're gonna have to put so much
money into this, they're gonna have to keep making a lot of, money for it, so, I
would hope that they include, in their environmental impct, some kind of
estimate on how many events have to be there. What's that going to do to the air
quality in our neighborhood, with 1,500 cars parking in that lot coming from all
over the place, you know, probably parking on our street and all over in my
driveway, but I wonder, I wonder what that will do to the air and I wonder how the
students, what will happen to the students, too. If this is just a. big money making
thing for them, how about the air quality in the lungs of the students who live
there? Do they have to make this much money? I belong in the public comment
area with that, but, I would like to know what will happen to the air with all those
cars coming up there in the many different events, like Joel said, there's going to
be some rock concerts, there's going to be sports events, so people drive their
cars to that and in the neighborhood, I think the quality of the air is going to go
down. Less trees, more cars and definitely noisier, and a huge impact on us in
the neighborhood. I hope that they include that.
Ed Corvinelli, 328 Coddington Road, Ithaca
I believe that my house is at the end of the walking trail. Since this is concerning
the environmental impact study, I want to comment on not only the noise and the
light which these projects are going to generate when they are finally done, but
the noise they are going to generate for the however man .y years it's going to be
until they are completed. I understand that progress requires a certain amount of
destructive force to create something. My question is; How are the people who
live on Coddington Road going to feel around so many distractions and heavy
equipment for the next 15 years every Saturday morning and every Saturday
morning when you hope the kids are going to sleep in a little bit, but there's a
dump truck pulling up and the kid wakes up and starts watching cartoons.
My other question is; What is Ithaca College going to do about the lights from this
stadium? I have a large sliding glass door in the back of my house and my
bedroom, both windows look over those woods, and I can tell you right now,
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 11
when Cornell has a night game, I can see it from my living room and it's like
somebody turned a dimmer on and all the lights are at half mast. And the other
question is; When you have a rock concert, are my.windows going to shake, you
know, until 10:30, 11:00 o'clock at night? You hear thunk, thunk, thunk, all night
long, which I kind of do right now anyhow from the towers. But, what is Ithaca
College going to do to alleviate some of these problems and minimize them.
That's my concern. Thank you.
Frank Butler, 332 Coddington Road, Ithaca
I live right next door to Ed, who just spoke, and I'm concerned about what he just
said and also about what impact it would have on my property value. I can't see
that it would be positive, with the negative things that Ed brought up. The noise,
the light and I guess that's all I need to say.
Chairperson Wilcox -- Anybody else this evening? Okay. I would encourage all
of you to come back for the public scoping session. My assumption is that the
scoping document, as drafted will be available, possibly on the Town of Ithaca
website, hopefully on the Ithaca College website ... I encourage you and your
neighbors to obtain a copy of it, so you can review it. Again, this is a list of
environmental concerns, possible environmental impacts that Ithaca College is
proposing to be part of the environmental impact statement. The Board will have
the opportunity to add to that, possibly even remove items from it if we believe
that they would not have a significant environmental impact.
In response to some of the comments we got. Lighting is mentioned in here.
Noise is mentioned in here. I didn't see ... I'm not sure construction noise is
specifically mentioned...
Ms. Brock — It is.
Chairperson Wilcox — Susan says it is. We got off into rock concerts. No one
has said that there will be rock concerts there. Maybe there will be, but that's
certainly... that would be interesting if Ithaca College has any plans for musical
events other than symphony orchestras, that might be something to include,
should that happen. Again, our task right now is to affirmatively accept the draft
scoping document as complete and then schedule the public scoping session to
receive comments, additional comments, both from the public and from the
Board. So, if you don't mind, I will move....
Board Member Hoffmann — Can I just make a comment about the noise. Even a
symphony orchestra can make a lot of sound, a lot of decibels, and I would
assume... And for instance, an amplified system when somebody's speaking,
too, could make a lot of noise, on the outside...
Board Member Thayer — They're not going to have an outdoor amphitheatre
though, it's just afield,
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 12
Board Member Hoffmann — No, but that's what... I wanted to say that I am
assuming, and I would like to .hear back from Ithaca College and their team if my
assumption is true, but I am assuming that any noise or sound, very loud sound
that's created inside any building, in this. construction, and I assume the other
buildings on campus too, is not going to carry to the outside of that building.
Board Member Conneman — Have you been to a rock concert, Eva, recently?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but I've been in it, not outside the building. So I
don't know what it sounds like outside the building.
Board Member Conneman — David, you understand the question, I know.
Board Member Thayer — Air quality was an interesting point that we haven't
talked about.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes, and Hank mentioned that and I meant to mention that.
Under natural resources part of the draft, it does talk about nature and
significance of the.development on wildlife habitat, endangered /threatened plant
and it says nature and significance of the development on the existing shrub and
second growth forest and other identified unique or sensitive, areas. And then,
with regard to transportation, there is much, I shouldn't say much, but a
significant part of this document is devoted to traffic and transportation and the
potential significant issues that could result from that. So, yes,...
Board Member Conneman — But it doesn't specifically say air quality.
Board Member Thayer — No it doesn't.
Chairperson Wilcox — No it doesn't specifically and we could decide to, if we think
it's appropriate, that we could add something a little more specific that speaks to
the air quality. Air quality is often measured in terms of trees and noise and
number of automobiles and things like that. So, I will take it upon myself to move
acceptance, Susan, are you listening, I will move that we accept the draft scoping
document as revised April 6, 2007 and that we schedule a public scoping session
for April 17, 2007. So moved. Seconded by Larry Thayer.
Ms. Brock — Wait...
Mr. Kanter — When you say accept, I think what you mean to say is you would
accept it for purposes of making it available for the public scoping session. I
don't think you are accepting the document yet.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right. We are accepting it for purposes of public
comment.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 13
Ms. Brock — And it would be for the May 1, 2007 meeting, not the April...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, today is April.. .when, when, do you want to do it
at he first meeting in May, Jon. Given the scheduled projects?
Mr. Kanter — It certainly is a good one for scheduling purposes, yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Which would be the next meeting.
Board Member Conneman — I think we should put air quality in there so,
specifically, they would address it.
Board Member Hoffmann — hmmm,.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do you want to do it now, or do you want to do it in two
weeks?
Board Member Conneman — I want to do it now. Why wait. Do I have to make
an amendment to vote? Or what do I have to do?
Mr. Kanter — I think you might also want to ask the applicant if that's something
that they would find acceptable to incorporate into it because it's not one of those
items that we initially identified in the environmental assessment form and how it
would be done. Again, that may be something more complicated than answering
tonight, in which case, you certainly can do it at the scoping session and the
revisions after that, but...
Chairperson Wilcox - My preference is to leave it for the scoping session and we
will have a full, detailed discussion of the issues.
Board Member Thayer —Agreed.
Board Member Conneman — I don't but...) think you ought to put it in. When you
have this many cars in one place...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm not saying we're not going to put it in there. The point
is, the question is, do you want to have the debate tonight on just that one. item,
or do you want to....
Board Member Conneman — I don't need a debate, all I need is to write it in
under d, that's all.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm saying ... I would prefer to look at in context with all the
other changes that we may or may not make.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 14
Mr. Herrick — WE would appreciate that.
Board Member Conneman — But David, address it, okay.
Mr. Herrick — Yes.
Howard Blaisdell, 300 Spruce Street Columbus Ohio
I wanted to respond to Ms. Hoffmann's comment about the noise from the inside
out of the arena. We have an acoustic consultant on board with the project. We
have asked them that question. So we are going to consider that as one option,
as one item in the noise study.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, because as I am reflecting now on what some
other people have said, even if a rock concert might have been heard outside a
building in the past, maybe it is because that building was not built to be able to
contain the noise, or sound, inside the building. But, we're talking about a
building that's going to be built, so maybe we could ask that it be built in such a
way that sound does not travel outside the building.
Mr. Blaisdell — I believe we could certainly look at what that impact is and how to
address it.
Chairperson Wilcox — I have a motion and a second, as it was corrected.
Anything else? You're comfortable. Any other comments you want to make at
this point? So essentially we have two weeks for the public to review the scoping
document as drafted, and ourselves as well, and then we will accept public
comment towards creating a final set of potential environmental impacts that will
be studied as part of the environmental impact statement.
Board Member Hoffmann — Is that going to be enough time for staff to work on
that too?
Mr. Kanter — Sure. Because we really don't have to do anything else with the
scope outline. All we'll have to do is put the advertisement in the paper, we will
circulate the scoping document to involved and interested agencies as well as to
members of the public who have attending meeting, assuming we have your
addresses, we will send those out. But that's not a problem.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 - 036
Public Scoping Session — May 1, 2007
Planning Board, April 17, 2007
Motion made by Fred Wilcox III, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 15
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the revised draft scoping
document dated April 6, 2007 at its April 17, 2007 meeting,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board schedules a Public Scoping Session to be
held on May 1, 2007.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Conneman, Hoffmann,
NAYS: None
Abstentions: None
Absent: Howe and Talty
Thayer, and Wilcox
The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 7:47 p.m.
SEAR Determination
Conifer Village of Ithaca Modifications, 200 Conifer Drive.
Carol Oster, Conifer Realty, 183 East Main St., 6th Floor, Rochester, NY, 14604
And with me tonight is Lisa Goodberry from Conifer Realty and John Spence,
Executive Director, Better Housing for Tompkins County, and Conifer and Better
Housing for Tompkins County are the partners for developing Conifer Village of
Ithaca and we are here tonight to talk about some changes that we would like
you to review regarding the exterior of the building and the site plan.
I'll just walk you through the site plan and the proposed changes and the
orientation of the building. We consider this, well it is the front of the building,
and that is east and down below is the City, to the west, north, towards
Rochester and south of the building.
want to make it clear that the front of the building, we are not proposing any
changes what -so -ever. What we would like to do is eliminate curbing and catch
basins, along the entrance drive, and this is all private road, and down here,
Conifer Village would be making, extending and making improvements to the
existing road and eventually dedicating it to the Town. So, along this part of the
entrance driveway, we would like to get rid of the curbing and the catch basins
and we would like to install a swale with stone rip -wrap and then sidewalk on the
other side, 4 -foot sidewalk. This curb ... weIre gonna keep the curbing in and
eliminate curbing along the future land bank parking area that was designated.
We have parking, which we are calling the east parking spaces. We're keeping
the curbing there. We would like to eliminate the sidewalk. We have sidewalk
presently, all around the building. Anyone parking in these spots ... our main
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 16
entrance is right here, we would expect they would probably go straight from their
car to the main entrance. As they exit the building, if they want to connect to the
sidewalk that goes down to Conifer Drive, we've added a cross walk area and
there's connection to the sidewalk that leads to Conifer Drive.
We have given you a photometric plan, I believe, and I should grab that ... We're
not proposing any changes to the type of fixture we have along Conifer Drive.
The light at the current bus stop, at the crossing of the wetlands area, at the
intersection between Conifer Drive and our private drive, the light remains. We
eliminated the light here, one here, and two on either side of the land banked
areas but we've kept one. And I think that's everything... there's... 1...2...there's
five eliminated in all.
I think that is everything for the site plan changes... and... Again ... this is what
was shown for final site plan approval, we're not proposing any changes in the
building material or the front elevation. What we would like to do is on the ends
of the building... presently there is undeveloped land to the north ... our Phase I, II
and III of Lindermann Creek to the south and to the rear of us we have quite an
incline. Eventually we'll be developing town homes there and the hill above there
is ... no development there. And because of the incline, I think we have given you
a little picture of what the elevations look like from a cross section...at the rear of
the building we've got landscaping, buffer trees and again, there are no views
from the neighbors above.
So, changes ... at the ends of the buildings, we would like to eliminate the brick
and at the rear of the building, there was no brick approved, shown originally, but
we do have these peaks, all around the building, we would like to substitute the
cedar impression with the vinyl, in the peaks and at the sides and the rear of the
building. And we had railings on our first ground floor walk -out patios and
everything is level and they are not necessary.
We would also like to. I'm
sides and the rear of the
than what was previously
of our properties where
property we built south of
hit on everything,
fe have patios and balconies for every unit and on the
building, we would like to use a smaller column width
shown. And we gave you an actual photograph of one
we used the smaller, proposed columns. This is a
Albany and we think it's a very nice building. I think we
Chairperson Wilcox — I think you got everything. Thank you Carol. Questions
with regard to the environmental review?
Board Member Thayer — I am just wondering about the blank spaces between
the poles ... how dark is that going to be and so on? It seems to me that with the
elimination of the poles that you have taken out, there's a lot of dead space, or
dark space there.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 17
Ms. Oster — You mean here?
Board Member Thayer —Yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox — Carol, your voice doesn't carry very well, I need you at a
microphone.
Ms. Oster — You're referring to this area?
private drive, it will be our residents and
presently don't have everything lit in Pha
and I....
Yeah, headlights from the cars...it's a
we don't think that it's necessary. We
ses I, II and III ... every inch of the way,
Board Member Thayer — I was just concerned with pedestrian safety, more than
anything else. Back and forth and....
Ms. Oster — We do still have the sidewalk, and it is separated from the road by
the swale. I don't know how many feet it is, but there is probably a 10 -foot
distance from the roadway.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have the same concern that you do, especially
because, of course, this is supposed to be for older people who often have
problems with their vision and as you get older it is harder to see in the dark, so I
would really be very reluctant to approve omitting those lights there. I think,
especially for the walkway ... I mean, when you are driving you've got the
headlights from the car, but I think this walkway is very important and it needs to
be lit properly. It may not need to be lit with this kind of light...
Board Member Thayer — It could be ground lighting...
Board Member Hoffmann — It could be something that just comes up to this level
but which lights the path where people have to walk. And especially if it's
slippery, snowy or icy. You are setting yourself up for trouble if you don't have
that lit.
Ms. Oster — Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — (inaudible) ... when you refer to that, you're referring to like
the little ballards or something that you sometimes see along side the sidewalks
that are about 3 or 4 feet high.
Board Member Thayer — Hmmm ... They are probably less expensive than the
poles...
Ms. Oster — That's right.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 18
Board Member Hoffmann — But I think all the walkways have to be properly lit.
That includes the one's that go all along the property, actually, all around the
building I mean. Including on the west and south side. And it could be there's
enough lighting coming from wall lights there, to light that path, but I would like
you to assure me that there is enough light there.
Board Member Thayer — I have no concerns about the building changes, that's
perfectly acceptable to me. But, I am a little bit concerned, also, about the rip
wrap in lieu of the curbing ... it just presents a maintenance problem, I would think.
Ms. Oster — I did talk to our office manager because we do have a lot of swales,
presently, with rip wrap. She said about 3 times a year they get out there with
the weed wacker.and they maintain it.
Board Member Hoffmann — What's the reason for all these changes?
All — Money.
Board Member Hoffmann — That's your guessing... I would like to hear it from the
applicant.
Ms. Oster — That is correct. As you know, it's affordable housing. We don't have
the ability to raise our rents to get more mortgage money to pay for higher costs
in construction and the costs have gone up and our contractor has gone out to
bid and the pricing is in and it is higher than we anticipated. So .we're doing
everything that we can to make the project financially feasible. We don't, we can
not raise our rents, so we look to what ... and we still have to have a good,
marketable product and even if it's affordable, people with limited incomes, they
want to make sure they are getting a good product for their rent, and we are
looking at every possible way to make it financially feasible.
Board Member Thayer — Is there any chance that you might get extra bucks as
construction starts? And if so, can we make you a list of priorities as to what you
restore?
Ms. Oster — I have that on my mind myself. I will tell you that I do have one
application in that just went in a month ago. We will hear..: it's with the Federal
Home Bank of New York...we'll get an announcement in July. But I have already
made commitments to investors, they've already given me money to start this.
They want their product built. They want it done next March. So we've go to get
started. So, your question is a good one. I would love nothing more than to put it
back. I don't know if I'll get that loan funded. Everything we do in affordable
housing is a competitive application... They have more money than ever this time,
so I am hopeful. I will not know until July.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 19
Board Member Conneman — Sidewalks. Recently having had an encounter with
a sidewalk ... Is 4 400t the standard you use... .
Ms. Oster — Yes.
Board Member Conneman -- ....that will accommodate a wheelchair?
Ms. Oster — Yes. Where there isn't parking, you know, where someone can
overhang a sidewalk with the front of their car, to reduce it, it is 4 -feet. Where
parking is involved, it will be 5 -feet. So that's what we're showing, is 4 4eet
everywhere else and that will accommodate sufficiently.
Board Member Hoffmann — We did have a comment in a letter that was here
when we came in tonight. I think it was from the County... yes... it was from
Edward Marx, and it says "the sidewalk should be wide enough to accommodate
a wheelchair and still provide enough passing room." Would 4 -feet do that?
Ms. Oster — Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox — I disagree.
Mr. Kanter — Yeah. When we use a standard for walkways and sidewalks for
handicap accessibility.. 15 feet is the accepted standard.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and I am also thinking in the winter, when the
sidewalks have to be cleared of snow, plowed, sometimes you don't get the
whole width cleared. You have snow walls on the sides, and you still want to
allow people to be out, walking and going in their wheelchairs.
Ms. Oster — I believe .we have 4 feet now at Linderman's and I have not heard
that there's a problem and I'm sorry, I thought 4 was passable for a wheelchair.
Board Member Hoffmann — The wheelchair and somebody else walking past it.
That's what I just read. And you think 4 feet will do that.
Ms. Oster — That I don't know.
Mr. Walker — Four feet is a little tight if you have 2 wheelchairs trying to pass
each other.
Chairperson Wilcox — If it's a one -way sidewalk, yeah.
Mr. Walker — If you have a wheelchair and a pedestrian walking past it, that's
usually not a problem. But if you have two wheelchairs going in opposite
directions then you'd be about 30 inches outside of that.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 20
Ms. Oster — I just checked what's happening at the Linderman's and I think they
have even less than 4 and...
Mr. Walker — Is that at the sidewalks along the parking lot or just the sidewalks
up to the building?
Ms. Oster — Up to the building.
Mr. Walker — Because generally you wouldn't ... if they're shorter and you don't
have that much traffic because you have 8 tenants in a building ... I think a 4 foot
access to a building is adequate because if somebody had to stop and wait, it's
only a matter of 3 or (inaudible) feet or something. If you had somebody coming
down and somebody coming up and they met in the middle....What we have
found too, with our own walkways and maintenance, if I put, at least with the
equipment that I use, is the minimum, and 6 foot works even better, but then we
use bigger equipment.. (inaudible).
Chairperson Wilcox —While I got you ... any comments on the proposed changes
to the drainage?
Mr. Walker — No. I like it.
Chairperson Wilcox — From a maintenance perspective or from an aesthetic
perspective or from a pure engineering perspective?
Mr. Walker — From a stormwater management perspective, environmental
perspective, with the ... you talking about the swale changes... There's more
separation because in the original plan, you had pedestrians right up against the
road and you had a 6 -inch curb, so basically, if they fell off the sidewalk, they'd
be in the road. Here, they might fall in the ditch but they won't be run over by the
cars. But actually, the only concern I have is that they didn't have the actual
detail, dimensions, I sort of surmised that it's about 8 inch to a foot deep and that
swale, if it was on that scale, and so I just wanted those final dimensions. But
that swale looks like it's about 5 feet wide and about a foot deep has got much
more capacity than a 12 inch sewer pipe. Plus, it's gonna allow filtration of the
water that comes off the road and the little bit of grass there and the stone. It's
actually a better practice.
Board Member Thayer — No big maintenance problem there?
Mr. Walker — No, we got a lot of ... there are a lot of storm swales around,
especially, initially when they put them in, they will be putting a filter fabric under
the stone, and that basically keeps vegetation from growing up through the
subsoil ...Over the years, you'll get some siltation in there, which is a good thing,
and some vegetation growing, but an occasional weed whacking, ...We have had
very few problems with them.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 21
Chairperson Wilcox — A reminder that we are doing the environmental review, not
the site plan review ... but that's okay.
Board Member Thayer — We tend to mix them...
Chairperson Wilcox — We tend to mix them up, absolutely we do.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I can say that if you think the drainage part is
okay...) don't have a big problem with the changes to the exterior facades, where
you're proposing them, but, I do not feel that a 4 foot wide walkway or sidewalk is
good enough for this particular use. And I do not want to see any walkways
without proper lighting like it shows on this lighting plan, so I would like to see
more lights put in. And, I would like to see you...l would like to have you tell us
that there are lights along the path that goes on the backside of the building,
which would be towards the west and to the south, as well. I think that's to the
south, right.
Chairperson Wilcox — Let me ask you why you want that walking path lit.
Board Member Hoffmann — Because, this is going to be an elderly population
and we want to encourage people to be out walking year round and.. even in the
summer, actually, you can misstep and you can step off the edge of the walkway
and into perhaps grassy areas which are soft because it just rained and you can
stumble and fall. And in the winter, especially, it's a problem if you don't have the
paths lit enough so. that you can see if there's black ice that has formed, that you
could easily slip on. I just think that there are too many risks of older people
slipping and falling and for an older person ... that can be a big problem.
Chairperson Wilcox — Couple issues. Those areas were not lit in the approved
plan, first of all ... that's not a change...
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, I'm not sure that they are not lit...
Chairperson Wilcox — I just asked ... those areas were not lit in the approved plan,
in the original plan that has been approved, so, that's the first thing. With regard
to Longview, I'm not sure that we required that their paths be lit. I'm just ... I don't'
want to encourage people walking at 10:00 at night, that's kind of the way.I feel
and I think that people who are ... not of the best health when they are in their 70's
and 80's ... let's just say 55 +...probably shouldn't be out walking in the back...the
rear of the building. And I'm not sure I want to encourage them with lights.
Board Member Thayer — I'm wondering how much the sidewalks are going to get
used in the rear of the building.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 22
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. I mean, I'm glad it's there, but ... It provides a place
for them to walk ... a safe place, during the day.
Board Member Hoffmann — I remember we asked to have that put in to allow
people to walk around the site safely. Walking on flat, stable ground, instead of
walking on sloping grass. And to allow the people that live there to walk and to
go and visit other people, perhaps, who have porches or entrances into their
units from those sites. If we didn't say that there had to be lights there in the first
time around, I guess I personally made a mistake, by not having that there. But
don't want to make it worse by eliminating lights that we did suggest that they
have there. And you know, a lot of their walkway, which goes along the road, it's
especially important to have lights on the walkway for older people because there
are cars coming and headlights shine in their eyes, it's making it even harder for
them to see.
Ms. Oster — Yeah, I had priced out recently some decorative landscaping lights
around the front of the building and it was $6,000. If we're going to add it all
along the path way, everywhere, I am sure we are talking $20,000. I ... in lieu
of...
Board Member Hoffmann — I don't know what area you are talking about now.
Ms. Oster — We priced out some decorative landscape lighting right here, in front
of the building ... $6,000, If we start adding lights everywhere in here, that'll be a
major cost to us. I don't believe it was in the original approval and I know it's not
currently in the plans to have these lit. We have porch lights for every unit and
every balcony, presently. If we put poles in here, back in here, you know, those
are 3 poles that will cover the building ... You know, lights all along ... every inch
lit ... it is a major expense.
Mr. Kanter — Could you tell the Board, maybe, what the cost of each of those
poles that you're proposing to eliminate would be.
Ms. Oster — It's $2,000 a pole.
Board Member Hoffmann — Could you say that again.
Ms. Oster -- $2,000 per pole. Two thousand dollars. One of these poles is
$2,000.
Ms. Brock — Eva, would your concerns be addressed if they had to put in
walkway lighting in the areas where the 5 poles were eliminated?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes. Because I just heard that they have porch lights
along the back side and the south side so that would light up the back a little bit.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 23
Ms. Brock — And then in the front, they'll have the pole lights that remain, which
presumably will help illuminate the sidewalks as well, and just in those 5
locations where they're proposing to eliminate the bight poles, if they could put in
some lower walk lights, to illuminate those segments that are shown as dark
now, would that address your concern?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, I don't care how the light is put in, really, I just
want the path to be lit because I think, otherwise, I feel I would be irresponsible if
I approved a plan that did not have that path lit.
Ms. Oster — Okay. So are we.. .
Board Member Hoffmann — Given the population that you are going to have living
there.
Ms. Oster— Where we eliminated the poles, along this pathway, we will put in low
lights here, to light these sections?
Chairperson Wilcox — I am particularly concerned along their driveway.
Board Member Thayer — Hmmm.
Chairperson Wilcox —Along your driveway. So there's...
Board Member Thayer — basically two spots.
Chairperson Wilcox — So that spot there.
Ms. Oster —Yeah. Okay.
Board Member Hoffmann — But there is a spot, I mean, the sidewalk continues
on Conifer Drive too. And there's an area there that is not going to be lit.
Mr. Walker — That's a Town sidewalk.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's a Town sidewalk, that's not their sidewalk.
Board Member Hoffmann — It is already?
Ms. Brock — But they were proposing to light it before.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yes.
Ms. Brock -- ...is Eva's point.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 24
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, and by the way Fred, I don't think it's only after,
or only at 10:00 at night that it's dark. In the winter, it's dark much earlier, and
even this population is going to be out at 4:00 or 5:00 in the afternoon in the
winter and it will be dark. So, it's absolutely necessary.
Chairperson Wilcox — No, I don't have a problem along the sidewalk, I do have a
problem along the rear...
Board Member Hoffmann — Right, but they have porch lights there. It's not as if
there aren't any lights, which, this is what I was concerned about.
Chairperson Wilcox — I think the sidewalk along the private drive serves a very
public purpose, much more so than the sidewalks that go around the building.
I'm sorry. We're still doing the environmental review and we got off onto the site
plan review a little bit.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Let's see. What did I say ... I had a problem
with the lights, I had a problem with one more thing ... did I say that?
Chairperson Wilcox — Let's see ... we talked about the external changes, the
changes to the exterior. We talked about the lighting,' we talked about the
drainage, what am I missing here right now....
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, the width of the walkway.
Chairperson Wilcox — The width of the walkway... yeah ... 5 foot minimum.,Aind of
what we're thinking here....
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, that is what I would like to see. I don't want to
see anything else, not 4 feet, for this population.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, we'll come back to it. Did I miss anything Susan?
I'm trying to get Susan on the record ... let's go through it...lighting...
Ms. Ritter — The sidewalk at the eastern end of the parking lot.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right. The sidewalk at the ... thank you very much ... the
elimination of the sidewalk at the eastern end ... thank you ... that's good. The
issue being here, people are going to take the shortest distance anyways and
they're going to walk across the parking lot any way or do what ever they want,
yeah.
Ms. Ritter — That was my ... we may have different opinions ...my boss and I...
Chairperson Wilcox — I see the boss raising his hand ... I am trying to get you to
say, first, before I get Jon, or are you going to defer?
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 25
Ms. Ritter — No, I feel it was not an essential piece of sidewalk in that sidewalk
system and I thought that any elimination of impervious surface is a good thing.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. Jon, go ahead.
Mr. Kanter — Well, first, you did get a comment in Ed Marx's letter to the effect
they didn't think that sidewalk should be eliminated and I happen to agree with
their point of view. When this system was designed, in the final approval stages,
the intent, I think, was to have a continuous walking system around the building
and the parking lot to connect to the walkway that went down Conifer Drive. So,
#1, eliminating that east sidewalk would create somewhat of a gap in that
contiguous system and secondly, I do think that older people, who are getting out
of cars on portions of the eastern part of the parking lot, certainly could use that
sidewalk instead of walking through the parking lot, which I think would be safer
for them to do. So it may not be a lot of space where that would happen, but
there are enough where it would be a benefit to keep that east sidewalk in. But
that's just my opinion, and Ed Marx's opinion.
John Spence, Better Housing, 950 Danby Road, Ithaca
I ... just a quick comment... while I appreciate all of these comments, I also want to
say that I appreciate Conifer's efforts here realizing that what we are dealing with
here is affordable houses, for seniors, and that the changes, all of the changes
they have recommended are focused to the exterior of the building.
We manage about 120 apartments, senior apartments, affordable senior
apartments throughout the County ... in Slaterville Springs, in Newfield and in
Trumansburg and talking to a lot of the residents, their sense of pride is in the
apartment itself. It's in the aesthetics it's in the quality of the carpeting and the
lighting and the walls and the formica and the appliances and that's', ,that's
where they live ... that is now their home and so, when I talk to them, what they
want to do is take me into their home and show me how they've made it their
own and so ... the apartment, for the folks that we deal with, is key. And then you
move out from that, and they also want communal rooms to be welcoming, so
when they have guests, that they feel proud of their environment.
So, again, just very briefly, I appreciate that the changes that they are trying to
make here don't take away from any of that part of the building.
Board Member Hoffmann — I just want to tell all of you that today and tomorrow
too, I am attending a conference in Corning New York, which is about creating
walkable communities. So I have heard a lot about the importance of sidewalks,
and walkways and greenways and all sorts of things like that. There's going to
be much more of that coming and needed. Not just because it's going to be
harder for us to drive, more expensive for us to drive, we're going to have to use
public transportation more, but because it also is better for our health. So, I am
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 26
sticking to what I said about making the system that's set up here, with
walkways, remain as it was originally planned. And I've gotten additional
reasons today at the conference, for doing it. So, just to add to what Jonathan
said, I would like to see that sidewalk that was proposed to be eliminated, stay.
And I think I have said all I need to say about this.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other discussion regarding the environmental review?
Board Member Conneman — As an economist, I look for alternatives all the time.
If I had the alternative, I'd rather have a 5 foot sidewalk, and eliminate the other
one because I think that would be more important for a great many people.
Look, people are going to walk, whether you're a student or you're 75 years old,
you're going to walk through parking lots. Shortest distance.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but there are people who, for various reasons, I
just ... I had a knee replacement and we all have experienced similar. things, and
for a while it was very hard for me to get around. It was hard to walk and I had to
use canes in both hands and a walker and all that, and in a population like you
are going to have in this project, there will be more people doing that, and they
may choose to use the sidewalk, just to feel safe, and] think that option should
be available to them.
Chairperson Wilcox — The way I look at it is, what is the purpose of the sidewalk.
Is the purpose of the sidewalk for people who are parking their cars in the
parking lot to get to the structure, the building? Or, is it part of a...and /or, is it
part of a system of walking opportunities for the residents and for their friends
and neighbors and other visitors when they come? The answer is, it's certainly,
to me, definitely the second. It definitely serves as part of a walkway system,
and therefore... Well, I'm not sure people are going to use it when they park their
car, we've had this discussion before with regard to the Ide's Bowling Lanes,
when we saw changes there and now the Rite Aid. ..people will walk, and 20 year
olds will walk through the parking lot because they are immortal and 60 year olds
will look both ways twice before they walk across a parking lot, but nonetheless,
they will walk across a parking lot. So, but it's part of a system that gives the
residents a chance to get out and walk and exercise and whether they be in a
wheelchair or a walker or be very healthy and walk for a brisk little walk around
the faciliies.. So I too am in favor of duplicating for that reason.
Any other environmental impacts we want to...
Board Member Conneman — You want to retain the sidewalks and also have
them put a 5 foot sidewalk in.
Chairperson Wilcox — Well, they were proposing I think, 6 to 5, 5 to 4, 1
think ... and I'm saying, 6 to 5 doesn't bother me, 5 to 4 does. I'd like to stay at 5
foot. But again .... 6 to 5 is fine, yeah, I mean,
I'm still trying to get through the environmental
Board Member Thayer — I'll move the SEQR1
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 27
that's where I'm coming .from, but
review here.
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved: Do I have a second?
Board Member Hoffmann — Did we forget anything?
Ms. Ritter — I think you covered it all.
Chairperson Wilcox — Do I have a second?
Board Member Conneman — I'll second it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by George Conneman. Very good, thank you.
Yes sir.
Mr. Kanter — I guess the question is though, what you're going to have in the final
resolution, do you want that to be reflected in the SEQR resolution as well, which
is why I think you needed to go through the discussion....
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, yeah. What I've sensed so far is ... and I'm not, by
the way, let me say it right out, I'm not going to make, I'm going to try not to make
the same mistake twice, if we can't get all four Board members to agree tonight,
then I am going to ask you to come back later and ask you to ... because you
need all four of us to vote in favor. Getting three of us doesn't count.
What I think I have heard so far, members of the Board, is, restoration of.. .l don't
want to say ... we want lighting along the private drive...
Board Member Thayer —Sidewalk.
Chairperson Wilcox — That's right. We want lighting along the private sidewalk,
which, yeah, we want lighting along the private sidewalk, which leads from the
private drive, which leads from the Conifer Drive to the building.
Board Member Conneman — We want 5 foot sidewalks...
Chairperson Wilcox.— Right, right now we're just going to talk about lighting. We
want lighting restored along the sidewalk, right? I'm looking at the
Board ... (yes) ... okay...l personally would like sidewalks no less than 5 foot in
width... okay ... I get nods from everybody. That the sidewalk section on the
eastern portion of the parking lot be retained, that was the last thing that we
discussed....I got kind of two nods over there and two yes's...
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 28
Board Member Conneman = I think there are lots of places for people to walk,
more than what they will probably walk, Eva.
Board Member Hoffmann — But it, you know, it's not just, as I said, it's not just
walking for recreational, which I think is important too, but it's also to allow people
who park their car to have the choice of using a sidewalk, instead of having to
walk through a parking lot. Many of them may walk through the parking lot, but
some may choose, like I would have chosen if I was (tape change) ... that was it.
Chairperson Wilcox — Where are we on this one?
Board Member Thayer — Is there any way we can ask them to put it in later?
(laughter)
Board Member Thayer — I am trying to save them money, that's all.
Chairperson Wilcox —Well, taking out the... potentially removing the five poles
and substituting maybe some ballards along the walkway along the driveway, we
don't have any issues with the exterior changes to the fagade, whether it might
be with the materials...
Board Member Hoffmann — That may save them most of the money, I imagine,
I'm not sure...
Chairperson Wilcox -- ...and the drainage, so I'm not sure...
Board Member Thayer — I wonder if you could use solar lighting on the sidewalk,
that'd be cheap.
Board Member Conneman — Larry, that doesn't work in Ithaca. This is not
Florida.
Board Member Thayer — I know, but it's up on a nice hill though, it gets lots of
sunshine.
Chairperson Wilcox — I mean, if we truly are split on this particular issue, then,
simply, I will just ask the applicant to come back.
Board Member Conneman — The only thing I question is having that extra
sidewalk, because I don't think it makes any difference, but I will vote for it if you
all agree that that's what you want.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, so we are all in agreement for retaining that portion
of the sidewalk on the eastern section of the parking lot, is that what I got?
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 29
Board Member Conneman — I didn't say that I would agree with you on that but I
will vote the SEQR up, so they don't have to come back.
Chairperson Wilcox — No, wait a minute, wait a minute.. Yrn not going to ... if we
can go ahead and approve the SEAR, but if we can't agree on the site plan
details, then we've accomplished nothing and I am still going to ask them to
come back, before we vote, so...
Ms. Oster— Can I....
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on ... the fact that you will vote in favor of the SEQR,
but then turn around. and not vote in favor of the site plan, means we have
accomplished ... we only have the ...
Board Member Conneman — I will vote in favor of the site plan too, but you
remember, there is a trade off here somewhere...
Chairperson Wilcox — I understand, I understand.
Board Member Hoffmann — But it has to be a modified site plan.
Chairperson Wilcox — Agreed. Lots of modifications. Okay. Now you can speak.
Ms. Oster — So you are all in agreement that the easterly sidewalk stays in? Is
that where you landed?
Chairperson Wilcox — I got all 4 .votes for it, yes. I got four. Okay.. So how are
we modifying the SEQR motion, based on all that, oh attorney for the Town. This
is .why you get paid the big bucks.
Ms. Brock — Oh yeah, and I show that every meeting, don't
Mr. Kanter — I think we should get the language in the SEQR resolution to be the
same as what it's going to be in the final resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, yeah.
Ms. Brock — In the Whereas clause, paragraph 3) ... this states "the Planning
Board has reviewed and accepted as adequate" various drawings ... I think that
would be the place where we would want to stat what modifications the Planning
Board wishes to make. So at the end of that... paragraph... before the and...
state: with the following modifications ... let me try and do it here and chime as
you see appropriate... addition of walk lights that illuminate the sidewalks in the
vicinity of the areas where the five light poles are eliminated...
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 30
Chairperson Wilcox — Were eliminated... are elimanted...yup...
Ms. Oster — Two actually, there are two poles up in the northern area that I don't
think was...
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. We're not concerned up there. There seems to be
sufficient lighting up there.
Ms. Brock — So in the 3)...
Ms. Oster — Yeah, I think what we are seeing talked about mostly where the two
light poles that were on the driveway itself...
Ms. Brock — And then there was one further south as well.
Ms. Oster ...I'm not sure...
Chairperson Wilcox — What's our ... are we concerned about- lighting along the
sidewalk on Conifer Drive?
Board Member Hoffmann — I would be because if it's dark there, it's the same
problem as if it's dark on the very site of this project.
Chairperson Wilcox — But this is off the site of the project.
Board Member Hoffmann — But didn't they have lights that lit up that area on the
first plan?
Chairperson Wilcox — They did have a light here.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right.
Chairperson Wilcox.— See, I don't have a problem with them taking that one out.
I'm concerned about the walkway .... for those of you who can't see, I am pointing
to drawing C1.4 as I talk to Eva ... I'm concerned about lighting on their property
along that path. I want to restore the lighting here and here, I think we have
enough lighting here.
Board Member Hoffmann — I think we have enough in the northern part too, but if
light is eliminated here, that's just as bad as light being eliminated in the other
parts.
Board Member Thayer — I don't see one eliminated on Conifer...
Board Member Hoffmann — Are you looking at this one?
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 31
Chairperson Wilcox — Carol, would you point to the approximate location of
where the five poles ... where the five approved poles are that you wish to
remove ... just roughly. (she points) ...Is it on that side?
Board Member Thayer — It doesn't show it there.. ,
(maps were compared and Ms. Ritter pointed out the C1 -9, with the heavy marks
on it, the very last drawing in the packet.)
Chairperson Wilcox — So if we are going to accomplish something tonight, all the
way through, then I don't need consensus, I need. agreement.. .do we want that
pole or not? Or do we want lighting there?
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, because it's for the same reason as the other
ones, and if they can eliminate 2 of the 5 lights then that helps a little bit. Instead
of eliminating all 5 of them where I think they are needed, based on what their
photometric plan shows.
Chairperson Wilcox — George, you're okay?
Board Member Conneman — I'm okay,
Chairperson Wilcox — Larry...
Board Member Thayer — I'm okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — My assumption is that putting some sort of...a different
lighting option will be cheaper too, the ballards, for example, will be a little
cheaper, rather than, . Yrn not sure, at this point, how many, so, back to Susan...
Ms. Brock — So, are we talking about 3 light poles now?
Chairperson Wilcox —We're talking about having lighting along the
sidewalk ... how do we phrase this...
Ms. Brock — Well, are we speaking of this... including the area just north of
Linderman Creek?
Chairperson Wilcox — I'll point, There was a light pole proposed here, here and
here, and those are-the 3 that we want..:
Ms. Brock — Okay, so why don't we say ... addition of walk lights in the vicinity of
the areas where the 3 most easterly light poles are being eliminated.
Lisa Goodberry, Conifer Realty, 183 East Main Street, Rochester
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 32
Question to the Board, if we were to eliminate those 3 light poles and we find that
it would be cheaper to put the light poles in rather than some kind of ground
lighting, would that be acceptable to the Board? . Because we haven't priced
out....l just want to make sure I am not bothering Susan too much.
Chairperson Wilcox — Here's the problem ... you get to build what's approved and
you know, once things been approved, now you've requested some changes and
the Board has decided that we are not going to grant you everything you want...).
don't want you to have to come back to put the poles, to get approval to put the
poles back in, but, nonetheless, you can't build what hasn't been approved,
so ... don't ask us for one or the other, either.
Mr. Kanter — Well, is it likely that ... you had mentioned that each pole you are
eliminating costs about $2,000.
Ms. Oster - 1 think it will be cheaper to put the poles back.
Chairperson Wilcox —The question is, how many ballards are going to have to be
put in, or something similar.
Ms. Oster — And then we have to run electric...
Mr. Kanter — And for $2,000 per pole, even if there is some modest saving
between the difference, I don't think you are going to be benefiting by all the
hassle that's going into the change, so I would just put the light poles back in
those...
Chairperson Wilcox — You're saying keep the poles?
Mr. Kanter — Those 3....
Chairperson Wilcox —That works, that's what we originally wanted.
Board Member Hoffmann — So we would say just eliminate just the 2 north....
Ms. Brock — Right, just the 2, so we are going to say...
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, wait a minute, before we do this ... what are we
modifying? Are we modifying the plans they submitted tonight or are we
modifying the original approval? Just want to make sure we are clear about that.
Are ... what are they eliminating? Are they eliminating the 2 northern light poles or
are they eliminating ... I just want to make sure.
Board Member Thayer — Yeah, that's it. They are just eliminating those 2.
Chairperson Wilcox — Right now they
plans in front of us that remove all 51.
back in?
Mr. Walker — No, to take 2 out.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 33
have 5 approved light poles ... they have
so what's the change? To add the three
Board Member Hoffmann — No, to take 2 out instead of 5.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay, to take 2 out instead of 5.
Ms. Ritter — They didn't,, (inaudible) fix this intro paragraph to ask for revised
drawings to reflect that...
Ms. Brock — Right. I actually had that as conditions of our site plan...
Chairperson Wilcox — We'll get to that in site plan...
Mr. Kanter — In the SEQR, I can see Susan's point, that we need to reflect the
SEQR determination based on what was submitted as modified now by...
Chairperson Wilcox — Right. And what was submitted was, ..the change to what
was submitted was to put 3 light poles back in. Yeah, that's the problem.
Ms. Brock — Okay. Why don't we say "reinstatement of the 3 most easterly light
poles " ... okay ... done with that issue now? (got it) ... okay ... all sidewalks shall
have a minimum width of 5 feet and the sidewalk proposed to be deleted....let
me see how she worded this ... along the east side of the parking lot shall be
reinstated.
Chairperson Wilcox — Are those changes acceptable gentlemen? (yes) Susan,
are you comfortable at this point? (yes) Any further discussion with regard to the
environmental review?
ADOPTED RESOLUTION: PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 as 037
SEQR = Site Plan Modification
Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living
Community
Tax Parcel No. 27A= 13.12, 27A= 111621
27 =1 -13.18 and 27 =1 -13.17
Conifer Drive and Cypress Court
Planning Board, April 17, 2007
Motion made by Larry Thayer, seconded by George Conneman.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 34
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for
modifications to the previously approved Conifer Village Ithaca Senior
Living Community project, located. off Conifer Drive, on a 9.0 +/- acre
parcel immediately north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments
Phase II and III, Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.162, 27 -1-
13.18, and 27 -1 -13.17 Multiple Residential Zone. The proposed
modifications include changes to the exterior of the west, south and north
sides of the building, eliminating 5 pole lights, deleting one sidewalk along
the east side of the parking lot and reducing the width of other sidewalks
by one foot, eliminating curbing along the entrance driveway, and
eliminating the catch basins along the entrance drive and replacing them
with an open swale. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Carol Oster,
Vice President, Agent, and,
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is
acting as Lead Agency in this environmental review with respect to Site
Plan Approval, and
3. The Planning Board, on April 17, 2007, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by
the applicant, and Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, drawings
entitled "Layout Plan" (L -2), "Site Details" (L -6.1), "Site Electrical and
Lighting Plan" (C103), all revise dated 3/23/07 and prepared by Carl Jahn
& Associates, and elevation drawings A4.1 and A4.2 dated 12/11/06 and
prepared by Hord, Coplan Mach, Inc., and other application material with
the following modifications:
a) reinstatement of the three most easterly light poles
b) all sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 5 -feet
c) the sidewalk proposed to be deleted along the east side of the parking lot
shall be reinstated, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan
approval for the proposed. project modifications.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination
of environmental significance in accordance with Article 8 of the Environmental
Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 New York State Environmental Quality
Review for the above referenced actions as proposed, based on the information
in the EAF Part I and for the reasons set forth in the EAF Part II, and, therefore, a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 35
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Conneman, Hoffmann,
NAYS: None
Abstentions: None
Absent: Howe and Talty
Thayer, and Wilcox
The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:40 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modifications to the Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Apartments project
located at 200 Conifer Drive (off Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12, Multiple Residence Zone. The modifications include
changes to the exterior of the west, south and north sides of the building,
eliminating 5 pole lights, deleting one sidewalk along the east side of the
parking lot ., eliminating several catch basins along the entrance drive and
...adding an open swale, and eliminating curbing along the driveway
entrance. Ithaca Senior Living, LLC, Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ladies and gentlemen, do we have any questions with
regard to site plan review that we haven't already asked?
Chairperson Wilcox invites the public to address the Board.
Hollis Erb, 118 Snyder Hill Road
May I ask about one additional, possible alternative for the new sidewalk that is
just to the west of the newly proposed swale. I'm hearing that a lot of the
discussion about having that be pushed out to a 5 foot width is for wheelchair
passage, side by side and that sort of circumstance, and I wonder if any thought
has been given to the possibility of having one or two pull outs instead. Where
you see somebody coming and the one closest to the pullout, on a nice level
space, just pulls over. And the reason I am thinking of that is that it might allow
to save some money with a little bit narrower sidewalk along the entire length,
and, I do not know this location, but I sort of have it in my head that there is a
considerable grade going on in here, and I have experience with a friend with a
wheelchair, and I know that having an occasional, flat, level space to just pull
over and have a little rest, if there's any grade to this new sidewalk at all, is
actually a nice idea ... having just a little place to just stop and rest when you are
wheeling up or down a grade. So, I don't mean to throw a monkey wrench into
anything, but, as long as we are worried about wheelchairs or walkers passing
each other, a little pull out area that was level and would also allow a rest stop
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 36
along the way for someone working a wheelchair might not be a really bad idea
and I just offer that for you to tear down as much as you'd like. Thank you.
Joel Harlan, Newfield
And you're gonna love this ... seems like every project, everywhere I go, you and
the City, it's hen pecking. SO I'm gonna say, you gotta watch out. There may be
noise pollution with those electric wheelchairs and go karts. They make noise.
And also the lighting. The lighting is light pollution for the bugs and the rodents, if
it don't get to the people, you gotta think about the ants and all them other bugs
that's below them lights. Then you gotta worry about the grass, you gotta worry
about the bushes, you gotta Worry about what flowers you're going to put in and
what trees and where the water's going ... and all that.
So this is what kind of deals you're getting into. Even McDonalds asked me to
speak at some of these meetings, and he's dead right now. But he says, even in
Lansing, he says, they worry about even the flowers and what kind of greenery
you're going to put around to beautify, like cedar, and stuff like that. I said, I
know what you're talking about. I see it all the time at all these meetings. That's
henpecking. Slightest little details, and it takes you hours, maybe weeks, maybe
months before you solve everything. You gotta get everything down to the
details and that's why I say Hey, get on with the project but...let's worry about the
bugs and all that, you know, that's food. You gotta worry about the (inaudible)
you know, why are you gonna dig them up and stuff like that. Ther's a lot of
antique trees out there. They're gonna be obsolete soon. You gotta worry about
all this. That's all I got to say.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you Joel. Anybody else this evening? There being
no one, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:46 p.m. and returns
the discussion to the Board.
Chairperson Wilcox — Hollis' idea of the 4 -foot width with the pull offs ... any
interest in that? I mean, it's certainly intriguing.
Ms. Oster — Keep the 4 -foot width and then have a pull -off?
Chairperson Wilcox — The problem is now that we have to decide how many of
them, what's the appropriate distance, how wide are they or, we get into
submission for approval by the Director of Planning.
Mr. Kanter — I think bump -outs are a great idea. We didn't include them in the
original plan, but I don't think that would do away with the need for 5 -foot wide
sidewalks anyway...
Chairperson Wilcox — Because...
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 37
Mr. Kanter -- ...because, especially if it is a sloping area, you need that width for
safe passage of people who aren't able to walk or steer their wheelchairs in a
straight line. Bump -outs or pull -offs are good things, in areas where you can't
meet the ADA grade standards and it is something to consider, but I don't think
it's a consideration of an in-lieu -of width issue. It would be in addition to that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on, Susan, can I stir up a hornets nest ... (laughter).. I
Board Member Thayer — Do we require cement sidewalks? Or can they be
asphalt?
Chairperson Wilcox — The Town even has asphalt,..
Mr. Walker — Most of our walkways are asphalt.
Chairperson Wilcox —...asphalt walkways.
Board Member Thayer — Aren't they cheaper?
Mr. Walker - Yes, and I don't think... There's no detail that shows whether it's
concrete or asphalt any place.
Board Member Thayer.. It's up to them.
Mr. Walker — We've talked about asphalt but....
Ms. Oster — Yes, that's what we're proposing.
Chairperson Wilcox —Eva, you want to say something.
Board Member Hoffmann — Well, another reason to have it be 5 feet rather than
4 feet is that very often, with older people, if they area 41ittle unsteady or they
don't see so well, they often hold on to another person walking next to them, and
if you have a 4 -foot wide sidewalk, I don't know if it feels very comfortable to walk
side -by -side along it. I think 5 -feet is still needed. And the other thing is, if you
have these bump -outs, or pull -offs, pull -outs, you almost expect to have a place
to sit down on them, which would add some costs too. I mean, if you're going to
tempt people by allowing them a place where they could rest, you'd want to allow
them to sit down too. I think it's an interesting idea, but maybe for other reasons,
it's better to have it be 54eet instead. That's what I think.
Chairperson Wilcox — You comfortable with that, gentlemen?
Board Member Hoffmann — I'll move the resolution, if we're ready for that.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 38
Chairperson Wilcox — So moved by Eva Hoffmann. Seconded by? Seconded by
the Chair. Susan.
Ms. Brock — We need to add the same wording changes to paragraph 3 of the
whereas clause. Would you like me to read that again?
Chairperson Wilcox — Please do.
Ms. Brock — At the end of paragraph 3, add the following: with the following
modifications; reinstatement of the three most easterly light poles, all sidewalks
shall have a minimum width of 5 -feet and the sidewalk proposed to be deleted
along the east side of the parking lot shall be reinstated.
And then, in the resolved clause, revise paragraph a. to read as follows:
1. submission of revised site plan drawing 1, referencing the detail for a
painted crosswalk at the north end of the parking lot,
2, showing the reinstatement of the 3 most easterly light poles and the
sidewalk along the east side of the parking lot
3, showing all sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 -feet and
4, providing details of the stone line swale, satisfactory to the Director of
Engineering.
Also add a new paragraph b. submission of a revised Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan satisfactory to the Director of Engineering.
Chairperson Wilcox — As per the County's... I think that was the County's
comment, right?
Ms. Brock — If Dan thinks b, is necessary.
Mr. Walker — They don't have to ... they need to make a revision note to the
SWPP ... that it's been revised to...
Ms. Brock —The County actually suggested a revised plan.
Mr. Walker — Yeah...
Ms. Brock — Because they are eliminating the catch basins and adding the
swales.
Mr. Walker — And actually adding a better practice than...
Ms. Brock — And they want it ... they say the revised Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan will ensure that the swells are appropriately sized for the volume
of run -off anticipated for the project.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 39
Mr. Walker — Well, that's why I am asking for the details of the swale, and they
could... okay... have them submit a revised SWPPP showing the changes.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm sorry, say that again Dan.
Mr. Walker — Just a revised SWPPP or a note ... a revision to the SWPPP as an
addendum.
Ms. Brock — Right, so it reads; submission of a revised Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan satisfactory to the Director of Engineering.
Chairperson Wilcox— Okay. Before you go on...
Board Member Hoffmann — Susan, could you repeat 2 and 3, 1 didn't get all that.
Ms. Brock — Two is "showing the reinstatement of the 3 most easterly light poles
and the sidewalk along the east side of the parking lot.
Board Member Hoffmann — Oh, okay...so 3 was...
Ms. Brock — 3. showing all sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 feet.
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay, thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox — Eva, is that change acceptable? And they are acceptable
to me as the Chair as well. Alright. Any other changes? Susan? You all set?
Any further discussion? There being none. Vote.
ADOPTED RESOLUTION. PB Resolution No. 2007 - 038
Site Plan Modification
Conifer Village — Ithaca Senior Living
Community
Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12, 27 -1- 111629
27 -1- 13.18, and 27 -1 -13.17
Conifer Drive and Cypress Court
Planning Board, April 17, 2007
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Fred Wilcox, III.
WHEREAS:
2. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval for
modifications to the previously approved Conifer Village Ithaca Senior
Living Community project, located off Conifer Drive, on a 9.0 + / =' acre
parcel immediately north of the existing Linderman Creek Apartments
Phase 11 and III, Tax Parcel No.'s 27 -1- 13.12, 27 -1- 13.162, 27 -1- 13.181
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 40
and 27 -1 -13.17 Multiple Residential Zone. The proposed modifications
include changes to the exterior of the west, south and north sides of the
building, eliminating 5 pole lights, deleting one sidewalk along the east
side of the parking lot and reducing the width of other sidewalks by one
foot, eliminating curbing along the entrance driveway, and eliminating the
catch basins along the entrance drive and replacing them with an open
swale. Conifer Realty, LLC, Owner /Applicant; Carol Oster; Vice
President, Agent, and,
3. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board,
acting as lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan
approval and modification thereof, has, on April 17, 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
4. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on April 17, 2007, has
reviewed and accepted as adequate drawings entitled "Layout Plan" (L -2),
"Site Details" (L -6.1), "Site Electrical and Lighting Plan" (C103), all revise
dated 3/23/07 and prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates, and elevation
drawings A4.1 and A4.2 dated 12/11/06 and prepared by Hord, Coplan
Mach, Inc., and with the following modifications:
a) reinstatement of the three most easterly light poles
b) all sidewalks shall have a minimum width of 5 -feet
c) the sidewalk proposed to be deleted along the east side of the
parking lot shall be reinstated.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Site Plan approval for the
proposed modifications to the Conifer Village Ithaca Senior Living Community
project located off Conifer Drive, Town on Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 27 -1- 13.12, 27-
1- 13.162, 27 -1- 13.18, and 27 -1- 13.17, as described in the drawings entitled
"Layout. Plan" (L -2), "Site Details" (L -6.1), "Site Electrical and Lighting Plan"
(C103), all revise dated 3/23/07 and prepared by Carl Jahn & Associates, and
elevation drawings A4.1 and A4.2 dated 12/11/06 and prepared by Hord, Coplan
Mach, Inc., and other application materials, subject to the following conditions:
A. Submission of revised site plan Drawing 1, including the following
revisions:
1) referencing the detail for a painted crosswalk at the north end of the
parking lot, and
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 41
2) showing the reinstatement of the 3 most easterly light poles and the
sidewalk along the east side of the parking lot, and
3) showing all sidewalks with a minimum width of 5 -feet, and
4) providing details of the stone lined swale, satisfactory to the
Director of Engineering, and
B. Submission of a revise Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan satisfactory
to the Director of Engineering.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Conneman, Hoffmann, Thayer, and Wilcox
NAYS: None
Absent: Howe and Talty
The motion was carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox announces the next agenda item at 8:55 p.m.
SEQR — Cornell Child Care Center Project
Presentation and discussion of com
; related 1
Environmental Quality Review for the proposed Cornell Child Care Center
proiect located north of Cornell University's A -Lot parking area along
Pleasant Grove Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights (Tax Parcel No. 14 -4-
2 2) and the Town of Ithaca (Tax Parcel No. 68- 1 -13), and is zoned Low
Density Residential in the Town The entire proiect includes the
construction of a +/- 14,880 gross square foot child care facility for
approximately 158 children of Cornell faculty, staff, and students, along
with new narkina. stormwater facilities, lighting, and landscaping. The
portion of the proiect located within the Town of Ithaca includes part of a
sidewalk and utility lines Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence
Hoetzlein, .R.A., Agent.
Lawrence Hoetzlein, Humphries Service Building, Cornell University
Chairperson Wilcox — Are you prepared to make a presentation this evening?
Mr. Hoetzlein — I've got a brief, 10- minute presentation, just to introduce the
project to the Board.
So, I'd like to start just talking a little bit about how we started with the project, our
visioning session for the Child Care Center, which is an exciting project for
Cornell. It's Cornell's first child care center, and as we thought about this place
that we were creating, we wanted to create a great place for a childhood: A
place that was nurturing, home -like, sensory rich, flexible, had unique natural
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 42
play areas to reflect unique areas around the Town of Ithaca and the Village site
that we have. Want a place that is multi - cultural.
So, as we approached the site and the landscape of the neighborhood, we were
faced, first of all, with trying to pick a site, and we were looking for a site that was
#1, that was close to the University campus, a site that had sufficient area to
accommodate the program that we were contemplating, a site that was close to
transportation opportunities, both public and private, and by private I mean
parking opportunities for private cars, and a place that was a beautiful setting for
this childcare center. And I think we found that ideal site in the location that we
settled upon, which is a grassy site that is just north of A -Lot on the Cornell
campus on Pleasant Grove Road, which is right on the border between the Town
of Ithaca, which is to the east and the Village of Cayuga Heights. And the red dot
and this aerial photograph, shows the location of the center. This swale here
shows some of the unique natural areas that surround the site. This is a cattail
marsh, this, you may be familiar with, is the sledding hill that's nearby, this is
Palmer Woods natural area, and here's a site photo looking west. Here you see
the cattail marsh in the distance and Palmer Woods further on, and right above
here is where we are standing for the photos, where we're planning on putting
the center.
And thinking about this beautiful site we had to work with, we wanted to try to
preserve and enhance the existing landscape. We want to, we want the building
to blend in and enhance the neighborhood. We wanted to come up with low -
impact strategies for siting this building on this site. We wanted it to have a
residential character and to, for it to relate with existing recreational uses, like the
Frisbee course that's on here, the sledding that goes on, the many educational
and research projects that take place in the natural areas here, and we had a
picture of children in this landscape.
And finally, we were looking for an architectural sustainability, green children's
environment, which, actually if you think about it, a childcare center is a natural
for all the kinds of things that you want to do to make a building sustainable and
environmentally friendly. You want those kinds of environments for the places
that your children are being taken care of.
We also wanted to try and incorporate that into the classroom and the
playground settings so the kids could learn about their environment, which I back
in to the idea of unique natural play areas.
So, with that vision in mind, we approached the
the idea, well they came with several concepts,
most was the idea of a children's village, which
classrooms around an open area that looked out
into this berm, I don't know how many of you are
are little, knoll like berm that's right at the corner,
concept
but the
was the
into the
familiar
nestled
of this and (inaudible)
one that we liked the
idea of a grouping of
site, was nestled back
with this site, but there
into the corner, here, of
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 43
Pleasant Grove and the lot. It's not real big but, it's a nice feature of the site, so
we wanted this center to be nestled into that open, up to the natural area and
beyond, and the village concept, we thought, would provide some small scale
building massing. The village image is multi - cultural and we would be welcoming
to a diverse kinds of kids that Cornell faculty and staff would raise and bring to
the center. It would allow for flexible layouts, it would work with the existing
topography and would offer lots of natural light and easy playground access,
actually on three sides.
So with those goals in mind, we came up with, what I would like to introduce to
you as our site plan for the center and also show you where we are thinking right
now, about the site of the center and how it will look sitting on the site.
So, the Cornell Childcare Center ... It's going to be a National Association for the
Education of Young Children accredited childcare facility for 158 children of
Cornell faculty, staff and students. And that, those children are going to be a
mixture of approximately 1/3 each, infants, toddlers and preschoolers. The size
of the project, as you mentioned in your introduction, is approximately 14,800
gross square feet. The proposed location is Pleasant Grove Road, north of A -Lot
and the design schedule, we are hoping to complete the design this summer and
complete construction next summer.
So, the site plan that the architects for the project came up with, which l think we
are very pleased with, the design... although it's hard to stay really true to a
concept when you are dealing with a particular building and the constraints of
program and circulation and everything else that goes with that, I think that the
design they came up with is very true to our village concept. It's an open
courtyard design that's fairly compact on the site. It's nestled right next to the
northern edge of A -Lot and it's accessed from A -Lot. There are no new curb cuts
to Pleasant Grove Road. We are going to take advantage of the fact that we've
got all of this parking available and just build this narrow strip of drop -off parking,
19 spaces for drop -off and also ADA parking. The blue line here, this is the
boundary between the Town of Ithaca and the Village of Cayuga Heights.
What else can I point out about this site plan ... Well the cattail marsh here and of
course the sled hill is way beyond, outside of this picture. These light green trees
are trees that are existing and are being maintained, and this darker green
vegetation is some screening vegetation that we're adding and some vegetation
that we are adding around the natural playgrounds which surround the center on
three sides, and of .course, also, going into the center, the courtyard part of the
center.
The main access for the center will be coming off of A -Lot. The front door is here
and it's...the whole building is sort of set down into the ground and set into the
berm. So this ramp actually goes down into the entrance and the
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 44
playground... this is the infants' playground here, is even lower than that. We
really tried to nestle this building into the site.
Lighting, also, we are taking advantage of A -Lot for lighting. The only light that
we are going to be adding, apart from low lighting for the walkway, ramp area
and steps, is a proposed 12 -foot parking pole light. The rest, our engineers have
figure that these existing lights at A -Lot will provide enough additional light to
take care of the other needs in the drop off parking area.
This plan shows, does show, this one sign here, which, I think Jonathan noted in
his notes to you, I sent a letter, we decided we don't want way finding signage, at
the road, so that's been deleted from the project.
One other feature that I think is really nice, that, this emphasizes the way the
center is nestled into the site, is this area of green roof where this berm sort of
actually goes over the first floor level of the center. And that shows up here a
little bit, in the floor plans. The way the center is organized, we've got 3 wings,
it's a two -story building, again, to help minimize the impact of the site and keep
the footprint small. This is the infant wing, this is the toddler wing and then on
the second floor, accessed by an interior ramp, is the pre -K wing. And the green
roof area is this area right here, adjacent to the second floor wing. The
connecting piece in between is where the activity and administrative areas will be
situated.
And that leaves, last for your consideration, is the artist's conception. of what the
building will look like. This view is from the A -Lot parking lot and shows, I think,
how successful our architects have been in keeping the scale of this building
moderate and keeping the residential character and keeping the village concept
that we started out with. So there is our presentation.
That is the end of my brief introduction so if any one has questions.
Board Member Hoffmann — I do have a question. I have been trying to. relate the
site plan drawing with something that shows the playground and the parking, the
drop -off parking, and that's probably the closest, that drawing... Where is the
playground area in that drawing?
Mr. Hoetzlein — In this drawing. Well, this view is from A -Lot so it's .actually. I Jf
you look at this ... this is like looking at it from this corner...or right over here ... the
top of it... .
Board Member Hoffmann — That's where the photo was taken from? I mean, the
drawing was made from, as if it was photographed....
Mr. Hoetzlein -- So, just to the right of this, of this tree, would be. the drop -off
parking, out of your view here and this wall here is the curved wall that ... and on
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 45
the other side of that is the infant playground, and the other playgrounds are
actually beyond the courtyard.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right. But I was trying to relate this playground
toward the parking lot. I was trying to figure out how close it is to the drop -off
area and I had trouble doing that and that wall that you are showing, I think I see
it on the drawing ... So the green area on that drawing is outside the playground?
Mr. Hoetzlein -- Yes, yes, that's this lawn area in the front.
Chairperson Wilcox — You're concerned about the safety of the children in the
playground vis -a -vis the location to the
Board Member Hoffmann — No, well, I guess you could say that. I'm a little
concerned about the fact that that outdoor area for the children is very close to
the parking lot, the A -Lot parking lot, with a lot of cars and fumes, but especially
to the drop -off area. It looks on the map as if it is very close. On the site plan.
So I am wondering how the outdoor air quality for those children there might be,
unless you impose some restriction on the parents dropping off so that they can't
keep their motors going, they have to turn them off as soon as they pull in to the
parking spot.
Mr. Hoetzlein -- That's not a bad suggestion. It is fairly close, although it's not
right on top of it. The actual parking area is ... here's the playground nestled in
here ... the actual parking area is beyond it ... if you see the end of this wall here
just catches the two handicapped spaces at the very beginning of the lot and the
rest of the lot extends beyond the playground area, so there...and there is the
ramp buffer and a planting buffer between the driveway and A -Lot and another
planting buffer and then, of course, the drive. So it is buffered. But I like your
suggestion about making sure people don't run their cars out there.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, especially in the winter people often leave their
car idling for quite a while, unnecessarily, I might add, but it happens.
Board Member Conneman — I'm glad that Cornell is going to do something like
this and I approve of all the six dots up there, but the fourth one. .'Are you familiar
with the North Campus Gateway Study, at all? I'm sorry that Cheryl isn't here
because she would know what I am talking about...
Chairperson Wilcox — I think they have become aware of it.
Mr. Hoetzlein -- I think, actually, the person here most familiar with it is
Jonathan.
Board Member Conneman — Well I know something about it because I was on
the Planning Board when we moved the Moore house and we had a discussion
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 46
about building a new entrance to the University and Shirley agreed that we were
going to do that...
Chairperson Wilcox — Shirley as in....
Board Member Conneman — Shirley Egan. And you made no reference to this at
all and you act as if there was never any plans to put anything else exactly where
you put this childcare facility.
Mr. Kanter — I might just indicate to the Board ... George is absolutely correct and
we went through a number of meetings with Cornell to get a North Campus
Gateway back on the table. The problem with the North Campus Gateway
Plans, I don't think were in any way a result of the specific planning by the
childcare group. What it indicates to me is a larger problem with the Cornell, the
overall Cornell planning process which did not factor in the North Campus
Gateway recommendations in conjunction with the planning of the childcare
center: So, I don't fault this group who is in front of us tonight, and as with all
Cornell things, there's a bigger Cornell picture which I think is the problem and
that's what I want to make sure comes across and it's not to downplay the
childcare proposal, but to keep after Cornell to make sure that these things don't
happen in the future. To make sure that the Cornell master process accounts for
all of these things in a bigger picture way and to hopefully get the North Campus
Gateway concepts back on the table in a way that Cornell will address it.
Board Member Conneman — I agree, but, Cornell constantly does this. You guys
are planners... you' re supposed to know this, I think, and it really ... it makes me
angry because we had agreed to this before ... in 2000 or 2001 or whatever it
was and you come with this proposal that doesn't even mention ....I agree with 5
of the dots up there. The sixth one I don't agree with and I want to know how we
get this back into the thing.
Mr. Kanter — Well, that's what I hope happens through several ways. One is, as
I've mentioned to George, and to some of the Planning Board members, Town
officials have already had 5 or 6 meetings with Cornell to make sure the Cornell
North Campus Gateway concepts are not only put back on the table, but actually
happen. As a result of those discussions, the North Campus Gateway
Committee has met twice now. Once on its own and a second time with the
Cornell Master Plan consulting group to make sure that the North Campus
Gateway plans are factored into the overall Cornell Master Plan itself. Which is
really where it should have been put in the beginning except there was no master
plan at that time.
Board Member Conneman — There will be a master plan this time?
Mr. Kanter — One would hope so. It sounds like Cornell is spending a lot of
money on it.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 47
Board Member Conneman — Well, it just seems to me that that is poor planning
and poor communication with their Board and with the community. This is going
to be a great asset to the community, but the Gateway would have been very
good. It would have kept traffic out of Forest Home which I think is very
important and Cornell seems to say "ahhh, so what" and that really makes me
angry about this thing.
Mr. Kanter — There is more follow up though and I have mentioned this to you too
George, which is that as a result of our discussions, we have gotten Cornell to
look at an alternate location for the original North Campus Gateway Road which
instead of going-to the north of A -Lot, now looks like it can go on the south
entrance road alignment which would still do the same thing. It would still get
people earlier off of Pleasant Grove Road and around A -Lot in towards the
campus but now it would be the south part of A -Lot instead of the North. But,
you are absolutely right, it took quite a bit of work to get Cornell to look at that as
an option. The. great thing about the master plan though, for us, is that it is going
to have Cornell look at some other circulation improvements that weren't even
part of the North Campus Gateway which could, perhaps, deal with things like
connecting traffic from Warren Road over to Pleasant Grove Road which would
further get traffic out of Forest Home,
Board Member Conneman — Okay. I suggested that at one of these meetings
and the master plan ... will they have that incorporated in to what they present?
Next week? Next week there is a meeting?
Mr. Kanter — I don't know what. they are going to be showing at the workshops
and I am certainly going to attend one and I think all of the Planning Board
members received invitations, so I would encourage all of you to go.
Board Member Conneman — I will. Okay. I just wanted to mention, because you
guys are planners and you're supposed to be smart about these things and they
just sort of ignored it and ignored us.
Mr. Hoetzlein -- Yes, and George, by sort of sitting here silently I hope you don't
think I'm ignoring your concern here but as the Project Manager of the chidcare
center, I hope you understand, I really don't know very much at all about the
North Campus Gateway Study or the direction the Master Plan is going to take it
but I do know that Jonathan's been working with our people in Cornell to advance
that effort.
Mr. Kanter — I think Lawrence has learned more about the North Campus
Gateway than her ever, ever, wanted to.
Board Member Conneman — Just remind Shirley, she was the one who promised
it. I don't know which of you have contact with Shirley but...
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 48
Chairperson Wilcox — I get the final word ... Because you are the Project
Manager, clearly there was a miscommunication or a lack of communication
because you certainly should. have known about this, and I am not blaming you,
I'm blaming Cornell University as a whole. And I'm not sure that we have any
planners sitting at the table, frankly.
Mr. Hoetzlein -- But I apologize, I should have introduced my
colleagues... Joining me tonight is John Gordon, the Acting University Architect
and Betsy Shrier who is the Director of Finance and Administration with the office
of Human Resources and they are the sponsoring entity at Cornell for the
childcare center.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other questions? Let's understand that the portion of
this project that is in the Town of Ithaca is underground utilities and sidewalk. It's
like caught between a rock and a hard place that it just happens to be in an area
that's partially in the Town and partially in the Village of Cayuga Heights, which is
in the Town but a separate entity. Although we do have the right to and the need
to comment on the entire project. But our approvals would only be for the
portions in the Town.
Jonathan Kanter, god bless him, I assume it was Jonathan Kanter,* has drafted a
letter which would .go under my name...
Board Member Thayer — ...signed by you.
Chairperson Wilcox -- ...to the Village of Cayuga Heights...
Board Member Thayer — Says it all...
Chairperson Wilcox — I will suggest one change... actually it's not a
but it would be to Dear Brent instead of Mr. Cross ... Brent and
personal friends, but I could simply just cross off Mr. Brent....
Board Member Conneman — Absolutely.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any issues, comments, questions with...
requirement,
1 are good,
Board Member Thayer — I have one about fire truck access. Is there any
consideration been given to that? To the north of the building?
Chairperson Wilcox — Said another way, if this was entirely in the Town of Ithaca,
one of the concerns would be that the fire department has easy access, and
appropriate access to all sides of the building or all sides that are necessary and
we would require, usually, a written statement from the Fire Chief, from the fire
department, usually the Chief or somebody so designated that indicates that they
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 49
are comfortable with the plans and that they have sufficient access etc, etc. We
know that in this case it would be the Village of Cayuga Heights.
Mr. Hoetzlein -- Yeah, the Village of Cayuga Heights, their Fire Chief was at our
first presentation at the Village of the childcare center and he did comment,
believe he commented at that meeting, about the openness of the location and
the ease of access to all 4 sides.
Chairperson Wilcox — Ease of access... frankly, one of the things I have learned
in my years on this Board is the weight of these trucks and the appropriate base
that you need underneath to support these trucks, especially these large. ladder
trucks but also the ones that are carrying water.
Board Member Thayer — Yeah, that was my concern. It looks like all grass and
trees in the way and so on...
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah. We will assume that you will get the appropriate
approval or comfort level from the Village of Cayuga Heights.
Anything else?
Board Member Hoffmann — I would just like to say that I like to see a childcare
center being built for Cornell people and I like the way it looks. I am also glad to
hear that the road is considered going in a different place than across this very
beautiful piece of land. I think this use is more appropriate on this land, than a
road. Than a Gateway, yeah, so, 1 know... I was also on the Board when all this
happened and I know the need for that road and the need for a Gateway and a
need to eliminate traffic through residential neighborhoods in the Town, but if it's
possible to create it on the south side of A -Lot, I think that would be much better.
Mr. Kanter — It looks like that is possible.
Board Member Thayer — That's where it's going to have to go now.
Chairperson Wilcox — I assume that the two members of the public have no
comments this evening? (no) Thank you very much. Do we need to do anything
else this evening?
Mr. Kanter — This evening it really is just to confirm the comments, send back the
letter. I wanted to mention just quickly, the visibility issue. I actually have been
out there and the building will be fairly visible from both that nearby house and
obviously traffic on Pleasant Grove Road. That's not a negative per significant
environmental, and in fact, again, if this is done right and the Gateway Road is
done right, this really could, actually help to form the Gateway for the Cornell
campus on the north end, but...
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 50
Chairperson Wilcox — Architecturally at least it's appealing.
Mr. Kanter.— Yeah, it will be large. As I mentioned in the letter, it will extend the
campus further north into what is now an open area but I don't think that's a bad
think, but I do think there might be a way to do a little bit more landscaping on the
edges, not to block or screen the building, but to just help harmonize into the
whole character. So that, again, is just a comment that will go to Cayuga Heights
that really doesn't affect what we are going to be approving and we have pretty
limited space within the Town of Ithaca triangle.
Chairperson Wilcox — I know, it's unfortunate that they have to deal with both
municipalities. It just takes more time and more cost... unnecessary. Susan?
Ms. Brock — well, I had a proposed change but I think that the language Jonathan
has covers it all. So I was writing myself a note.
Chairperson Wilcox — Okay. And we don't need a motion or anything ... We all
set... I .
Board Member Hoffmann — I would like to make another comment too, about
plantings. I can see that there could be some plantings around which could be
very appropriate, but I would not like to see the view in from Pleasant Grove
Road, into the rest of this parcel where there's this nice dip...it's west of this, of
the building, and you can see it from the road and I would like whatever little
opening is left after the building is built, to not be blocked so that one can see
into the parcel... right... that's a beautiful view and I understand that some of it will
be blocked by this building, but whatever is left I would like to see not blocked off
by evergreens along Pleasant Grove Road or something like that. And I guess
don't suppose that the buildings will really block the view across north campus
over to...I know that I can see glimpses across to areas further away from there,
but I don't know...
Chairperson Wilcox — Looking towards the west?
Board Member Conneman — Actually it wouldn't block that. It's mostly the house
and the general area that you make sure that you put something there that sort of
gives that a breaking...
Mr. Hoetzlein -- I think that the proposed planting, and it still has to be developed
further, obviously, but the proposed planting really does meet the goals that have
been offered up tonight. These are existing but this new planting and this is new
planting in here and again, it's meant to start to blend in with the natural areas to
screen and frame the site but at the same time, leave a view from Pleasant
Grove of the building...it's a beautiful site.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set ... Thank you all.
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 51
Mr. Kanter — So just a word on the timing, if we can get you to sign the letter
tonight, we will mail it out to Brent in the morning and once Cayuga Heights
receives the letter, Cayuga Heights can go ahead and schedule their SEQR
determination, basically, and once Cayuga Heights does their SEQR
determination, assuming it's a neg dec, then we can schedule back here for the
site plan approval and special permit.
Chairperson Wilcox — And the Village can do theirs.
Mr. Kanter — Right.
Approval of Minutes
ADOPTED RESOLUTION:
PB RESOLUTION No. 2007 = 039
Approval of the Minutes
from March 20, 2007
Planning Board, April 17, 2007
Motion made by Fred Wilcox III, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board has reviewed the draft minutes from March
20, 2007 and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board approves the minutes, as corrected, to be
the final minutes of the meeting on March 20, 2007.
A vote on the motion was as follows:
AYES: Conneman, Hoffmann, Thayer, and Wilcox
NAYS: None
Abstentions: None
Absent: Howe and Talty
The motion was carried unanimously.
The vote on the minutes from the April 3, 2007 meeting were postponed until the
next meeting.
Other Business
Cornell Master Plan
Cornell Gas Delivery Line open house.
Agenda
Public Scoping Session for Ithaca College
Cornell Utility Service Yard Improvements
Wedemeyer Equestrian Center
Meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
Ily submitted by,
Paulette Neilsen
Deputy Town Clerk
PB 4/17/07
Pg. 52
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
AGENDA
7:00 P.M. Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:05 P.M. Presentation and discussion of the draft scoping document for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
regarding 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. Also, consideration of scheduling a public
scoping session to hear public comments on the draft scoping document for the Athletic and Events
Center EIS. 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 1015 +/: parking spaces
(553 existing parking spaces moved and 462 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.
7:30 P.M. SEQR Determination: Conifer Village of Ithaca Modifications, 200 Conifer Drive.
7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modifications to the Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Apartments project located at 200 Conifer Drive (off
Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27- 1- 13.12,.Multiple Residence Zone. The
modifications include changes to the exterior of the west, south and north sides of the building,
eliminating 5 pole lights, deleting one sidewalk along the east side of the parking lot, eliminating several
catch basins along the entrance drive and adding an open swale, and eliminating curbing along the
driveway entrance. Ithaca Senior Living, LLC, Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant.
8:00 P.M. Presentation and discussion of comments related to the State Environmental Quality Review for the
proposed Cornell Child Care Center project located north of Cornell University's A -Lot parking area
along Pleasant Grove Road in the Village of Cayuga Heights (Tax Parcel No. 14- 4 -2.2) and the Town of
Ithaca (Tax Parcel No. 68- 1 -13), and is zoned Low Density Residential in the Town. The entire project
includes the construction of a +/- 14,880 gross square foot child care facility for approximately 158
children of Cornell faculty, staff, and students, along with new parking, stormwater facilities, lighting,
and landscaping. The portion of the project located within the Town of Ithaca includes part of a sidewalk
and utility lines. Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; Lawrence Hoetzlein, R.A., Agent,
6. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
71 Approval of Minutes: March 20, 2007 and April 3, 2007.
81 . Other Business:
9. Adj ournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing
will be held by the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, April 17, 2007, at 215 North Tioga
Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following time and on the following matter:
7:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modifications to the Conifer Village at Ithaca Senior Apartments project located at 200
Conifer Drive (off Mecklenburg Road), Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 274- 13.12,
Multiple Residence Zone. The modifications include changes to the exterior of the west,
south and north sides of the building, eliminating 5 pole lights, deleting one sidewalk
along the east side of the parking lot, eliminating several catch basins along the entrance
drive and adding an open swale, and eliminating curbing along the driveway entrance.
Ithaca Senior Living, LLC, Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant.
Said Planning Board will at said time and said place hear all persons in support of such matter 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 hearing.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, April 9, 2007
Publish: Wednesday, April 11, 2007
_Wednesday, April, ll, 2007{ THE ITHACA -JOURNAL - --:
TOWN rOF;RHACA
PLANNING BOARD.:':
A- "'NOTIMOF PUBLIC
HEARING
Tuesda ;jA 611 -7,,
j: : ou_.
GIVEN that: a Pubk .11iear
ii g will be' held, by the Plan
ning- Board of the: Town''oP
Ithaca .on- ::Tuesdayy; "Apr-dl
170'.6200T,. at`21'SzNorth!
Tioga Street - Ithaca;, N.Y.
at the following Mm"ec;and%
oq the following matter:
7:30 -P M Consideration of
Preliminary land ';Final Site
Plan Approval•for•,,the pro:
posed' modifications -to the':
Conifer , Village -at 'Ithaca
Senior .Apartments, project;
located` at's -200 :conifer:
Drive - !-.(off., Mecklenburg.
Road); Town"of,- Ithaca Tax,
'Parcel.t. No `.271 - 1,3;12;=.
north
elimi
rdelet -�
,eliminating- several - catch'
basins. along the- entrance,
,drive.,and-adding an open.
j'swale, -`• and "eliminating,
! curbing along the driveway,
entrdnce. Ithaca Senior' !Liv-
r.
ping; :LLC; 'Owner;, Conifer;
:Realty ,LLC,- Applicant,
.$aiJ Planning Board will
.at said time and said place'
hear all'persons_in� support
rofsuch,mattei or . objections
. yey,
thereto. ;Persons. may . ap-
'
111tla1D`:rvl:- U11101•, 4Fc nn,
j needs,:: will be .pFovided
with assistance. as.necessc-i
hr'y''upon. request. • Persons;
t• desiring assistance` ,,, must
make such' a':lrequest;rioF.
1:1e55 'thdn`48 hours,Prior'tto,
.'the time`oflhe; public hear -;
Irin9•
.,:
Jonathan Kanter, 'AICP'
:'Director'of Planning
:273- 17471
'Dated: Monday; "'.'April '9;
. 2007..:' - "..:; .. .
i.0- D:- Publish: `Wednesday;
I`Aoril 1-1, 2007,':, ' "
Town of Ithaca
Planning Board
215 North Tioga Street
April 17, 2007
7:00 p.m.
PLEASE SIGN4N
Please Print Clearly, Thank You
Name
�c &10
vim Via 0 ,(�cuctS
l 1�7i11A� FJL�A re
UM�e�fis
Address
-i (a
.%
Ay 19 00uN i I�-j
0 V11L RC(
L�
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce, being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York, on Tuesday, April 17, 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
April 9, 2007
April 11, 2007
Qo tP
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 11th day of April 2007,
a," , �.0 "'
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01 CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20 10