Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1984-04-17 • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD APRIL 17 , 1984 The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday , April 17 , 1984 , in Town Hall , 126 East Seneca Street , Ithaca , New York , at 7 : 30 p . m . PRESENT : Vice Chairman Carolyn Grigorov , Bernard Stanton , Edward Mazza , Virginia Langhans , David Klein , Peter M . Lovi ( Town Planner ) , Nancy M . Fuller ( Secretary ) . ALSO PRESENT : Sara Jane Hymes , Raymond V . Hemming , Robbyn Daniels , Leon H . Ditzell , Ruth Ditzell , Waldron Darling , J . W . Gebauer , Robert A . Boehlecke Jr . , Scott Hughes , Kevin E . Lewis , Selene Alexander , S . Lowell Barnes , Stewart D . Knowlton , William D . Corbin , Bruce M . Babcock , Claudia Montague ( WHCU News ) , Darryl Geddes ( WTKO News ) . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the meeting duly opened at 7 : 35 p . m . and accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on April 10 , 1984 and April 12 , 1984 , respectively , together with the Secretary ' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties in question , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning , upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works , upon the Tompkins County Administrator , upon the Clerk of the Town of Ithaca , and upon the applicants and / or agents thereof , as parties to the action , on April 12 , 1984 . PUBLIC HEARING . CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 4 -LOT SUBDIVISION ON RIDGECREST ROAD , BACKLOT OF 108 RIDGECREST ROAD , BEING A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 21 16 . 74 ACRES . VINCENT FRANCIAMONE AND GRACE CASCIOLI , OWNERS , Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the above - noted matter duly opened at 7 : 36 p . m . Mr . Robert Boehlecke , Architect , appeared before the Board and stated that he had been requested to explain for the record that Vincent Franciamone is not an owner of this property ; Grace Cascioli is the owner of record , Mr . Franciamone is the contractor . Mr . Boehlecke distributed to the Board members copies of a Survey Map entitled , " Lands of Grace Cascioli and Part of Lands of Lagrand E . Chase , Jr . - Ridgecrest Road - Town of Ithaca - Tompkins County - New York " , signed and sealed by Kenneth A . Baker , Licensed Land Surveyor , dated August 27 , 1983 , revised 9 / 12 / 83 and 9 / 29 / 83 , and stated that it is the map which had been referenced on the site plan which the Board members had been mailed earlier . Mr . Boehlecke briefly described the original proposal made by Mrs . Cascioli in September of 1983 which was for Planning Board 2 April 17 , 1984 a cluster proposal with four units on some 52 acres and which was rejected by the Board . Mr . Boehlecke stated that , after discussions with Mr . Lovi and Mr . Fabbroni , Mrs . Cascioli has finally been able to provide access by purchasing a lot near the corner of East King Road , such that there will be 100 feet of frontage on a proposed new road . Referring to the site plan which the Board had before it , Mr . Boehlecke noted that the backlot , so - called 1082 Ridgecrest Road , would have frontage and could have a two - family dwelling on it . Mr . Boehlecke also noted that this now provides access to the other acreage behind for possible future development . Mr . Boehlecke stated that Mrs . Cascioli ' s immediate goal is , now that there is the necessary frontage and area , to be able to expand the existing one - apartment house at the back to a two - apartment house with its own legal frontage . Mr . Stanton inquired as to the intent of the owner for newly purchased lot 45 - 1 - 3 . Mr . Boehlecke explained that the proposed road right of way is on that lot and the remainder will be , essentially , wasted , in order to have frontage . Mr . Lovi spoke to a couple of points , noting that the principal purpose of this subdivision now , given Mrs . Cascioli ' s plans as presented , is to allow that existing building on the lot shown on the plan as 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 to be made legal , which it was not because it did not have frontage , nor was it 15 , 000 square feet in size . Mr . Lovi stated that Mrs . Cascioli has agreed to do this this way . Mr . Lovi also pointed out that the draft resolution which the Board had before them includes a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for rear and side yard lot line variance and parking . Mr . Lovi commented that there is a lot of additional land such that this seems to be a reasonable way to go , adding that there is also access to the back lots . Mr . Lovi also commented that no one is particularly happy about the location of that road right of way but it is the only piece of land she can acquire to make the required frontage . Mr . Lovi stated that it was suggested to her that she speak to Mr . Erdman about some kind of swap which could be mutually advantageous in order that there could be a road in off King Road , Mr . Lovi commented that for the purpose of legalizing the " back " lot , the proposed right of way would be shown as a " mapped street " , but eventually a road off King Road is preferable . The draft resolution before the Board read as follows : " DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION : Franciamone Subdivision RESOLVED , that concerning the proposal of Mr . Vincent Franciamone [ sic . ] to subdivide lands owned by Mr . Franciamone and [ sic . ] Ms . Grace Cascioli , backlot of 108 Ridgecrest Road , tax parcel number 6 - 45 - 1 - 2 . 2 , the Planning Board make and hereby does make the • following determinations , findings , and approvals : 1 . The developer has completed an Environmental Assessment Short Form , as required by Local Law # 3 , 1980 . The Planning Planning Board 3 April 17 , 1984 • Board has reviewed this form , determined the proposal to be an Unlisted action , and made a negative declaration of environmental significance at Public Hearing on April 17 , 1984 . 2 . The developer has presented a preliminary subdivision plan in a form acceptable to the Town Engineer showing the location of lot lines , roads , and other structures of interest to the Planning Board . This plan has been reviewed at a properly posted and published Public Hearing on April 17 , 1984 . 3 . The Planning Board understands that the developer ' s principal purpose for this subdivision is to provide a minimum 100 - foot frontage for the building on lot 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 in order that a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued . For this purpose , and to provide access to the new lot created to the rear of parcel 6 - 45 - 1 - 3 , the proposed right - of -way from Ridgecrest Road is sufficient . 4 . The Planning Board would prefer that eventual development of the remaining interior acreage be accessible from East King Road , rather than Ridgecrest Road , as presently mapped . The Planning Board encourages the developer to acquire a suitable right - of -way from East King Road for this purpose . At such time as a right - of -way is acquired , the mapped street shown for Ridgecrest Road may be removed , and the lot replatted . 5 . The Planning Board grant and hereby does grant preliminary subdivision approval to the subdivision plan as presented April 17 , 1984 . The developer may proceed with the staking of streets and lots , and the preparation of a final subdivision plan which shall include all engineering information required by the Subdivision Regulations . AND FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals that all necessary variances of rear lot line , side yard line , and parking requirements for parcel 6 - 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 be granted subject to the provision of a detailed landscaping plan in a form satisfactory to the Town Engineer describing the number , species , size , and location of all plantings required by the Planning Board and showing the location , dimensions , and landscaping of the parking area and driveway for this lot . " Mr . Stanton stated that he would assume that from the Town ' s standpoint it would prefer to bring this site into compliance . Mr . Lovi commented that the owner has done a lot in trying to do that . Mr . Boehlecke commented that he agreed , adding that a lot of land has been purchased in order to get one legal unit . Mr . Lovi stated that the present proposal seems to make sense to him . Mr . Stanton stated that what bothered him is that there will Planning Board 4 April 17 , 1984 never be a roadway in that location and , de facto , it is a driveway to the back house . Mr . Mazza commented that the Board is being asked to do something with respect to something that does not exist - - 100 feet of frontage on a road - - when the fact is , there is no road . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that there has been quite an effort to come into compliance . Mr . Lovi wondered what would happen if the road were put in . Mr . Mazza stated that if the back land were to be developed and this road goes there as shown , it is too close to East King Road and would make a terrible intersection . Mr . Lovi wondered how the Board would feel if , for what is planned , at present , it is okay , but if Mrs . Cascioli were to come in with a plan for those back lands and , if that road were actually there , the Planning Board could say that it does not want it there as the access to future development . Mr . Stanton was concerned about , if the Board did that and the road is built , the Board saying " no " to that road later . Mr . Mazza wondered how much a road , built to Town specifications just for two lots , would cost . Mr . Boehlecke commented that it would cost more than it should for such a limited purpose . Mr . Boehlecke pointed out the major objective which seems to be to expand this building here , indicating the one unit dwelling on so - called parcel 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 , and stated that anything in the future is subject to this Board ' s review . Vice Chairman Grigorov wished to have it clear that the present approval being requested would be only for these two lots , indicating 45 - 1 - 5 . 2 and 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 . Mr . Lovi stated that that was • correct , adding that approval , if granted , should state that such approval is only for those two lots and for any other lots another access road should be shown , commenting that , otherwise , forget the subdivision and the road frontage matter and the recommendation to the Zoning Board because the owner has done that already . Mr . Boehlecke noted that the owner has provided frontage and two lots . Mrs . Langhans wished to have it clear that the two lots are the right size . It was agreed that each of the two lots proposed meets the 15 , 000 square footage requirement . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anyone present who wished to speak to the matter of the Cascioli subdivision proposal . Mrs . Ruth Ditzell , 120 Ridgecrest Road , spoke from the floor and stated that there are four cars parked at 108 Ridgecrest Road , there are seven people in the " front " house , and a brother and sister , Grace Cascioli and Vincent Franciamone , in the " back " . Mrs . Ditzell expressed her disapproval of this proposal . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anyone else who wished to speak . No one spoke . Vice Chairman Grigorov closed the Public Hearing at 8 : 05 p . m . , and asked that the Board turn to the matter of review under SEQR . Mr . Stanton commented that , if the new road is put in , there will be a problem with traffic because it is close to East King Road . Mr . Mazza commented that , in his opinion , there was no significant negative impact as the Planning Board 5 April 17 , 1984 plan is proposed at present , but , in the future there could very well be . For the record , a Short Environmental Assessment Form had been submitted , under signature of Grace Cascioli and under date of March 29 , 1984 , and all questions had been answered " no " . Mr . Lovi had reviewed the EAF , under date of April 9 , 1984 , making the following recommendation : " This subdivision does not appear to present any significant environmental impacts in the context of the developer ' s short - term plans . The developer ' s immediate plan is to provide the required 100 feet of road frontage for the house on lot 45 - 1 - 5 . 1 in order that a Certificate of Occupancy may be issued . For this purpose , the present subdivision is suitable . TIn the event of a future development of the remaining 16 . 74 acres , the proposed road right - of -way would provide an awkward street jog with East King Road and Ridgecrest Road . It would be preferable for the developer to negotiate with the owner of the triangular corner lot fronting on East King Road in order that the access road to the interior acreage be provided from East King Road . Such a relocation would benefit both parties , as three lots fronting on East King Road could be resubdivided where , at present , only two are possible . TI recommend a negative declaration of environmental significance as follows : " MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton : • RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board , acting as lead agency in the environmental review of the proposed 4 - lot subdivision development on Ridgecrest Road , backlot of 108 Ridgecrest Road , as proposed by Grace Cascioli , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Short Form as completed , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that , pursuant to Town of Ithaca Local Law # 3 - 1980 , this action is classified as Unlisted , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has determined from the Environmental Assessment Short Form and all pertinent information that the above -mentioned action will not significantly impact the environment and , therefore , will not require further environmental review . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chairman called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Stanton , Mazza , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Turning to the matter of the proposed subdivision plan , Mr . Mazza noted two points , as follows : ( 1 ) frontage - - not building road for these lots ; ( 2 ) if the owner does build the road , the owner or some other owner at the time , may say - - why can it not Planning Board 6 April 17 , 1984 • be the road to the back land since it is already there ? Mr . Mazza stated that he would not be able to approve of this present subdivision plan without knowing that an honest effort was made to negotiate with other owners on East King Road to obtain land which could provide access to the back lands . Vice Chairman Grigorov noted that the matter before the Board is consideration of preliminary subdivision approval only . Mr . Mazza stated that he agreed , however , he felt that he wanted to know that even before preliminary approval . Mr . Klein stated that it has been made clear that there really is no intent to build this road . Mrs . Langhans pointed out that the plan indicates that the house on parcel 45 - 1 - 3 is to be demolished or relocated , and stated that if it were relocated instead of demolished , then there would have to be a street . Mr . Lovi commented that , if the house is demolished and the road not constructed , the owner will have taken care of what she has always said she wanted to do which is legalize the back house . Mr . Mazza stated that he could not see that that was the intent of the ordinance . Mr . Klein stated that he felt it was somewhat circumventing the ordinance if the road is not built and , if it is built , he did not like it there . Mr . Stanton stated that he thought the Town would be worse off if the Board approved this proposal , adding that it would not be serving the public . Mr . Mazza stated that he thought it to be more in the way of premature , adding that if there were an honest effort made to purchase land on East King Road , documented , that would shed more light on things . Vice Chairman Grigorov stated that she thought the matter ought to be adjourned and that an ad hoc committee of the Board be formed to visit the site , with further discussion at the next meeting . Mr . Mazza agreed , adding that during that time some documentation as to an honest effort to obtain more land could be put together and submitted to the Board . MOTION by Mr . Edward Mazza , seconded by Mr . Bernard Stanton * RESOLVED , that the Public Hearing in the matter of the Cascioli subdivision be and hereby is adjourned until May 1 , 1984 , at 7 : 45 p . m . , and reopened at that time , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that an ad hoc committee of the Planning Board go up and view the property with the owner , or agent of the owner , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the owner , or agents of the owner , make a good faith effort to obtain accommodations to East King Road prior to said May lst meeting . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chairman called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Stanton , Mazza , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Planning Board 7 April 17 , 1984 • Vice Chairman Grigorov appointed the following ad hoc committee of the Planning Board to visit the site at 4 : 30 p . m . , on Monday , April 23rd - - Mr . Stanton , Mrs . Langhans , Mr . Mazza , Mr . Boehlecke will make the arrangements and Mr . Lovi will accompany the committee . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Cascioli subdivision duly adjourned at 8 : 15 p . m . INFORMAL DISCUSSION : WITH JOE GALLAGHER , REALTOR , CONCERNING POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF LANDS PRESENTLY OWNED BY NEW YORK EMULSIONS ( FORMER KOPPERS SITE ) . TAX PARCELS NO . 6 - 59 - 1 - 1 , 6 - 59 - 1 - 3 , and 6 - 63 - 2 - 10 . 3 , 2 . 77 ACRES . Mr . Lovi announced that Mr . Gallagher has requested an adjournment of this informal meeting because he was unable to be in attendance this evening . It was agreed that the matter would be an Agenda item at such time as may be specified by the realtor . REQUEST FOR LIGHTING OF INTERSECTION OF BURLEIGH DRIVE AND CONCORD PLACE - MR . MAZZA . Mr . Mazza requested that the Secretary inquire into the matter of the lack of installation by NYSEG of the street intersection lighting at the corner of Burleigh Drive and Concord • Place . ADJOURNED PUBLIC HEARING : WITH RESPECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO REQUEST TO REZONE A PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL N0 . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 FROM RESIDENCE DISTRICT R30 TO MULTIPLE RESIDENCE DISTRICT . FORMER BIGGS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL GROUNDS . ITD GROUP , DEVELOPER : STEWART KNOWLTON , REPRESENTATIVE . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Adjourned Public Hearing ( from March 20 , 1984 ) in the above -noted matter duly opened at 8 : 30 p . m . , and noted that the public hearing was published as commencing at 8 : 45 p . m . , however , rather than wait , discussion could commence and anyone who arrives later can be filled in as necessary . FOR THE RECORD , the following is that which appears in the Lake Shore West Life Use Retirement Community brochure [ a grey - covered booklet ] dated March 8 , 1984 , bearing the inscription " An ITD Group Development , Ithaca , New York - - Brochure of Information and Zoning Requests Regarding the Development Concept for the Restoration of and Additions to the Former Biggs Hospital Complex , Approximately 50 Acres : The following information and Concept Site Plan supersedes any previous proposals or brochures . " • " INTRODUCTION Planning Board 8 April 17 , 1984 • After having had the opportunity to evaluate our recent marketing studies and the interest generated by the project , we felt that in order to accommodate a larger majority of local interest and thus assuring a possibility of greater project success , a reevaluation / reworking of our initial development concept was in order . Our initial " decentralized " life use complex was patterned after our other life use project in New England . Here , our marketing indicated that the preferred concept was a decentralized or campus plan with a large structure housing life use units and supporting facilities for the entire complex , surrounded by residential scale life use townhouses for a more independent living group . This group only used the larger buildings ' supporting facilities infrequently . Initially the Lake Shore West planning , when time was of the essence , used this previous concept as a basis to establish intent in our proposal to Tompkins County to purchase the property . Given the luxury of time to establish a marketing study of our target area and to disseminate the vast amount of information , ideas , requests and suggestions from local interest groups and individuals , we now feel the development of a decentralized plan was not in the project ' s best interests . In the Ithaca / Tompkins County area the approach for most people interested in the life use concept is one of a centralized plan . Here all units are housed under one roof and communicate equally with all supporting facilities , i . e . , dining , men ' s / women ' s club , recreation area , shops , arts / crafts , library , etc . • There was also interest shown for the establishment of retirement housing independent of the life use concept . Independent interests have indicated that an area for seasonal or permanent retirement housing may attract alumni from Cornell University or Ithaca College back to the area . While any development of this sort would probably be an independent effort and the concept would probably differ from the life use concept , its close proximity to the Lake Shore West project and the hospital make it an ideal neighbor . Other independent interests have , in the past , and continue to be , interested in isolating an area for the establishment of doctors ' offices close by the hospital . With the development of Lake Shore West and its large elderly population , the establishment of independent doctors ' offices within walking distance would be greatly welcomed . The development of an on - site nursing facility would complete our life use concept and is consistent with our original thinking . As originally stated in our proposal brochure , independent health care developers will be solicited to develop this facility for use with our life use concept . APPROVAL Our immediate goal at this time is to seek approval for the life use unit concept , Phase 1 ( existing building wings A , B , C , E , F , G , and D ) and future phase additions ( I , J , H ) , as well as the concept for the nursing facility , Area No . 4 , which completes our life use concept . Planning Board 9 April 17 , 1984 Areas 1 , 2 , 3 and 5 have been isolated for future or independent development and are shown here only to establish future intent . The footprints in this independent development area are hypothetical and represent a suggested approach to layout and design . We do request that all the zoning changes and variances for the entire 50 acre complex , as underlined in the text below , including the Areas 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 and the ' Lands of Lake Shore West ' be approved at this time as well . ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN CONCEPT Our overall design concept is to develop a high quality and unique Life Use Retirement Community on the west shore of Cayuga Lake called Lake Shore West ( L . S . W . ) , one which maintains the characteristic integrity of existing building styles and site while integrating new design elements . As it occupies a monumental location high above the lake and valley , the Hospital / County Complex is a major pivotal and organizational element on the west shore and , as such , is an important visual force in the city . We respect this strong visual force . Our design concept for future expansion addresses the significance of scale , proportioning and aesthetic treatment inherent in maintaining the integrity of this complex and site . • SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT We have redeveloped our concept site plan to take into consideration Lake Shore West ' s interests for the successful development of the life use and nursing facility concept as well as local interests generated by local independent groups whose ideas on future programming are consistent with the intent of the Lake Shore West Retirement Complex , PHASE 1 - 150 LIFE USE UNITS ( EXISTING BUILDING WINGS A , B , C , E , F , G , D ) Phase 1 of our development plan is consistent with our original thinking in that it includes the restoration and reconstruction of the existing hospital structure into a maximum of 150 studio , one -bedroom , or two -bedroom life use units . Given the limitations of the existing structure the units average in square footage as follows : Studio - 350 to 45 SF ( 15 ± units ) ; one bedroom - 450 to 650 SF ( 100 ± units ) ; two bedroom - 650 to 850 SF ( 35 ± units ) . In an attempt to increase the square footage of each unit from our original estimate , smaller studio spaces were combined to create one bedroom units , thus decreasing the total number of units . To combat this decrease in unit count and to make the project financially viable , the extremely large and presently unused attic spaces above D and E wings have been seriously considered by our architects and engineers as a viable area for the construction of units . Planning Board 10 April 17 , 1984 Due to the fast rising roof slopes and extreme height of ridge beam ( some 20 ' plus ) the attic will lend itself very nicely to luxury one and two bedroom units . Existing dormer areas will be fitted with new windows and other areas will either have newly constructed smaller dormers with windows or ' vellux ' windows . Access to these areas presents no problem as they are immediately accessible now off the main elevator lobby at the entrance level . D wing has an existing glass corridor that enters directly into its attic area . E wing would require the construction of a similar corridor which poses no major construction concern . The extension of existing stairs at the ends of the corridors would complete the necessary egress requirements established by Code . Provided construction costs at bidding time allow for the development of these units , we believe they will be the most sought after units in the complex . We are including D wing in the complex in our unit count which now remains in the possession of the Hospital , but negotiations for its purchase are continuing . Support / commons areas are planned for the structure including a main dining room and auditorium/ multi - purpose room that look out over the lake . Also planned are a pool / terrace with shuffleboard adjacent to a physical therapy and health club . Also Phase 1 programming includes limited light commercial activities designed for in - house use : clinic , beauty shop , • coffee shop , gift shops , and automatic bank teller . Other support areas include hobby and craft rooms , library , game room , laundries , administrative areas and main lobby . FUTURE PHASES - 250 LIFE USE UNITS ( ADDITIONS H , I , J ) Future phases of our development plan include the construction of three additions to the original hospital to add a maximum of 250 studio , one - bedroom or two -bedroom life use units to the maximum 150 life use units in the first phase , this being consistent with the ' centralized ' complex concept . The addition of H wing will have approximately 100 units . The additions of wings I and J will add an additional 150 units plus enlarged dining / kitchen capacity . This adds up to a total of 400 life use retirement units in all phases complete within a centralized plan . The three additions are planned at four and five stories each and perhaps six levels depending on specific floor to floor height design and topography . These roof heights would not extend higher than the established ridge line off the entrance road and are consistent with the six levels , not including the tower at nine levels , currently found in the existing hospital . INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT ( AREAS 1 , 2 , 3 , 41 5 ) As mentioned above , different local independent interest groups have shown an interest in other development on the 50 Planning Board 11 April 17 , 1984 ' acres of the Lake Shore West complex . With the centralization of the life use units , a large amount of prime acreage has become available which could facilitate these other related program interests . Depending on the economics of each situation , these programs , although related to the life use concept , may possibly be developed independently of Lake Shore West . Due to the related nature of the programs , the possibility of sharing of services and health programs exists . We have isolated five areas on the site plan as designated for INDEPENDENT DEVELOPMENT . These areas include acreage for doctors ' offices and retirement apartments . An area isolated for independent development by Health Care Developers of a nursing facility to complete the life use concept is consistent with our original proposal and thinking . Nursing facilities are specialized development and require a CERTIFICATE OF NEED from the State . Development is best left to groups specializing in this type of development . The independent development of this nursing facility on the site or an agreement with an existing local facility is important to the success of the life use concept and will be pursued actively . ZONING CONCERNS The zoning district in and around the Lake Shore West Complex is currently designated R- 30 which does not allow for multiple family dwellings similar to the life use units and retirement apartments proposed for the site . In order to facilitate these programs a zoning change to a multiple residence district is requested for these areas marked on the attached Site Plan as ' The Lands of Lake Shore West ' , approximately 27 27 acres , and the area marked for Independent Development Area # 5 , approximately 10 . 15 acres . Under the multiple residence district designation 30 % building coverage of the lot area is allowed . Under our proposed centralized plan all phases , complete , of the life use concept , a maximum of 400 units , would cover only approximately 8 . 4 % of the total 27 . 27 acres allocated for this use . Within the area designated for independent development of retirement apartments , a hypothetical footprint showing six apartment buildings housing 25 units each , a total of 150 units , and a club house , would cover only approximately 9 . 2 % of the total 10 . 15 acre area allocated for their use . A limit of two stories from grade in height for buildings is allowed in the multiple residence district . Of course , the existing buildings in this complex are of a much greater height . The existing old hospital that we propose to add to has two full stories above grade from the entrance road plus an attic that is over one and one - half stories in height which , together , total some three and one - half stories above entrance grade . This does not include the tower which rises six stories above the entrance grade . Due to the sloping topography on the back of the complex , the highest ridge line is six stories above the rear grade not Planning Board . 12 April 17 , 1984 including the tower which is nine stories above . A total of six levels , juxtaposed due to topography , make up the main floors of the existing hospital . The three additions proposed are to be four and five stories in height and perhaps comprise six internal levels depending on floor to floor heights , design and topography . To facilitate the construction of these extensions to the original building , a variance in zoning is requested that might state instead of a limit of two stories above grade , ' that the new roof heights would not extend higher than the established ridge line profile of the existing main buildings at the entrance road grade , or extend higher than the ridge line of the existing wings to be attached to . ' We believe this concept to be consistent with the intent of zoning by protecting the integrity of height and scale of the original building while allowing for future expansion . In Area No . 5 designated for independent development of retirement apartments our hypothetical footpring indicates six apartment buildings at two and three stories each , two stories on the entrance grade and three stories on the back side to negotiate topography . This hypothetical concept was established to capture the lake views , reduce lot coverage and minimize construction costs . We believe this two and three story concept to be acceptable in the multiple residence district without a variance , however , for clarity , we would request a ruling on this . • In Area No . 4 the existing R- 30 zoning designation allows for development of ' Nursing and Convalesent Homes ' , therefore , no zoning change would be required to develop our proposed nursing facility . As required by zoning , we do , however , request a special approval from the Board of Appeals for the development of this program . Allowable heights for buildings were not covered specifically in the R- 30 section of the zoning ordinance . In our footprint the intention is to have a two - story structure on the entrance side and a three - story structure at the sloping rear elevation , these heights being lower than surrounding current R- 30 structures . If these heights are not consistent with current allowable heights in this district , a variance on allowable heights is requested in Area No 4 to facilitate the nursing facility concept , R- 30 allows for 10 % density in building lot coverage . Area No . 4 is approximately 8 . 48 acres and our concept proposal covers only 5 . 40 of the total site . In Areas 1 , 2 , and 3 the existing R- 30 zoning designation allows for resident doctor offices under accessory uses only . The intent of this allowance was to provide a working space for not more than three non -residing professionals in an existing private residence . The independent development of free standing doctors ' offices in close proximity to the Hospital and the planned life use units would be highly desirable and beneficial to the complex as a whole . To facilitate our concept proposal ,, we request a variance in this R- 30 zone , Areas 1 , 2 and 3 , to allow professional doctors ' offices to be developed under ' permitted usescategory of the zoning ordinance - rather than as an accessory use , and to be bound by the zoning criteria established under this 1perimitted use ' category , Planning Board 13 April 17 , 1984 • The intention is to develop two - story small office structures of approximately 5 , 000 square feet each , the two - story height being consistent with the residential scale established adjacent to these areas . Under the permitted uses category within this R- 30 district , side setbacks of 40 ' are required . Due to the heavily wooded vegetation in this area , the 40 ' setback toward the Indian Creek Road area will serve as an excellent natural buffer to activity occurring on the Lake Shore West complex site . R- 30 allows for 10 % density in building lot coverage and a minimum area of 30 , 000 square feet , . 68 acre for development . Area No . 1 is approximately 1 . 09 acres and our hypothetical building footprint covers 5 . 2 % of the total site . Area No . 2 is approximately 1 . 45 acres and our hypothetical building footprint covers 3 . 9 % of the total site . Area No . 3 is approximately 1 . 56 acres and our hypothetical building footprint covers 3 . 6 % of total site . Each area of development on the site plan has honored the individual side , front and back setbacks as well as the lot sizes and building coverage as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance under each respective zone . Parking requirements in the Independent Development Areas 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , and 5 require no variance in parking , and their identified spaces on the site plan are consistent with the requirement presented by their hypothetical footprint . PARKING CONCERNS Multiple Residence District zoning requirements in Phase 1 of the life use unit area currently require 1 . 3 parking spaces per unit or a total of 520 spaces when all phases are complete for a total of 400 life use units . 195 spaces for 150 units would be required in Phase 1 . It has been our experience in other projects and in our current analysis of the Ithaca marketing study that only from 65 % to 75 % of all prospective inhabitants will be owning an auto at Lake Shore West . With this statistic in mind and due to the scarcity of flat available land in close proximity to the hospital area and in an attempt to reduce the visual effects of vast amounts of paving , we request a variance in parking from 1 . 3 spaces per unit to 1 space per unit . In Phase 1 this would translate to approximately 150 spaces which could be handled easily with the existing first tier of parking near the entrance which has approximately 120 spaces . An additional 30 spaces would be added in the rear of the complex . In the future with all phases complete an additional 250 spaces would be required . Under a negotiated agreement with the County the existing second tier parking which is currently used as a right - of -way will become available for private parking by Lake Shore West inhabitants . There are currently negotiations with the Town of Ithaca , Tompkins County , the Hospital , and the Lake Shore West Group pertaining to the development of a new entrance road to the complex . This would generate additional parking for the Hospital and would open up the second tier parking area for Lake Shore West use . Additional spaces for the Hospital and Lake Shore West will be added to the rear of the complex in close Planning Board 14 April 17 , 1984 proximity to major elevator banks for circulation throughout the structure . IN -HOUSE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES Proposed in the first phase of the life use units development is a centralized light commercial activity area for strictly in - house use . These activities include a clinic , a beauty shop , coffee and gift shop , the possibility of a small cafe / lounge area , and an automatic banking facility . These activities are offered only as a convenience for our elderly inhabitants . In order to facilitate our plans , we request a variance for the acceptance of limited commercial activity in the development of our life use retirement units . RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL The relationship to the Community Hospital of any use of the Biggs property is an important consideration given the buildings are actually connected . We believe our planned use of the facility and property would form an ideal relationship with the Hospital . It is well known that older people utilize hospital services much more frequently than other age groups , an advantage rather than a disadvantage to the Hospital ' s interests and our own . • Our full campus development plan will seem to make the Hospital an integral part of the community . The independently developed retirement apartments along the lake leading toward the main full service building , to the future nursing facility , to the Community Hospital will all help to create this total community effect . The possibility of sharing services or the possibility of management with the Hospital are exciting . Clinic services , health counseling , maintenance , accounting , transportation , food service , housekeeping , laundry services and actual administration are just a few of the possibilities . Sharing some of these services could make our operation , and the Hospital ' s , more cost effective . Potentially the concepts should make ideal neighbors . PLANNED PROGRAM The service program planned for the Lake Shore West life use units will be something special . Residents will enjoy two fine meals per day featuring a choice of entrees and waitress service , weekly housekeeping and linen service , twenty - four hour security via a call button in each apartment connected to a security station , maintenance of the building and grounds , a program of planned social activities , services of a Health Counselor , limousine transportation and qualified on - site management . An important part of our planned service program will be arranging nursing care for residents . A transfer agreement has been informally discussed with Lakeside Nursing Home located 0 nearby to the Hospital property . Lakeside administration is favorable to this arrangement which would service our residents Planning Board 15 April 17 , 1984 with long and short term nursing care until a Nursing Center is developed on the Biggs property . Another important part of our program will be our potential relationship with the Community Hospital . Residents of Lake Shore West will feel secure in knowing that highly qualified medical help is located only steps away in the adjoining Community Hospital . Our program will involve the resident paying an initial Life Use Fee which can be refunded to the resident , or his estate , via a generous refund schedule . Additionally , the resident would pay a monthly Maintenance Fee to cover operating costs . We currently have a similar Life Use Retirment Community under development in Concord , New Hampshire . The Concord Community and the Community planned for Ithaca will be designed similar to Thirty Thirty Park in Bridgeport , Connecticut . Thirty Thirty is known as the finest Life Care Facility in the Northeastern United States . COMMUNITY BENEFIT In addition to the construction and development jobs which Lake Shore West life use units and nursing facility project will create , an estimated fifty- five permanent full and part time jobs will be created to serve the first phase of our operation . Many of the jobs will go to younger citizens without advanced educations and to university students , groups that are typically the hardest for a community to employ . At full development , more than one hundred seventy - five jobs will have been created . The quality development and landscaping planned should serve to enhance the neighboring properties . The upper middle class residents who will move to the life use facility from outside Ithaca will benefit local merchants , banks and professionals as well as create increased utilization of the Community Hospital ' s services . Much of the estimated $ 1 , 700 , 000 operating budget initially , and the estimated $ 51, 500 , 000 annual operating budget at full development , will be spent locally . The substantial property and school taxes which will be paid by the total complex , increasing as the development progresses , will be a special enhancement to the Town , City and County , particularly considering these residents will not be using schools and will use City streets much less frequently than other area residents . The estimated development cost of the Phase I development is about $ 7 , 000 , 000 and total development of the life use and nursing facility project will involve more than $ 20 , 000 , 000 . AREA NEED Housing for the elderly is in critical short supply nationally and demographic statistics indicate a tremendous growth in our elderly population continuing well into the next century . Although elderly housing programs and good quality retirement communities exist in Tompkins County and in other parts of the State , a Life Use Retirement Community of the kind we propose to develop does not exist . It has been proven that in every area of the Country where this type of program is developed , a certain Planning Board 16 April 17 , 1984 group of older persons respond favorably . The client type that generally responds is a retired professional , or spouse , upper middle class socio -economically , well educated , and are not being served , or are ineligible to be served , by the typical government assisted housing programs . There are a large number of these people in Tompkins and the surrounding counties , many of whom are associated with , or were formerly associated with , Cornell University that should appreciate the services and program planned for Lake Shore West . The projected 70 % increase in the older population of Tompkins County by the turn of the century is further evidence of the need for more service - oriented retirement housing in the County . " FOR THE RECORD , the remainder of the Brochure consists of three pages of drawings / maps , a signature page bearing the signature of Kevin E . Lewis , and 15 pages pertaining to Environmental Assessment , Mr . Stewart D . Knowlton , appeared before the Board and requested permission of the Vice Chair to append a very large drawing , with a mylar overlay , of the proposed development to the bulletin board . Permission being granted , Mr . Knowlton stated that at the last meeting with the Planning Board the matters to be taken care of were , a change in zone designation and three variances , one for parking , one for height , one for commercial activity in a residential zone . Mr . Knowlton stated that , • tonight , the only thing they are doing is adding to that a permitted use in an area that Mr . Lewis , the architect , will talk about later . Mr . Knowlton stated that the proposal remains one of the same posture , however , it is , in certain measure , different from the original presentation which was discussed informally with the Board in January . Mr . Knowlton introduced his colleagues to the members of the Planning Board as follows : Ms . Selene Alexander , Marketing Specialist with the ITD Group ; Mr . S . Lowell Barnes , Gerontologist , with whom Mr . Knowlton has been associated for many years in conjunction with the Methodist Homes and who is one of the leading gerontologists in the country ; Mr . Kevin E . Lewis , Architect , of the firm of Fleck & Lewis , Hanover , New Hampshire , and whom the Board has met ; and Mr . Scott Hughes , Architect , of the Ithaca firm of Fred H . Thomas Associates . Mr . Knowlton stated that , in the marketing studies and analyses which they have done and in concert with all government agencies involved , such as the Planning Board , the Town Engineer , Mr . Fabbroni , the Town Planner , Mr . Lovi , the Town Board , the Hospital , the State of New York , the N . Y . S . Department of Transportation , in order to melt down and solidify to an acceptable position from whence the ITD Group can move forward , the concept and geographical positioning have changed quite a bit , but the project in its entirety is not a bit different today from when it was first presented . Mr . Knowlton commented that , however , now there is a reasonably high degree of urgency with Planning Board 17 April 17 , 1984 ' respect to the approvals falling into place , such that there are certain time constraints and givens - - certain things by certain times - - all predicated on the rezoning , which is the integral part , prior to taking actual title to the property and , thus , reconstruction of what is there . Mr . Knowlton stated that what he had been most concerned with , with everyone , is the concept of what they are going to offer the public and not deviating too far from what has been planned . Mr . Knowlton stated that the marketing analysis shows that the plan offered is still the most viable way to go . Indicating on the large drawing , Mr . Knowlton noted that the ITD Group has gotten into centralization of housing as opposed to decentralization as in earlier plans . Mr . Knowlton stated that that was not their choice only but also all the agencies . Mr . Knowlton commented that no one came forth with a " super negative " , but with more of " could you do this because of . . . " Mr . Knowlton stated that the end - result of the past few months of discussions and effort has certainly been so good because of their relationship with the Hospital and the project ' s compatability with the Hosptial . Mr . Knowlton commented that this project , being at the site at which it is , is probably the most unique situation that anyone could get into , adding that some people might find that such a situation could be almost impossible but , to the contrary , the project has proved to be and will be most unique and , perhaps , one of the finest projects in the Northeast . Mr . Knowlton noted that he has had some considerable number of years of involvement in this field , 14 in all , and he felt that this project will surpass any he has seen . Mr . Knowlton stated that , at this point , the project , the way everyone is moving , seems to be of and is taking on , a form that is pointing to a really fine conclusion . Mr . Knowlton now asked Mr . S . Lowell Barnes to speak further . Mr . Barnes greeted the Board and stated that it is his responsibility , with respect to this project , to plan the program , to manage , and to work with the Architect in designing the units , etc . Mr . Barnes stated that he would certainly agree with Mr . Knowlton in terms of the uniqueness of this project , commenting that , typically , a life - care facility such as this is not done in an area with a population of less than 300 , 000 . Mr . Barnes stated that the developers have chosen Ithaca as a site for such a life - care facility because they see Ithaca itself as unique and the kind of place that can draw from outside the area , and because of both the actual and the projected growth in elderly population . Mr . Barnes noted that this type of facility will also draw other people into complementary facilities which are elsewhere now , such as nursing home facilities . Mr . Barnes commented that , at first , there were some concerns about the Hospital being right there as a bit of a reminder of one ' s illnesses , however , as work continued , the project sees as a real feature the advantage of sharing services , security , and so on , and the ideal nature of the Hospital being there . Mr . Barnes stated that they have worked along with the Hospital and it looks like sharing services will be good for both . Mr . Barnes stated that they have had a lot of input from senior citizens ; they have Planning Board 18 April 17 , 1984 • had time to review their marketing study . Mr . Barnes commented briefly on the most popular thing in the marketing study , the item most mentioned - - the meal program . Mr . Barnes stated that the biggest problem was one meal a day built in , so , the proposal is now one of an option for one meal a day , or two , or three , or none , commenting however , that they are not running a restaurant . Mr . Barnes noted that , from a gerontology standpoint , getting closer is better in view of the area and the weather . Mr . Barnes noted that there had been some concern about parking and stated that the one space per unit proposed is really more than enough in terms of other communities . Mr . Barnes pointed out that 50 % of the residents of such other communities have a car and less than that use it . Mr . Barnes noted that in the independent cottages one car per use is envisioned . Mr . Barnes described the set up at similar communities in Bridgeport - - Thirty Thirty Park - - and Binghamton . Mr . Barnes stated that they are primed and ready to go and all that is needed is Board approval . Vice Chairman Grigorov commented that when Mr . Barnes was speaking about parking he was talking about the first phase . Mr . Barnes stated that he was , adding that only about 50 % of the residents will have automobiles , and commenting that he is the one involved in the management of this and he does not want to see a situation of insufficient parking facilities . Vice Chairman Grigorov inquired about staff parking . Mr . Barnes pointed out that staffing is on a 24 - hour - a - day basis and the • parking request for one per unit takes into account that they are not all there at one time . Vice Chairman Grigorov wished to have it clarified that as more units are added there will be more parking . Mr . Barnes agreed , commenting that it was a matter of supply and demand . Mr . Kevin E . Lewis , the Architect , noted here that with Phase 1 there are 1 . 3 parking spaces per unit , adding that there are 243 parking spaces existing now . Mr . Barnes pointed out that at Thirty Thirty Park there are . 7 spaces per unit , commenting that that facility has been there for 15 years . Mr . Barnes noted also that this is consistent with the parking facilities at the Methodist Home in Horseheads . Mr . Stanton wondered if there were to be any covered parking at all . Mr . Lewis noted that that was indicated in the original brochure , however , the covered parking is not a part of the proposal for the moment for their purposes . Mr . Barnes stated , however , if the marketing shows such is needed , they will have it , that is for sure . The Board members indicated their interest in knowing about the response to the survey . Mr . Barnes briefly described same , noting that some 8 , 000 questionnaires were sent out and 800 replies received - 100 . Mr . Barnes mentioned the kinds of questions , such as , ( 1 ) would they consider relocating ; ( 2 ) would they not consider the location ; ( 3 ) would they consider one year away from the present . Mr . Barnes said they had 300 replies saying no ; 250 replies had comments ; 50 replies said yes ; 50 said yes to the concept but indicated that they really did not • understand the proposal ; another 250 said not interested in that time period but did put down their name and address . Mr . Barnes Planning Board 19 April 17 , 1984 • stated that it was a much more positive reponse than what was expected . At this juncture , Mr . Lewis , utilizing the large drawing and the mylar overlay , described in detail the changes in the plans . He noted , among many things , that the building , dubbed the " 7 " building by Mr . Knowlton , is still there . Mr . Lewis indicated the townhouse units , noting that they are closer . Mr . Lewis described a new feature - - the " I " and " J " building , and pointed out a nature trail , a putting green , and another walkway going down to the lower portion with an observation rest area . . Mr . Lewis stated that the developer is committed to 50 acres of land , asking rhetorically , what are they going to do with 50 acres and then , describing an area showing the footprint of a nursing home facility and an area for those interested in a retirement home . Mr . Lewis spoke of the necessary rezoning aspects of the proposal and used the overlay to show the land originally contracted for . Mr . Lewis described what has happened since that time , and what the County has done with respect to roads and which required a change in the area shown on the drawing as " Parcel 4 " . Mr . Lewis described a switch in " Parcel 4 " for " Parcel 5A " and spoke of an area with three footprints for professional offices . Mr . Lewis described the expansion down in the lower area , and , discussed the matter of a road which would be the entry into the life use area . ' Mr . Stanton noted that Area No . 5 [ Retirement Apts . ( 10 . 15 acres , 150 units ) ] is something that ITD would not develop and would sell to someone else . Mr . Lewis responded that the case would not necessarily be either way . Mr . Barnes stated that there is some interest , with some merits , from Cornell people , such as alumni , as a retirement community which would aid Cornell . Mr . Lewis indicated the area , shown as No . 5 , and spoke of that area [ in yellow ] being rezoned to multiple residence from R30 . Mr . Lewis stated that everything else remains the same , pointing out that nursing homes , doctors ' offices or medical clinics , are permitted upon special approval of the Zoning Board of Appeals . Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board , when it was looking at the Long Environmental Assessment Form and when it made its determination , was looking at those particular areas involving the centralized facility , and the compatible nursing home . Mr . Lovi stated that the sense of the Town Board when reviewing the EAF was that that SEQR review should be independent and based on a future best - guess approach . Mr . Lovi stated that the development of " Area No . 5 " , the 150 retirement apartments , and the professional offices , " Areas No . 1 , 2 , and 3 " , are hypothetical and the SEQR review should be done by whomever at that time . Vice Chairman Grigorov asked if there were anyone present from the public who wished to speak at this point to the matter of the Lake Shore West proposal . No one spoke . Planning Board 20 April 17 , 1984 ' Vice Chairman Grigorov wished it to be clarified as to what the Board is recommending on , commenting that it is the nursing home and Phase 1 . Mr . Lovi noted that Phase 1 of the proposal is the 150 units in the existing building . Mr . Lovi stated that he and Mr . Fabbroni have worked very closely on this and have had some thoughts . Mr . Lovi read aloud the following draft resolution for the Planning Board ' s consideration : " RESOLUTION FOR PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION : Lake Shore West Rezoning RESOLVED , that concerning the proposal of the ITD Group to rezone a portion of lands formerly operated as the Biggs Memorial Hospital complex , a portion of tax parcel number 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 , from Residence District R30 to Multiple Residence District , the Planning Board make and hereby does make the following determina - tions , findings , and recommendations to the Town Board : 1 . There is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location in order to adaptively reuse the former Biggs Memorial Hospital complex as a condominium- like dwelling and health care facility . Given the high costs of remodeling the existing structures for other than residential uses , and given the property ' s location with respect to the County Hospital , the proposed development of a ' health campus ' could provide for regional as well as local needs . • 2 . The existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be harmed as a result of this proposal . The proposed use of the site is for health services and residential dwelling units , both of which are in keeping with the principal non - agricultural land uses in the immediate and general vicinity . The proposed access road should actually improve traffic circulation around the site and ultimately provide a second access for the Professional Building on Trumansburg Road , 3 . The proposed change would be in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . The comprehensive provision of health services for Tompkins County and the Town would be well - served by the increased scale of specialized services which could be provided as a result of this development . Surgical procedures , preventive medicine , and advanced therapies which might otherwise be found only in major cities such as Rochester and Buffalo might be provided locally for the client base of the Lake Shore West project . The availability of such services would benefit all residents of the Town and the County . THEREFORE , IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend the following resolution for • the consideration of the Town Board : Planning Board 21 April 17 , 1984 • The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca resolves to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca to permit the development of the ' Lake Shore West ' project , tax parcel number 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 , subject to the following terms and conditions . 1 . The underlying zoning designation of the land shall be changed from Residence District R30 to Multiple Residence District and all yard , lot , and area requirements , except as otherwise modified by this resolution , shall pertain . 2 . The parking requirements for Phase I will be as required by the current Zoning Ordinance due to the overlapping demands of residents , staff , and construction workers . After the actual use of staff and resident parking is established , this demand ratio will be applied to Phases II and III and retroactively to Phase I . To guide the overall planning of parking lots , one parking space per dwelling unit should be provided for on a final site plan to be approved by the Planning Board , 3 . The developer shall contribute $ 25 , 000 toward the construction of the new entrance road to the development . A cash fund will be established with a local bank for this purpose . The Town shall have the authority to draw on this fund for appropriate road construction under terms to be outlined in an agreement controlling this fund . • 4 . A complete description as to the number , type , and extent of open space amenities , recreational facilities , and new landscaping to be provided for the nursing home and life use unit residents , will be provided in a final site plan . Reasonable planning ratios providing size and variety of active and passive opportunities recognizing the overall number of residents and lack of any such supportive facilities on West Hill should be incorporated . " Mr . Lovi commented that the draft resolution is similar to what the Board did at the last meeting with respect to the Lucente property - - a general recommendation to the Town Board on this general site plan , in order for the Town Board to proceed . Mr . Lovi noted that the matter will come back to the Planning Board for final site plan review . Mr . Lovi now read aloud the Resolution of the Town Board , adopted April 9 , 1984 , as moved by Councilman McPeak , seconded by Councilman Bartholf , and carried unanimously , with respect to its SEQR review and determination , as follows : " RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board , acting as lead agency in the review of the proposed Lake Shore West development , approve and hereby does approve the Environmental Assessment Form as submitted March 8 , 1984 , and Planning Board 22 April 17 , 1984 • FURTHER RESOLVED , that pursuant to Local Law # 3 - 1980 , this action is classified as Type I , and FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Town of Ithaca Town Board , has determined from the Environmental Assessment Form and all pertinent information that the construction of the 400 centralized Life Use Units will not significantly affect the environment provided that : 1 , the developer contribute to the construction of the new entrance road on terms to be established by the Planning Board , and 2 , the developer will determine the number and location of the parking spaces required for the 400 life use units and employees to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals , and 39 the developer establish to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer that adequate capacity exists in the water and sewer on - site utility networks as well as the Town and City system ; it is FURTHER RESOLVED , that , given the information provided in the Environmental Assessment Form , the construction of the nursing complex may significantly impact the environment and , therefore , • further information is requested . The questions to be specifically addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement are : 1 . What the traffic impacts from the nursing facility would be on circulation through the project site and the adjoining neighborhood ; 2 . How storm drainage and surface runoff from the proposed nursing facility will be accommodated within existing stream channels ; 3 . How much clearing of the existing landscape would be necessary in order to construct the nursing facility , as planned ; 4 . What blasting , if any , would be required in order to develop the nursing facility and adequate associated parking ; 5 . Has there been any dumping of hazardous wastes or materials on the site indicated for independent development as a nursing facility ; 6 . How many permanent employees will be required by the nursing complex ; • 7 . Will the water and sewer system have sufficient capacity to handle the additional capacity required by the nursing complex ; n e Planning Board 23 April 17 , 1984 • 8 . What open space amenities are to be provided for the nursing home residents , " Mr . Lovi noted that the life use units were passed upon , however , the nursing home had eight questions to be answered by an EIS ; the independent living area was not addressed nor was the doctors ' offices area . Mr . Knowlton commented on the possibilities in New York State of there being 1 , 000 beds available far down the road , perhaps , ten years away . Mr . Knowlton stated that the proposed resolution certainly covers where they want to be at this point . Mr . Lewis commented that the nursing home is still a hypothetical footprint . Mr . Barnes commented on the relocation of existing nursing home facilities into new facilities such as was done in their project in Concord , New Hampshire . Mr . Klein wanted it clarified as to what area the rezoning request being sought covers , mentioning that they seem to be seeking multiple residence designation on Phase 1 . Mr . Lewis indicated that that was not quite correct in that the rezoning request is for all 400 proposed units on several so - called parcels . Mr . Lewis noted , also , that they are seeking variances for height , commenting that he had said " no higher than the existing roof ridge line " , and for commercial activities , and for parking . • Mr . Lovi stated that the Town Board in its EAF review , refers to " the satisfaction of the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals " with respect to parking , however , in the interest of a unified approval , the draft resolution refers to parking within the rezoning itself such that , when the Town Board makes its rezoning determination , it removes the need to vary . Mr . Lovi noted that this is the approach used in the Wiggins and Lucente proposals . Mr . Stanton wondered what the Town Attorney had to say on this . Mr . Lovi responded that , based on what has been done with respect to the Wiggins ' rezoning , he would expect concurrence . Mr . Stanton stated that he thought there was a difference here , adding that this is a much larger project . Mr . Stanton suggested that before this proceeds any farther , an opinion from the Town Attorney should be sought , adding that he was concerned whether this is allowable . Mr . Stanton stated that he would also comment on the need to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals for the nursing home and the medical clinics . The Secretary offered that nursing homes and medical clinics are permitted uses in R30 but only upon the special approval of the Board of Appeals . Mr . Stanton stated that he was also concerned about the $ 251000 . 00 agreement with respect to the road construction , adding that this proposal is very different and in terms of equity seems unreasonable , and pointing out that the Professional Building addition was much smaller than this project and they made a commitment for $ 25 , 000 . 00 also . Mr . Lovi agreed that there seems to be an equity difference one way for sure , but in terms of what the road would cost to build , the additional r t Planning Board 24 April 17 , 1984 • $ 25 , 000 . 00 is a ball park figure . Mr . Lewis noted that it is to be for a road for their frontage - - a little over 500 feet . Mr . Stanton pointed out that this is a public presentation here so it is clear that this is not a special deal . Mr . Lewis commented that he thought it more than what he thought it should be . Mr . Lovi stated that Mr . Fabbroni is the expert in roads and , based on cost , that is what he thought was appropriate . Mr . Mazza stated that he was confused about the roads and spoke of access to Indian Creek Road and use of the existing road shown on the drawing . Mr . Knowlton commented that it is like the East Ithaca By - Pass which has been shown on a map for years running right past the East Hill Plaza , Mr . Knowlton indicated that there is interest in committing funds to the road construction . Mrs . Langhans wanted to make sure that the developer is not talking about the lower parcel - - the retirement apartments area . Mr . Lewis responded , no , adding , that they would certainly like to be . Mr . Mazza thought the resolution should be more specific as to area being recommended for rezoning , not just using the word " portion " . Discussion followed with respect to specificity and with respect to which matters should be before which Board , with the following result . MOTION by Mr . Bernard Stanton , seconded by Mr . Edward Mazzao RESOLVED , that , concerning the proposal of the ITD Group to rezone a portion of lands formerly operated as the Biggs Memorial Hospital complex , a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 , from Residence District R30 to Multiple Residence District , the Planning Board make and hereby does make the following determinations , findings , and recommendations to the Town Board and to the Zoning Board of Appeals : 1 . That there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location in order to adaptively reuse the former Biggs Memorial Hospital complex as a condominium - like dwelling and health care facility . Given the high costs of remodeling the existing structures for other than residential uses , and given the property ' s location with respect to the County Hospital , the proposed development of a " health campus " could provide for regional as well as local needs . 2 . That the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood will not be harmed as a result of this proposal . The proposed use of the site is for health services and residential dwelling units , both of which are in keeping with the principal non - agricultural land uses in the immediate and general vicinity . The proposed access road should actually improve traffic circulation around the site and ultimately provide a second access for the Professional Building on Trumansburg Road . 3 . That the proposed change would be in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the Town . The �. Planning Board 25 April 17 , 1984 • comprehensive provision of health services for Tompkins County and the Town would be well - served by the increased scale of specialized services which could be provided as a result of this development . Surgical procedures , preventive medicine , and advanced therapies which might otherwise be found only in major cities , such as Rochester and Buffalo , might be provided locally for the client base of the Lake Shore West project . The availability of such services would benefit all residents of the Town and the County . IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend the following resolution for the consideration of the Town Board : " The Town Board of the Town of Ithaca resolves to amend the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ithaca to permit the development of The Lands of Lake Shore West ( a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 ) , being that portion of said Lands of Lake Shore West which contains approximately 27 . 27 acres and which includes all 400 life - use units , more particularly shown on Map , as adapted from Base Map prepared by Tompkins County Department of Planning , entitled " Lake Shore West Centralized Complex " , dated February 25 , 1984 , revised March 1 , 1984 and March 8 , 1984 , prepared by Fleck & Lewis Architects , Hanover , N . H . Fred Thomas Associates , PC Ithaca , N . Y . , and specifically referring to parcel numbers shown thereon as " 7A , 7B , 8A " , and portions of " 9 " and 111011 , subject to the following terms and conditions : 1 . That the underlying zoning designation of the land shall be changed from Residence District R30 to Multiple Residence District and all yard , lot , and area requirements , except as otherwise modified by this resolution , shall pertain . 2 . That the parking requirements for Phase I will be as required by the current Zoning Ordinance due to the overlapping demands of residents , staff , and construction workers . After the actual use of staff and resident parking is established , this demand ratio will be applied to Phases II and III and retroactively to Phase I . To guide the overall planning of parking lots , one parking space per dwelling unit should be provided for on a final site plan to be approved by the Planning Board , 3 . That the developer shall contribute $ 25 , 000 toward the construction of the new entrance road to the development . A cash fund will be established with a local bank for this purpose . The Town shall have the authority to draw on this fund for appropriate road construction under terms to be outlined in an agreement controlling this fund . 4 . That a complete description as to the number , type , and extent of open space amenities , recreational facilities , and new landscaping to be provided for the nursing home and life use unit residents , shall be provided in a final site plan . .� Planning Board 26 April 17 , 1984 • Reasonable planning ratios providing size and variety of active and passive opportunities recognizing the overall number of residents and lack of any such supportive facilities on West Hill should be incorporated . 5 . That limited accessory commercial uses shall be permitted in the building containing the 400 life - use units , the building plans for all such units and uses to be more completely reviewed in the Planning Board ' s final site plan review . IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED , that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does recommend to the Zoning Board of Appeals . A . That Special Approval , pursuant to the requirements of Article V , Section 18 , paragraph 11 , Residence Districts R30 , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance , and subject to final site plan approval of the Planning Board , be granted to permit the construction of a nursing home facility on The Lands of Lake Shore West which are comprised of approximately 50 acres ( a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No . 6 - 24 - 3 - 2 . 2 ) , more particularly shown on Map , as adapted from Base Map prepared by Tompkins County Department of Planning , entitled " Lake Shore West Centralized Complex " , dated February 25 , 1984 , revised March 1 , 1984 and March 8 , 1984 , prepared by Fleck & Lewis Architects , Hanover , N . H . Fred Thomas Associates , PC Ithaca , N . Y . , specifically on an 0 area designated as 114 " thereon , shown to contain approximately 8 . 48 acres , with such facility having no more than 120 beds , the footprint thereof shown on said area '1411 1 on " Parcel 5B " , on said Map to be approximately 20 , 000 square feet in size . B . That the parking requirements set forth in Article VI , Section 29 , Multiple Residence Districts , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be varied , with respect to the Multiple Residence District portion of The Lands of Lake Shore West ( approximately 27 . 27 acres ) , from 1 . 3 parking spaces per dwelling unit to one parking space per dwelling unit . C . That the height requirements set forth in Article VI , Section 28 , paragraph 5 , Multiple Residence Districts , of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance be varied , with respect to the Multiple Residence District portion of The Lands of Lake Shore West ( approximately 27 . 27 acres ) , to permit the construction of the 400 life - use units in a structure , the new roof heights of which may not extend higher than the established ridge line profile of the existing main buildings at the entrance road grade , or extend higher than the horizontal ridge line of the existing wings to be attached to , exclusive of the tower . By way of discussion , the Board inquired as to the number of Notices sent to neighbors , and parties with interest , by the Planning Board 27 April 17 , 1984 Secretary , Mrs . Fuller stated that 45 Notices were mailed . The Board members indicated that they thought it interesting that only two neighbors attended - - Mr . Bruce M . Babcock and Mr . William D . Corbin [ Tompkins Community Hospital ] . Mrs . Langhans stated that it sounded like a vote of confidence from the neighbors . There being no further discussion , the Vice Chairman called for a vote . Aye - Grigorov , Stanton , Mazza , Langhans , Klein . Nay - None . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously . Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the Public Hearing in the matter of the Lake Shore West proposed development duly closed at 9 : 59 p . m . ADJOURNMENT Upon Motion , Vice Chairman Grigorov declared the April 17 , 1984 meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10 : 00 p . m . Respectfully submitted , P y ed , Nancy M . Fuller , Secretary , Town of Ithaca Planning Board .