Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1998-01-20• U • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 20, 1998 • The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, January 20, 1998, in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairperson Fred Wilcox, Eva Hoffmann, James Ainslie, Robert Kenerson, Gregory Bell, Jonathan Kanter (Director of Planning), John Barney (Attorney for the Town), Daniel Walker (Director of Engineering). ALSO PRESENT: David Lorenzini. Amy Nettleton, Liz Vastbinder, Peter Velonuizen, Greg Curso, John Heintz, Andrea Coby - Riddle, Peter Demjanec, Dan Clement, John Roeby, Chris Gulick, Donald Stephenson, Jonathan Sinker, Becky Bilderback. Lisa Fernandez, Fay Gougakig, John Sullivan, Yuette Inboer, Katherine Praisner, Richard DePaolo, Matt Peterson, David Harding, Nancy Doney, Lanny Joyce. Chairperson Fred Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:35 p.m., and accepted for the record, the Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Meeting Notice in Town Hall, and the Ithaca Journal on January 14, together with the Secretary's Affidavit of Service by Mail of said Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate. (Affidavit of Posting and Publication is hereto attached as Exhibit #1.) Chairperson Wilcox read the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by the New York State Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control. AGENDA ITEM: PERSONS TO BE HEARD: There were no persons present to be heard. Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting. AGENDA ITEM: CONSIDERATION OF A SKETCH PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL ANNEX, TO CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 2,000 +/- SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL CLASSROOM SPACE, LOCATED AT 117 EAST KING ROAD ON TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 43 -2 -7 RESIDENCE DISTRICT R -15 MONTESSORI SCHOOL OWNER/APPLICANT; PETER DEMJANEC AGENT: Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the above noted matter at 7:37 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. Peter Demjanec, Architect, stated that he is representing the Montessori School. The Planning Board received six drawings from his office, and thev break down into two categories. Drawings A4, A5, and A6 deals with the specific application for an addition to the Annex. Drawings Al A2, and A3 deal with the Comprehensive Plan of the Montessori School. Mr. Kanter felt it would be useful to bring to the Board some sense of the larger scheme that the Montessori School has embarked on. Mr. Demjanec stated that drawing Al shows the current and the projected property of the Montessori School. There are negotiations happening for the transfer of the Monkemeyer parcel to the immediate east of the school, and if that happens the school will have ample land for the athletic fields that are planned. There are five elements on drawing Al that the school is currently trying to put into place, and they are listed one through five in priority sequence. This is the sequence that the school would like to move forward as they go PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 2 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 through their development plans. The first priority for the school is to reduce the speed in the school zone, and the Town Board was presented with that information from New York State. The Planning Board has a copy of the letter from New York State outlining the four conditions under which they would contemplate the reduced school speed zone, and as of January 12th, Mr. Hungerford communicated to New York State that the four conditions were met. Mr. Hungerford anticipates that the reduced school speed zone will be in place in approximately a month. Mr. Demjanec stated that the second objective the Montessori School would like to meet is item number 2, which is a single classroom addition to the Annex itself. After that the school would like to focus their resources on putting into place the athletic fields on the large Monkemeyer parcel that would be transferred to the school. After that the school would like to add three small lesson rooms to the Annex. The final goal and objective is to add the class room addition to the main building. Once all of these things are achieved, the school will have in place, on the north side of the road the main building which will house the elementary school program and their middle school program adjacent to the athletic fields. The athletic fields will be a self contained program on that side of the street. On the south side of King Road, the school will have their pre school program housed in the Annex with the additions. The ultimate goal and objective is to get a free standing pre school program on the south side of the street, and a free standing elementary/middle school program on the north side of the street. Mr. Demjanec stated that there are verbal descriptions on the page (drawing A2) that follows, and a copy of the letter from New York State to Mr. Hungerford along with the enrollments that are projected (drawing A3). The projected enrollments are projected six years into the future that shows when each of these proposed additions would be done at the Montessori School. • Mr. Demjanec stated that drawings Ail. AS, and A6 show the site plan, the proposed floor plan, and the proposed elevations for the Annex addition itself. Andrea Coby - Riddle, Administrator for the Montessori School, stated that the Montessori School did not anticipate when they announced to the Ithaca community at large that they were going to expand the middle school that the elementary enrollment would increase. What has happened is that the two junior level classes are at an all time high and the upper level classes are also at an all time high as far as enrollment is concerned. The school needs more space before they actually felt they needed more space. Board Member Eva Hoffmann stated that she is puzzled about how they are proposing to do the addition to the Annex. Ms. Hoffmann asked if those additions would be done in two steps. Mr. Demjanec responded, yes. The goal and objective is to grow the Annex slowly over a period of time as two things happen. One is as the middle school program develops and matures, and the other is as the school itself is able to get the resources to allow each increment of construction. It is not possible for the school to put into place everything that they would like to ultimately have in one approach. They need to approach it incrementally. As it stands right now. the two increments that are on the table for the Annex are the single large classroom addition followed by three individual lesson rooms. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it would be more expensive in the long run to do it that way. Mr. Demjanec stated that it would be more expensive to do it this way. That is one of the questions • that the Montessori School Board asked him to evaluate for them. He submitted to that Board the construction cost penalty by doing it in phased construction stages. Mr. Demjanec stated that the difficulty that the Montessori School wrestles with is that as most not - for - profits they do not have a large pool of resources to use PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 3 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 at any one period of time. The phases of the construction that the school has been able to accomplish in the ispast have been done by utilizing people in the school who have the necessary skills. The recently completed Annex was accomplished by a combination of a gift and construction by a member of the Montessori School. The school would like to build everything at one time. The reality is that the school would only be able to build one piece at a time as increases in enrollment justify- that increment of increase and can generate those resources. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the Planning Board needs to see the drawings showing the different stages. Mr. Demjanec stated that is on drawing Al. Board Member Hoffmann stated that drawing Al shows the five different development plans, but it is not clear to her that number 2 and number 4 will happen at two different times. Mr. Demjanec stated that the right hand portion of drawing A5 shows the existing building starting. The left hand portion of drawing A5 is the proposed addition to the Annex, which contains a classroom and three lesson rooms. The class room would be the first increment of construction that is marked on drawing Al as item number 2. The lesson rooms are immediately to the left of that classroom, and they are item number 4 on drawing A I. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she understands that, but looking at the sketch plan it does not look like something that would be built in steps. An exterior wall needs to be shown where the first part ends • and where the other addition would be added later on. Chairperson Wilcox stated that his feeling is that Mr. Demjanec representing Montessori School, has come to the Planning Board, and asked if this is a plan that this Board could tell Montessori School that there are no major problems with it. Then Mr. Demjanec could make the appropriate detailed drawings that the Board would need at that time to make any site plan decisions. Board Member Hoffmann stated that was fine. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he is more concerned about the street crossing and more children crossing the road. Mr. Demjanec stated that the Annex is built at this time and the crossing is marked appropriately on the street. The school's first goal is to get into place the reduced school speed zone, which everyone has committed to that are involved. It appears to be approximately a month away before that speed zone is actually in place. More important than aving that reduced speed zone is the ultimate goal of the Montessori School which is to be able to separate the programs on each side of the road, and to place into the Annex the pre school program as a free standing program on that side of the road in a facility that is appropriately scaled for the preschool program and to have on the opposite side of the road the elementary/middle school program on a site that is appropriately scaled and has all the appropriate facilities which is why the athletic fields are being developed. Once that comes into being the need for students to pass back and forth across the road will be virtually eliminated. There will not be preschool children Qoing across the road to use the softball field and there will not be middle school students crossing the road to use the jungle gym. The ultimate goal and objective for the school is to have free standing programs on each side of the road and not to deal with the issue of students crossing the road. • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 4 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3. 1998 Board Member James Ainslie asked if the Montessori School has the money to hire a crossing guard until they separate the two programs completely. Ms. Coby - Riddle stated that the school has been acting as their own crossing guards. The school has purchased fluorescent vests and stop signs, and the children never cross unattended by an adult that is wearing proper crossing guard attire. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she remembers when the Board was talking about the Annex construction that there was a wet spot on the southern end of the parcel. It was wet at least part of the time and that looked like a pond sometimes. When the addition is built it seems that it would be encroaching upon the wet area. Mr. Demjanec stated that the school contemplated that any addition built on the site would be located in a wet area. It is true that there is a wet spot on the south side of the site, but everything that is behind the existing building is wet soil. As part of the first phase of construction, included in the documents, were under drains that go to the drainage ditch that is located on the east side of the property, and the same thing would happen for further phases of construction so the soil itself will be drained as the construction progresses. Board Member Hoffmann asked what about the play area for the younger children in the future, and where would it be located. Mr. Demjanec stated that the play area would be located to the rear of the existing Annex and utilize the entire east half of the property from the rear of the Annex to the rear property line. It would be an area approximately 50 feet wide and approximately 100 feet long. - y Board Member Hoffmann asked if that whole would need to be drained. Mr. Demjanec stated that whole area would need to be drained and it would also be fenced so children do not wander off unsupervised. Board Member Gregory Bell asked about the upper level versus lower level in terms of school grades. Mr. Demjanec stated that drawing A3 has the age groups. Ms. Coby- Riddle stated that at the Montessori School there is always a three year age span at each level. The six to nine year olds equates to first to third grade in terms of grade equivalence. The nine to twelve year olds is fourth to sixth grade, and the middle school is seventh and eighth grade. Board Member Bell asked what the upper is categorized as. Ms. Coby- Riddle stated that would be the nine to twelve year olds, fourth to sixth grade. It means upper elementary. Chairperson Wilcox stated that in Mr. Demjanec's letter of January 9th it states "but through the recent acquisition of addition property. ", and asked if Mr. Demjanec could clarify the statement. 0 Mr. Demjanec stated that it is soon to be acquired. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 5 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 • Chairperson Wilcox stated that there are issues with that parcel which have to do with the Town as well, and he would like the school to get that parcel. There are issues to be decided with Mr. Monkemeyer before that parcel is available to give or sell to the Montessori School. Mr. Demjanec stated that recently acquired is not an accurate description. He does agree that the property would be wonderful for the Montessori School to acquire. It not only affords them the necessary athletic facilities, but it has other benefits such as affording them the opportunity if they chose to have access to the fourth side of the building and that it relieves a lot of New York State Code issues with that particular building. There are other advantages to having that property over and above the athletic fields. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there were coverage issues on the north side of the school's property. Director of Planning Jonathan Kanter stated that the school needed a variance on the north side. Mr. Demjanec stated that the classroom addition that the one the Board reviewed and approved last year. Yes, it d is permitted ten percent, and it is at 11.5 percent. There is percent mark. In the event that the property changes hands longer exceeds permissible coverage. is seen on )es exceed a variance and the tm the north side of the main building is the permissible coverage. The school in place for the coverage at the 11.5 ro parcels are consolidated, then it no Director of Planning Kanter stated that he has rough calculations on the Annex coverage, and in his memorandum it was indicated that it was real close to the 20 percent R -15 maximum with the numbers that he had he was not able to make an accurate determination. If these plans move ahead, the Planning Board would need to ask for more specific figures on the square footage of the lot and the proposed building footage. Mr. Demjanec stated that their preliminary evaluation showed that there was 2,500 square feet of coverage, and the school is just over 2,000 square feet at this point. With the addition the school would still be under the permissible coverage amount. Board Member Robert Kenerson asked if the four parking spaces are within the requirements. Mr. Demjenac stated that the school will have the appropriate parking spaces. Board Member Kenerson stated that if the Annex building has four teachers then there would be four cars. Mr. Demjanec stated that what is contemplated is that there would be two classrooms and two teachers in the Annex in the ultimate configuration. As it stands currently there is one teacher in the Annex. Ms. Coby - Riddle stated that currently the school has a team ti team of teachers would also be part of the team of teachers who will be specialists that would be moving in and out. Those people would be walk to the appropriate building to teach. The number of core teachers virtue of the fact that there is an additional classroom. ,aching situation in the Annex, and that teaching at the middle school level with parking at the main building, and then in that building will not increase by the Chairperson Wilcox asked if the number of visiting parents increase as a result of this. 0 Ms. Coby - Riddle stated that the way they have worked the driveway situation is that she is posted at the door every morning. Parents have been trained to use the circular driveway as a drop off, and they do not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 6 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 come in to the school in the morning. If the parents need to communicate with the teachers they call the teachers and arrange conferences for the end of the day. The school does not allow parents to use the morning time or pick time as a time to conference with the teachers. Board Member Kenerson asked if buses come in and out the circular driveway. Ms. Coby- Riddle responded, yes. The long range plan for the future development of the Annex, when it becomes a preschool, is there will be no need for the circular driveway to be used by buses. Chairperson Wilcox asked why would that be. Ms. Coby - Riddle stated that preschool children are not eligible for transportation so they will not be coming by bus. The preschool children are brought to school by their parents. The routine is that there is a teacher posted at the door, and as parents drive up the teacher opened the door and walked the children to the building. The driveway is very well suited for that type of pick up. Director of Planning Kanter stated the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance does require two parking spaces per class room, so there would definitely would be a deficiency in the zoning. If the Planning Board could determine whether there is not a need for that many parking spaces, the school could get a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Demjanec stated that the school is proposing to add a new parking space to the four parking spaces that currently exist in front of the Annex so there would be a total of five parking spaces. The Montessori School as a facility is unique. They have classrooms but in addition to classrooms they have lesson rooms that are areas where the class would divide into smaller groups and go off to work on particular subjects. As a result, a facility that is intended to hold two classes ends up having two classrooms and four lesson rooms. The facility is intended to hold two classes, and that is the limit. Board Member Bell asked if the Planning Board discussed last time if there was deficiency of parking spaces at the main school. Mr. Demjanec stated that only in the sense on occasion when there is public use of the meeting room that the number of spaces that are available on the site do not meet that need. Under the requirements of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, which is two parking spaces per class room, it meets and far exceeds that. There are occasions when there are large public gatherings at the school when people will consume all the parking spaces that are on site. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the open area is made available for lessons and folk dancing in the main building. Mr. Demjanec responded, yes. The hope is when the Monkemeyer parcel does change hands, that there is an opportunity to introduce additional parking that would serve the athletic fields, and people in the evening playing softball will have a place to park their cars. Chairperson Wilcox asked if there is sufficient parking under the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Director of Planning Kanter responded, yes. Board Member Kenerson asked what happens if the school does not get the reduced speed zone. b P PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 7 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 • Mr. Demjanec stated that application has been made and accepted by all relevant traffic departments. There were only four conditions that New York State required to authorized the reduced speed zone. All of the four conditions have been met. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the State agrees to do a study by setting up a speed zone if those four conditions were met. The State did not agree that it would be necessarily set up. The State is now undertaking a study of establishing that speed zone. Nothing is guaranteed at this point. Board Member Hoffmann asked what would the new reduced speed zone be. Mr. Demjanec stated that the application was made by the school. On January 12th, Mr. Hungerford stated that all the conditions have been met, and they are one month away from the reduced school speed zone being in place. He is not personally involved in the process, so he cannot speak to it from a personal standpoint. Most school speed zones are 10 miles per hour. Attorney Barney stated that most school zone speed limits are 15 to 20 miles per hour. Board Member Ainslie stated that they have their own crossing guards at the present time with the speed zone or not. Unfortunately speed zones are only useful if they are patrolled. People could post a 45 miles per hour sign, but not everyone would go 45 miles per hour. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the lingering problem he had when approving the Annex initially was the crossing of the road, and the Board was told about the limited trips across the road. He is still concerned about this, and he would look favorably on extending the Annex if the reduced speed limit zone is in place. He cannot say that is a requirement, but it is important to have the reduced speed zone. Ms. Coby - Riddle stated that one of the primary crossing guards. traveling on that road very quickly. with a group of children. They slow go into the middle of the road. Peop regards to crossing the children, the one thing that has not been addressed directly is how is it going. She is She has been at the school at all hours of the night, and she sees people People who travel the road daily are tuned in when she is standing there down spontaneously. If she sees a car approaching she does not attempt to le have been respectful, and there has not been any frightening situations in Chairperson Wilcox asked if it would be the school's expectation that either Ms. Coby - Riddle or an employee of the Montessori School would continue to be the crossing guard. Ms. Coby - Riddle stated that the school children do not cross the road enough to warrant hiring someone to do that. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he feels better about an employee or teacher rather than hiring a stranger to cross the children. Ms. Coby- Riddle stated that she likes it better also. Attorney Barney asked how many times a day is it appropriate to cross the road. • Ms. Coby- Riddle stated that it depends on gym days. The children cross the road for the days they have gym class. In some cases they are crossing once a day and some days they are not crossing at all. At school assemblies that happen every couple months the children would need to cross the street. They do not PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 8 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 . cross the road many times a day. It would be an average of once a day as a whole group from the Annex to the main building and back again, but never from the main building to the Annex. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she is still concerned about the addition to the Annex with the wetland conditions on the site. Chairperson Wilcox stated that it would cost the school money to deal with it properly. Mr. Demjanec stated that drainage plans would need to be incorporated into the construction. It will be slab on grade construction, so it will not be construction that is highly susceptable to ground water. Appropriate accommodates would be made during construction. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it is not just the building, but the play area for the children. She is not sure what needs to happen to make it an appropriate play area. Mr. Demjanec stated that they would contemplate doing under drainage in the area, so it is not the damp mushy swamp that it currently is. When they first went to the site, immediately behind the house all the ground was saturated. It was like walking on a sponge. During the reconstruction of the Annex the contractor installed under drains, and the area immediately adjacent to the rear property is not that mushy any longer. They contemplate additional under drains for the additional construction that will allow that ground water and surface water to go some place else. Board Member Hoffmann asked if that some place else would be a ditch that goes along the eastern boarder. Mr. Demjanec stated that there is an existing drainage ditch along the eastern border where the previous under drains and future under drains will go as well. Board Member Hoffmann asked if that ditch 1,vould be sufficient to take all of the drainage. Mr. Demjanec responded, yes. Director of Planning Kanter stated that if this proposal moves forward, he suggests that the Board see more details than what was seen with the original Annex building in terms of how the drainage will work. Even if the play area will not be built until later the Board should also see that on the Site Plan as well just to show a preliminary sketch on how this thing will work. Board Member Hoffmann stated that there is still some uncertainly about the park parcel as to what will happen and when it will happen. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he urges Mr. Demjanec to bring whatever pressure he can bring to bare on Mr. Monkemeyer to resolve the various issues. Ms. Coby - Riddle stated that when she met with Mr. Demjanec and Mr. Kanter she became aware that it was in Mr. Monkemeyer's hands. She would be happy to speak to Mr. Monkemever again. • Board Member Bell asked if the Montessori School thought of acquiring other land adjacent to one of the three sides of the Annex. U • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 9 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 Mr. Demjanec responded, no. Board Member Bell stated that the Planning Board uses a rule of defining lot coverage as the building, and in reality this is a lot more than 20 percent of developed coverage. It looks more like 95 percent covered with something. It seems to look like a cramped operation according to the drawing, and that is why he is asking about the additional lands. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the site to the west is a single residential lot, and the site to the east is part of Mr. Monkemeyer's larger apartment property. The property directly to the proposed south of property is vacant. Mr. Demjanec stated that this is a single family lot, and this property is fairly unique. It is adjacent to a right -of -way that Mr. Monkemeyer has maintained from Old King Road to the rear of his property, and it has in front of it the abandoned right -of -way from Old King Road. As a result the property itself is protected by buffers that will be there indefinitely. It is not that there is a potential for immediate development on all sides of this property. There are areas there that will be there for ever and ever simply because they were set aside for right -of -ways or abandoned right -of -ways. Board Member Ainslie asked if this is the property that Mr. Monkemeyer has given the Town for a park on drawing number 3. Attorney Barney responded, no. It is the same piece that has been set aside as a potential park site that has not been given to the Town. Board Member Ainslie asked if this is the original piece that Assistant Town Planner George Frantz had a figure of $185,000 to convert this property into playing fields. Attorney Barney responded, no, that will be the replacement parcel located further up the hill. Chairperson Wilcox stated that he did not hear that anyone on the Board is against the idea, but they be sensitive to the wet areas. Director of Planning Kanter mentioned more detailed drainage plans on how the wetlands will be dealt with, and where the pre school playground structures will be located. Board Member Hoffmann stated that the plans need to show what will be happening in the various stages, so it will be more clear for the Board to understand. Board Member Ainslie asked if there is a time schedule for the construction of first stage and the second stage of the classroom for the Annex. Mr. Demjanec stated that on drawing number 3 it illustrates a projected enrollment. The lesson rooms do not become necessary until four years down the road. It would also depend upon what funds are available to do each construction piece. Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the sketch plan review for the Montessori School at 8:21 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REGARDING THE PROPOSED MECKLENBURG HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT TO CONSIST OF 56 APARTMENT UNITS IN SEVEN BUILDINGS TO BE LOCATED ON A 9.12 +/- ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 10 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 .TAX PARCEL NO, 27 -1- 13.12, TOTALING 95 +/- ACRES. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON MECKLENBURG ROAD, ADJACENT TO THE TOWN OF ITHACA/CITY OF ITHACA BOUNDARY, R -15 RESIDENCE DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A REZONING OF THE PROPOSED HOUSING SITE FROM R -15 RESIDENCE TO MR MULTIPLE RESIDENCE. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL ALSO REQUIRE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. ANTHONY CERACCHE, OWNER; CONIFER REALTY, APPLICANT; JOHN FENNESSEY, AGENT: Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the above noted matter at 8:22 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. Becky Bilderback, Better Housing for Tompkins County, stated that Better Housing is a partner with Conifer Realty on this proposed project on Mecklenburg Road. The Planning Board was supplied with a sketch plan that incorporates the new proposed road. The sketch plan incorporates the new road on the western side of the Murray property of approximately 100 feet long and cutting back into the project. Beyond that there have not been any significant changes from the previous site plans. Director of Planning Kanter asked if the building foot prints are based on the same location and place. Ms. Bilderback responded, yes. David Harding, Carl Jahn & Associations, stated that the only change in the building foot print location is unit seven, which is the most westerly unit that was shifted to the north slightly to make room for the new access drive. Other than that all the other units are in the same locations. In previous discussions the Planning Board wanted to continue to provide a pedestrian access connecting to Route 79, which has been highlighted in yellow on the new sketch plan for the Board to see. vlr. Harding pointed out on the enlarged map where the pedestrian access connecting to Route 79 is located. They contemplated various other connections to Route 79, but because of the grade issues and the proximity of the eastern curb, that this would be the more appropriate location. Board Member Ainslie asked if that would be the place where the buses would stop. Mr. Harding stated that would be the place if the public bus service elects to create a stop there, unless they could be convinced to enter the property itself. Director of Planning Kanter stated that for the bus to stop at that location on Mecklenburg Road it would either have to enter the site driveway and turn around some where or continue to West Haven Road and extend the route that way. Otherwise there would not be any place to turn around. It might be an interesting process to see if there can be a discussion with the transit agency to take the bus route directly into the site development. The Ithaca/Tompkins County Transportation Council and Planning Committee, met today, and discussed this very kind of situation. The transit people are not adverse to going into a development like this as long as the development has adequate driveway width and base for the bus to turn. Chairperson Wilcox stated that even if the buses do not come there is pedestrian access provided to Route 79. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it would give pedestrian access to other neighborhoods without having to go all the way around on the road way. She thinks it is very important whether there is a bus stop ithere or not. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 11 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED = MARCH 3, 1998 . Mr. Harding stated that the design of the new entrance road is configured so the north south leg does align with the extension to the south side of Route 79. The site plan shows dash lines where the road way could continue northerly into the back portion of the site. At that time it would become a "T" intersection where access to the apartment complex would be a right hand turn off of it. The alignment of the road has been moved somewhat horizontally to establish the alignment for the future extension to the south and also to respond to some natural drainage patterns that are occurring near the right hand bend in the road right now. The road is pushed up from the Murray property further north to avoid some walnut trees that were identified by the surveyor when he was out there. Ms. Bilderback stated that John Fenessey wanted her to point out that the two key points on this proposed road were the north and the south. The middle is really a line drawn at this point, and that could vary as plans develop. The point was the park portion of the northern end of the property and that there would be direct access to the park land. There would be an easement until it actually becomes a permanent road. There are no definite road lines drawn for the access to the park. Mr. Harding stated that there is some connection made to the paper street to the east. Board Member Bell asked in what way. Mr. Harding responded, in regards to the Comprehensive Plan that the proposed park property had frontage connected to that. Board Member Bell stated that the proposed park property touches the proposed road way, but it does not address the issue of how a street could actually go through there. Mr. Harding stated that is not their intent here tonight, that would be future planning and design exercises. Right now, they are providing the capability in the proposed subdivision plan to accommodate that. Right now they are here to focus on the apartment development. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the Planning Board discussed at their last meeting the unopened street for pedestrian and bicycle access to the park for the adjacent residential area in the City. It could also be used as a park service entrance road for maintenance vehicles, but not heavily used. If the Planning Board wants this entrance road bigger then they need to provide their input for the architects to look into it further. He does not know how much more traffic the Town would want to have on the unopened street if it were to be opened. Board Member Bell stated that he sees it as being a real street not a limited street. Access would create more impact on the adjacent neighborhood, but it would also work the other way as well. Access works in both directions. Without that street, which appears to be the only connection available, the Board is creating a barrier that are pods that open off into the highway. That is a classic thing that developers have been doing for the last generations. From the view of planning he believes it does not provide the integration with the street grid that is needed. The Planning Board has an opportunity not to do that, and that is one of his most serious concerns of this site plan. Board Member Ainslie asked if there is a real street wouldn't there be problems with people bringing cars in that there would need to be parking. If there is a real street to the park there will be people driving in there. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 12 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3. 1998 • Board Member Bell stated that he is not saying that the real street would be access to the park, but access to this road to Bundy Road. It would provide integration not just to the park. He does not necessarily see this as a true road to Bundy Road, but if eventually there are a hundred houses along this new road, the Town would be forcing them to go only one place. Good traffic planning allows for a multiplicity of routes. Director of Planning Kanter stated that planning also has to look at the impacts on residential neighborhood streets which are at different levels for that type of connection. The Town would be creating a new connector road between Mecklenburg Road and Bundy Road that would provide two choices of direction for traffic. The traffic analysis actually showed for this Mecklenburg Heights proposal that currently there will be a significant number of cars, not necessarily from this development site but from Mecklenburg Road in general that would use the cut through to connect from Mecklenburg Road to Trumansburg Road. That would definitely be traffic planning in the adjacent area of the Town of Ithaca. Attorney Barney asked if the Town is going to take title to this park, how would there be legal access to the park. Ms. Bilderback stated that access could be made through the initial road that would be the 100 foot wide easement across the property to the proposed park land. Attorney Barney stated that in order for the Town to get to the proposed park land there would need to be something constructed and maintained. Mr. Harding stated that the paper street could also be constructed for legal access to the proposed park • land. If the paper street was dedicated as a public road it would still be sufficient to provide the legal access to the proposed park. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the proposed park is a long range plan and it would probably not be developed for 15 to 20 years. Ultimately the goal is to have a through connector road from Mecklenburg Road to Bundy Road, and to have direct access off of the new public road that would be there some day. The goal is to try and create something that is not there now, and do it in a long term planning basis that was included in the adopted Park, Recreation, and Open Space Plan, Board Member Hoffmann stated that when the Planning Board looked at the paper road last time, she was also thinking of the road as a road that would be used by people who live in the extension of this development in the future. As for looking at the rest of the parcel in laying out other buildings, it made sense to have a connector road. She does not see why the paper road could not be used by cars as well. It does not have to be located with a connection to this plan in question, but it would be a way to connect with other neighborhoods in the area. Mr. Harding stated that idea may have some merit, but it is a separate issue from the apartment plan. It is related from the stand point that they need to get subdivision approval. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she just wanted to state her idea that she did not necessarily look at it as only a way for pedestrians to get across from this development to the City. Chairperson Wilcox stated that Ms. Bilderback pointed out on the preliminary subdivision map a • straight line connector from Mecklenburg Road to the Perry parcel on Bundy Road, which could be configured in different ways during future planning the connector road. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 13 APPROVED - MARCH 3. 1998 JANUARY 20, 1998 • Director of Planning Kanter pointed out on an enlarged map where the proposed connector road could be located from Mecklenburg Road to Bundy Road. Chairperson Wilcox asked Director of Engineering Walker if he reviewed the drainage issues. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the final design still needs to have some details worked out, but there should not be any problems. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the traffic study has not changed since last time. The Environmental Assessment Form was updated to reflect the additional property required for the road way. MOTION made by Robert Kenerson, seconded by James Ainslie: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of environmental significance in accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act for the above referenced actions as proposed, and therefore, a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. There being no further discussion, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote. AYES - Wilcox, Hoffmann, Ainslie, Kenerson, Bell. NAYS - None. . The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously. (NOTE: The adopted resolution is hereto attached as Exhibit #2.) Board Member Bell asked if the new road takes the "L" shaped route, would it make sense to have the access from the Murray parcel from the new road instead of being another driveway from the main road. Mr. Harding stated that he is not familiar with the layout of the Murray property to give an answer to that. Director of Engineering Walker stated that Mr. Murray may want a second access, but his primary access is in the southeast corner of his property. There might be opportunities for Mr. Murray to connect, but someone would need to contact him. Board Member Bell stated that the Planning Board discussed buses entering the apartment complex, and asked if the turning radius of the loop road sufficient for a bus. Mr. Harding stated that he is not sure, but he would look at it before the next meeting. Board Member Kenerson stated that buses would need the same radius as fire trucks need. Ms. Bilderback stated that Tomtran currently enters Better Housing's project in Trumansburg (Juniper Manor) and that has a much tighter turn than this. Tomtran makes that loop on a regular basis. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 14 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 • Director of Planning Kanter stated that if they wanted to attract Tomtran to enter the development, they should demonstrate good turning radius and safe conditions as that would make it easier. Board Member Bell asked if that is what the Board wants to see for Tomtran to enter the development and go through the whole driveway or turn around some place else. Director of Engineering Walker stated that Tomtran drivers cannot legally back up. Chairperson Wilcox stated that the Planning Board's job is to make sure that the site plan could accommodate the bus reasonably. Board Member Bell stated that he has a big concern about sidewalks. The whole relationship between parking and the buildings is that there are no streets being created. Any where people look there are parking lots all over the place, and there are sidewalks in front of each car space, but then they stop. They go to individual units. There seems to be a conscious effort to reduce the ability to get around the place by foot. If someone were in a building on the far side of the community building and had to do their laundry with the weather bad, there is no way a person could get there without walking most of the distance in a road and in snow and ice. There are no sidewalks connecting. That reduces the quality of life that someone could experience living in this place. He would like to see real sidewalks that actually function for something other than as access to their cars. Mr. Harding stated that is an excellent observation. Because of the significant development costs a lot of the sidewalks were purposely limited to get people from their vehicles to their individual units. • Board Member Bell stated that people living in these units will not just be driving everywhere. Director of Planning Kanter stated that there seems to be some opportunities for some internal sidewalk connections, not necessarily paralleling where the driveway goes. Board Member Bell asked why are they proposing a group mailbox area. Ms. Bilderback stated that it enables the postal service to deliver all the mail to a single location. Board Member Bell stated that the sidewalks are related to the mailbox location. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she would like to know what else would be located in the Community Center besides the laundry area. Ms. Bilderback stated that there will be a small office for the project office, and there will be a small lounge for what the tenants would like to do such as workshops or tenant meetings. Board Member Hoffmann stated that as she mentioned before she wished it were possible to put some laundry facilities in each house. Having eight families in each house sharing the laundry facilities at the Community Center is unfriendly. Ms. Bilderback stated that she agrees with Ms. Hoffmann, and that is one of the things that has not been finally decided. • • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 15 APPROVED - MARCH 3. 1998 p.m. JANUARY 20, 1998 Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the SEQR determination for the Mecklenburg Heights project at 9:00 AGENDA ITEM: PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION REGARDING CORNELL UNIVERSITY'S PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT A CHILLED WATER PLANT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LAKE SOURCE COOLING PROJECT, INCLUDING THE REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD REQUESTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD REGARDING THE PROPOSED REZONING OF THE SITE OF THE PROPOSED CHILLED WATER PLANT AS WELL AS SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECT, LOCATED AT 983 EAST SHORE DRIVE ON A 112 +/- ACRE PORTION OF TOWN OF ITHACA TAX PARCEL NO. 19 -1 -5, BUSINESS DISTRICT "E ". CORNELL UNIVERSITY OWNER/APPLICANT• W.S. (LANNY) JOYCE, P.E., AGENT: Chairperson Wilcox duly opened the above noted matter at 9:01 p.m., and read aloud from the Agenda. Lanny Joyce stated that they are here to discuss the site plan review, rezoning, and subdivision applications of approvals for the Chilled Water Plant Facilitates for the Cornell University Chilled Water System that is being constructed as part of the Lake Source Cooling Project. The last time Cornell University was in front of the Planning Board with a package similar to the one they have now, was when they prepared their design for the Environmental Impact Statement in June 1996. That was an informal sketch plan review session, and as with previous steps of this project over the last four years of the study, they felt it was very important to get the Town's input. They received the Town's input at that time, and the design was received favorably with some comment and some positive comments from the community at that time on what was presented for the building design. The comments received by the Town were important and were incorporated into the Draft Environmental Impact Statement that was mailed in March 1997. Since that time, Cornell University has completed the Environmental Impact Statement with comments from the Town, with relatively significant comments in the public review stage. All of the comments have been incorporated along with other comments in the proposal that the Planning Board has before them tonight. The drawings provided to the Planning Board are more current than what was in the Environmental Impact Statement. The Department of Environmental Conservation has issued their favorable finding statement on January 7th. They made a positive statement about the project, and that it could be built with no significant impacts and no concerns for the ecology of the lake. The finding statement being published by the Department of Environmental Conservation allows all the other agencies to proceed with their approval processes, which is why Cornell University is before the Planning Board tonight. Cornell University is in the process of getting approval from the Town of Ithaca. During December of 1997, Cornell University met twice with the Town Board and additionally with special committees that the Town Board set up to discuss the building design and desires of the Town for a lake shore access. There were productive meetings with those committees, and the effort there resulted in additional changes to the design and a resolution passed by the Town Board on December 31st enabling the review process to proceed to the Planning Board. It has been a significant process and an a lot of effort by both Cornell University and the Town Staff and Board Members. Cornell University appreciates the Planning Board thorough review and input received to date, and the building and site plan are improved as a result of the efforts by Town Board Members and by comments received from the community. It is a large package the Planning Board received, and there are a lot of elements to this project. There will be two people giving presentations right now. First is David Lorenzini from Hascup & Lorenzini Architects. He will present the building and site plan strategies and concepts to the Board along with the improvements based on the comments the Town made in the Environmental Impact Statement. Secondly, PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 16 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 • Amy Nettleton from Nettleton Landscape will present the landscape plan that was developed for the building site and the surrounding area to the south and across the road by the marina where the Lake Cooling pipe would cross underneath the road. The Town's comments have been incorporated into the landscape design plans also. Director of Planning Kanter stated that the pipeline route will have additional things to look at, and that will not be part of tonight's discussion. There will be another time set up for that discussion. The public access issues will not be discussed tonight either because there needs to be more information gathered. David Lorenzini, Hascup & Lorenzini Architects, stated that in June 1996, they initially presented this project to the Planning Board. His partner brought the design drawings and a three dimensional model at that time. The feedback that was received was favorable on that initial presentation. Now they are resubmitting the design based on feedback from the Town Board Special Building Committee. The feedback has enhanced the project from their perspective. There were a number of changes architecturally that he would enumerate, and then the floor will be turned over to Amy Nettleton to go over the revision to the landscaping plan. The basic site is located on East Shore Drive across from the marina, just north of John Lowery's building. It is set back into the site, and is exposed on the west and south sides of the building. The foot print of the building is approximately 90 feet by 130 feet. To the south of the building there is an access court which is approximately 65 feet by 90 feet. The access court is bounded by the building on the north side and retaining walls on the east and south sides. The retaining walls on the east side of the building have been jogged in order to break up the mass of the retaining wall to add some interest and to provide possible planters for vegetation. That would break down the visual aspects of the large wall. The retaining wall on the south side of the entry court is important because that allows them to maintain the access utility road to the rear of the site. This road is important to maintain because it is an access for NYSEG, Department of Transportation, and the Town to get to the rear of the site to maintain the various utilities such as the power transmission lines, Route 13, and water and sewer access. The oblique views of this building are from Route 34 north and from Stewart Park. Those areas were pointed out on an enlarged photograph of how the building will be seen from Stewart Park. The changes that were incorporated into the building were all designed to reduce the verticality of the building as per suggestions of the Special Building Committee. The first thing that was done was to increase the size of the clear windows that band the building. That would help the horizontal aspect of the building. By doing this they provided a horizontal detail element and also a shading band that would pull out the horizontal aspect of the building. The original exterior facade design intent was concrete masonry units, and they have substituted precast concrete units. These precast concrete panels would have deep horizontal reveals to give a shadow line and to emphasize the horizontal aspect of the building. The precast sills on the windows have been deepened to give a horizontal shadow effect. The concrete would be a buff color rather than a cool gray color. They feel a buff color is warmer and gives a more human aspect to the building design. The south west corner viewing window has been enlarged to 15 square feet to help the scale of the building. They have also increased the strip window that is adjacent to that that runs along the front of the building. The strip window has been lengthened, and put a canopy above the strip window with steel detailing. Board Member Ainslie asked if that would be for someone to look in or out. Mr. Lorenzini stated that would be for someone to look in. It would allow viewing into the facility for visitors, which is a good idea. • Board Member Ainslie asked if there would be machinery behind the window. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 17 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 JANUARY 20, 1998 • Mr. Lorenzini responded, yes. It would be a unique facility for people to look at and it would be of great interest to a lot of people. The lengthening of the strip window extenuates the clear story above all tying into the horizontal aspects of the design. The canopies over the windows gives definition to the visitors viewing. The steel detailing was looked at closely. They incorporated some steel detail into the hand rails at the loading dock areas and into the canopies. This helps give the building some scale and the horizontal aspects in the rails that ties into the recall of Stewart Park. Thev have also added four ground retaining walls. These retaining walls pick up the ground plain and give a graceful horizontal proportion to the building. In the larger window at the southwest corner, they provided a viewing porch that visitors can look into the facility and enjoy the aspects of Cayuga Lake. Amy Nettleton, Nettleton Landscaping, stated that she will be addressing three areas on the site plan, such as the area around the heat exchange facility building, the north point area at the marina, and the soil spill area to the south of the building. On the heat exchange facility site, this is a site that has had substantial disturbance in the past with a past industrial use. The existing plant community where the building is being located is a succession hardwood stand dominated by Black Locus and Black Cherry. That will be disturbed by the project. Along Renwick Brook just to the south of the building there is a mature stand of chestnut oak and oak, and that will be preserved. To the north of the building there will be a large area of existing woodland being preserved. They would be minimizing the amount of regrading and clearing of that area. They would like to keep the existing woodland edge as close as possible to the building face. • The proposed landscape plan has the goal of setting the building into the landscape picking up on the horizontal lines of the architecture, and using a largely naturalist style. With this in mind they would be using a selection of native species and a variety of evergreen trees such white pine, hardwood canopy trees, and red oak. Not only are these valuable for being native and having certain aesthetic value they also provide certain wildlife value and help improve the bird habitat on the site. Looking at the landscape across the facade, the idea is to have trees on either end of the building soften the architecture and emphasize the horizontal line. These are connected across the front of the building by a meadow of native grasses and wildflowers that would be studded with shrub groupings. The trees at the service area are honey locust, and they provide some screening of the service area, but also have an open enough canopy so that from the viewing platform people could see the lake. The back slope area is being largely revegetated so again it would be planted with a meadow mixture with a mix of evergreen trees and shrub groupings. That area would be left unmoved for succession to bring other plants into the area. Within the service area, the walls are broken down to create planters for the opportunity for shrub plantings and vines that would soften the walls to provide greenery against that material to soften the mass. Looking at the marina site, this is an important point of access. There are on going discussions with the Town and Cornell University about how public access would ultimately be handled there. Currently Cornell University has a commitment to maintaining public access to that area, and they are improving it with that in mind. Also it is currently used for instruction by the marina. There are a couple of small sheds on the point that are used for sail board instruction. There are two existing rows of trees that will be removed, and landscaping plantings will be done to replace those. Improvements include restoring the gravel parking area and improving the edge condition with a flushed timber edge. They are introducing two groves of Sycamore • trees with an under story planting of small trees. The Sycamores will ultimately get quite large, but they have a high enough canopy so that views are maintained to see the lake. There is rip rap stabilization happening along PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 18 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 • the edge of the marina, and there are a group of native shrubs incorporated within the rip rap to soften the massive stone. Those species are selected for their tolerance of shoreline conditions and possible flooding. The most interesting feature in that area is the seasonal tent structure. Currently the marina has an informal canopy that is strung between all the trees that are in the grove there now. This seasonal tent structure would replace that and provide immediate shade on the site and areas for picnic tables and gatherings on the site. Cornell University has done a careful selection process in identifying that particular site as their soil fill area south of the building. Cornell University has tried to accommodate two different uses. In addition to the soil fill area Cornell University needs to provide a contractor staging and construction parking area. In evaluating those two sites, the area to the south of Renwick Brook is much smaller with a steep topography, and there is a history of more disturbance to the area in the north. Some of the steep slopes on the existing area of Renwick Brook has very little soil on them. The site to the south of Renwick Brook was identified as the area most appropriate for the soil fill area, while the area to the north is being used for contractor parking and staging. That would be for a temporary use and ultimately less disruptive. In response to the Town's comments, they revised the handling of the soil fill area. There is a greater area of vegetation being left alone at Renwick Brook so there is a full 50 feet from the top of the gorge that would be preserved. In addition they have softened the contours so the land form that is created is of a softer form. They are also preserving a 50 foot buffer of vegetation along East Shore Drive recognizing that the quality of the existing vegetation really is not the greatest. Cornell University proposing to add some new plantings in the buffer area to strengthen the vegetation along the road. From the road, the fill area will not be seen. Standing at the end of the marina, the new slope is largely obscured by the vegetation that is lower down in the slope. It is only when getting away from the view areas, from the lake or Stewart Park, where people . might begin to see the top of the slope. They are proposing to add plantings on the slope that will soften the appearance of the new grade, and have selected several fast growing species so there would be quick development of vegetation there. The slope is stabilized with the meadow of native grasses. Except for the pipeline corridor itself it would be mowed. Board Member Ainslie asked how much lake frontage does Cornell University own. Mr. Joyce stated that Cornell University owns approximately 1,200 feet total. Board Member Ainslie asked if Cornell University actually own the marina. Mr. Joyce responded, yes. Board Member Ainslie asked if at the present time the marina is being rented to people. Mr. Joyce responded, yes. A significant portion of the whole 18 acres is under lease because the whole marina operation on the lake side is approximately five acres. The area north of the heat facility exchange site is boat storage and trailers, which is all leased to the marina. Board Member Ainslie asked if Cornell University had to buy some of this land. Mr. Joyce responded, yes. Cornell University had to purchase the whole parcel, which was in 1995. Board Member Hoffmann asked if that was the only area where soils will be stored. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 19 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3. 1998 Mr. Joyce stated that area will be just the soils that will be removed from the project, and would be the • maximum amount they would expect for soils. Based on some of the discussions with contractors on the route of the pipeline to campus, where a lot of the material comes from, that their excavation techniques may reduce that amount significantly. They can use trench boxing and square the edges of ditches safely, and minimize the open cut excavation volumes. The rock that is removed from the building foundation excavation and any other rock that is removed along the pipeline route is not planned to be put there. The rocks will be used for beneficial use somewhere else. They are actively talking to people trying to determine what might work timing wise with the rock removal in the hopes that it could be put to use on site. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she noticed that there would be a large flat area created on the eastern edge of the parcel. Ms. Hoffmann asked if there is any thing special planned for that area. Mr. Joyce responded, no. Board Member Bell asked how stable do they expect the new fill to be. Mr. Joyce stated that they have done pretty significant geotechical work along the route, and there should not be any problems with the slopes being proposed and the fill depths. It is a well drained site now because the way it is built with rock now. There should not be any problems. The Chilled Water pipeline route runs along the eastern boundary, so the right -of -way over the piping would take up to 50 feet north to south in width. There should not be any problem with the fill in this area. Board Member Bell asked if there would be any drainage in the fill. •Mr. Joyce stated that he is not expecting it to be necessary based on the soils there, and what is coming off the slope now. • Director of Planning Kanter asked Mr. Joyce to describe the rip rap on the shoreline. Mr. Joyce stated that was an important detail developed with input from the Department of Environmental Conservation and the Army Corp of Engineers. Shore line stabilization is something that needs to be done when a shoreline is disturbed. Cornell University decided to do the whole piece from the point where Renwick Brook comes out back to the northern edge where they would be disturbing it. They would make it all uniform because right now it is a mix of ugly chunks of rocks. Director of Planning Kanter asked how big would the boulders be and where would they come from. Mr. Joyce stated that it would be possible to get the boulders from the operation across the street, but they would typically be a mixture of sizes to lock in together. They would not just be one huge size that would be measured in six inches to 18 inches in size. Director of Planning Kanter asked if there would be a mix of soils where vegetation can actually be planted as part of the wall. Mr. Joyce responded, yes, above the water line. Board Member Hoffmann asked if Cornell University is planning that this would be an edge where one would have access into the water. PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 20 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 • Mr. Joyce responded, no, because of the vertical drop in the water at that point. It makes more sense to have people do what they do now informally, which is to go behind to the east, closer to the railroad tracks, and go down a gentle grade to the lake level. There are no beaches in the winter time when the water level is up as opposed to the summer time when the lake level drops. • Chairperson Wilcox asked Mr. Joyce if the informal path to the water be formalized. Mr. Joyce responded, no, because the Conrail right -of -way almost goes to the shore edge where the angle part of the north point parcel goes parallel to Conrail. Conrail owns the railroad right -of -way down the east shore of the lake, and their property ownership goes to the shore edge. Cornell University owns the shore line, and Conrail owns up to it. There is no official way to do it unless Cornell University wants to get an easement from Conrail for a boat ramp. Cornell University has not planned to do that. Right now it is very informal, which is typical all along the Conrail right -of -way along the shore line. Cornell University will not be planting anything along the Conrail right -of -way. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the contractor staging and parking area is shown on these maps. Mr. Joyce responded, yes. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it seems like a large area to park 120 vehicles. Mr. Joyce stated that would be for a short time period, which would only be during the time of construction. Right now that area is used for boat trailers and boat storage. That area would have a mat of geotextile fabric and scrap the top soil back to put down a winter fabric and gravel to make it for contractor and storage trailer parking during construction. After construction the top soil would be put back and reseed it with the same type of meadow grasses that are used to reseed the other areas. Board Member Hoffmann asked if the area would be restored to what it looks like now. Mr. Joyce responded, yes. There are a lot of trees over the perphery of the open area, and they would tend to seed back in like they are now. There are some trees in there, but not very many. Board Member Bell asked Mr. Joyce to point out on an enlarged map where the construction parking area would be located. Mr. Joyce pointed out on an enlarged map where the proposed construction parking would be located just to the north of the proposed building site. The number of cars that are provided for there is what is expected for the peak of construction in the summer time when there are a lot of people working on the pipeline route in addition to the building site. People would park their cars at this location and then will be shuttled to the work site. There will be no place to park cars along the route, so they would be shuttled to the work place and back. Chairperson Wilcox asked if the modified plans for the building match what the Town Board requested. Director of Planning Kanter responded, yes from the Planning Board. The Town Board would like any additional feedback • Board Member Kenerson asked if the only visible part of this project would be the facility building. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 21 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3. 1998 Mr. Joyce responded, yes. Board Member Kenerson asked what is the depth of the transmission lines. Mr. Joyce stated that the transmission lines would have three feet cover out of roads and five cover in roads, which is mainly to clear municipal utilities over the top. It would also provide a structural base for the road. Board Member Kenerson asked if the transmission line would be under the Cayuga Heights Plant lines. Mr. Joyce stated that the transmission lines would be parallel with the Cayuga Heights Plant lines, and they would cross the transmission line where they need to cross. Board Member Bell stated that the new proposed building looks quite nice, and a lot better than what was proposed before. Mr. Joyce stated that it was a real effort to tie in the horizontal stratification of rock which is exposed in that area and all around with the building design. Director of Planning Kanter asked if the retaining wall in the parking area on the side of the building that was mentioned earlier was modified. Mr. Joyce responded, yes. There are a number of different breaks in that wall now, and a planter built • into the east face with some architectural detailing as Nvell. The height along the eastern edge against the slope was altered to break up the flat face of concrete. The retaining wall to the back of the parking area has a lot more detail, and it is the only one that is seen. The one on the south wall is difficult to see from any advantage point besides right next to it. The building is very heavily built into the hill side. It has quite a bit of it underground to strike a balance between how much the building is exposed and the expense of digging into rock. Board Member Ainslie asked if the machinery uses electricity, and are the lines run underground. Mr. Joyce responded, yes. The electric service would run off the NYSEG over head electric lines that are on the railroad right -of -way. At that point, they would have a service drop connection with buried cable down to the building. Board Member Ainslie asked if they would be installing any more electric poles. Mr. Joyce responded, no. That is a relatively expensive way to bring the electric service down to the building for those few hundred feet, but they thought it was the right thing to do. They have also buried the transformers on the east side of the building. The equipment inside the building was designed to be of low volume. The pumps are the only things that are proposed to be in the buildings. Board Member Hoffmann asked what are the materials in the retaining walls. Mr. Joyce stated that the retaining wall in the front would be a mixture of concrete and stone for a naturalized look for the wall. It would set off what is happening in the building. Between the front retaining • wall and the road is a vegetated depression that serves as a retention for storm water. Cornell University did a PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 22 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3. 1998 storm water calculation and design for the site to control the water that is coming around building and through the parking lot to the catch basins. Board Member Hoffmann asked what are the materials for the retaining walls around the service areas. Mr. Joyce stated that they would be concrete to match the precast panels on the building. It would not be a stark white concrete color. Board Member Kenerson asked if this design is to meet the needs of Cornell University forever. Mr. Joyce stated that this plant is a long term investment. It would In the year 2000, when this plant is scheduled to come on line it would be load for that year, but they are keeping their two most efficient chillers on refrigerants. The other chillers cannot do this. Together they should allow for 30 years without building any more chillers. Board Member Kenerson asked if the transmission lines are the mo! Mr. Joyce responded, yes. not meet our cooling needs forever. what is necessary to meet the peak campus that use non -ozone depred- Cornell University to meet the load >t critical part of this project. Director of Engineering Walker asked if the Board would be seeing more details on the erosion control. Mr. Joyce responded, yes. There will be a storm water pollution and prevention plan prepared and filed which are typical for most big projects. The details would be supplemented by the kinds of things that were in • the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, so it would be a package the contractor has to be held accountable to. Director of Engineering Walker stated that the site for the building would not be a problem, but the dredging portion needs more details. There were problems this summer with dredging that was happening in the area, and the Department of Environmental Conservation had some concerns. Mr. Walker asked if all the material would be deposited across the road. Mr. Joyce stated that all the material would be distributed at the Cornell Business and Technology Park to build berms between the buildings and Route 13, and the other site would be agricultural property that Cornell University has on Hanshaw Road. There are a number of different possibilities that could be done. Board Member Hoffmann stated that she wants to discuss the water because in the finding statements there was comments about the increase in the level of phosphorous in the surface waters, and the possibility of more algae blooming on the surface of the lake. It mentions that as a potential aesthetic impact as well as a public health risk. Ms. Hoffmann asked where would this likely happen, how would it look, and how would it be an aesthetic problem. Mr. Joyce stated that there is a lot phosphorous that is coming into the Southern Lake basin from streams that flow into the southern basin which is 40 percent of the water that flows through the lake south to north. That is the flow through the lake which is actually south to north, because the Cayuga Lake drains into the Seneca River and into Lake Ontario. The phosphorous that is coming down now in the streams has fertilizers, septic systems, and different run off sources in the up stream watersheds. The biggest contributor of phosphorous in the Southern Lake basin is what comes from the sewage treatment plants. Cornell University • did a check of what is happening now in the Southern Lake basin, and what might moving water from a deeper point in the lake to a shallower point in the lake do. The important thing to remember is that the phosphorous is PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 23 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3. 1998 occurring there, they would not be adding anything to the water other than heat during the cooling process. Moving the water that has a relatively low level of phosphorous to an area of the lake where it is available for photosynthesis could encourage algae, so that is what they needed to worry about. They knew that right from the beginning when they started four years ago when they started looking at lake source cooling. The calculations that were done showed that there is a high variability right now of phosphorous floating in the Southern Lake basin, and what Cornell University would be adding at the permitted flows on the order of four to six percent during the summer season, which is the time they would need to worry about it. Algae is basically plant life. The plants take the phosphorous from the soil, they do not take it out of the water. The algae takes it right out of the water. If the four to six percent were of concern, people could potentially see more green algae wherever the outfall is. The four to six percent is at the permitted flows, which are very high flows with very heavy use on the plant that they do not expect, but they had to model something that was very conservative for the purpose of stating the environmental impacts. Attorney Barney asked what does four to six percent mean. Mr. Joyce stated that four to six percent means what comes into the southern basin right now each month. If it is looked at on a daily basis it would be an additional four to six percent at the highest flows. The number is quite small. The defuser design for the return water is under the surface with nine to ten feet of cover in the summertime, and the water does not come out like a hose it comes out through a number of small ports in the last 100 feet of the pipe. The water would be colder than what is there during this season of concern, which is the summertime he is talking about for water clarity and algae. The water added to the lake is colder than what is there now. The water that is there at the summer time is heated by the sun and the lake is shallow at that point, so the return water temperature would be 55 degrees depending upon the time of day. • Dispersing the water at a lot of different ports along a 75 foot long defuser nine feet below the surface, they have it at the bottom of the boating zone where it would be available to turn into algae. Then it is colder so it will tend to stay down and mix with the water, and the idea is to mix it quickly so it would return to the temperature that is there. Having it be a very small amount by distributing over the length of the fuser and having it mixed and it is colder, it will not be noticeable at all. Cornell University expects to measure after the plant is operation, and there would not be any noticeable change in water clarity. Board Member Hoffmann stated that it was a very long explanation, but she does not know what it looks like and where it might occur. in it. Mr. Joyce stated that algae is just the green slim that is in any water that grows because it has nutrients Board Member Hoffmann asked if that is what is seen in ponds. Mr. Joyce responded, yes. Cornell University would not have a situation where there are any major concerns like there would be in a small pond. The level of additional phosphorous is very small. Board Member Hoffmann asked if it were to occur where would it be. Mr. Joyce stated that if there was something to see at all it would be very diffuse probably within 1,000 feet of the outfall area depending on what time of day it is. Mr. Joyce stated that he is convinced that this would fall in the variability of what is happening there now, and they would not be able to perceive any change in water clarity. It is just an aesthetic issue. There are no other concerns. • PLANNING BOARD MINUTES 24 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3, 1998 Board Member Hoffmann asked if the aesthetic issue is that the water does not look clear or that there • is a green layer of algae on top. Mr. Joyce stated that there would not be anything seen on top. The water would potentially not look as clear. Board Member Ainslie stated that he heard on the local radio station by an environmentalist that Cornell University would be using a lubricant on the machinery that would induce phosphorous into the lake. Mr. Joyce stated that is totally wrong, and there is no reason for anyone to think that. Phosphorous is not a lubricant. Cornell University did a lot of lake study to sample water quality at the intake area for the water that is coming in and in the outfall area where the water will be returned, including phosphorous. Cornell University has three years of data that was gathered, plus there is a relatively significant data base out there. This is a well studied lake interms of phosphorous information. Phosphorous is a living nutrient for life in Cayuga Lake, and it is something that is very well understood. Board Member Bell asked Mr. Joyce why the dredging from the lake would be moved to another location instead of back filling after the pipe is installed. Mr. Joyce stated that there is no reason to. They will get filled in by lake currents. There is no need to armor them which is the typical reason why they are covered. There is no concern about anyone hitting them or damaging them like there would be in a bigger body of water with big ships passing through. • Chairperson Wilcox stated that this discussion was held for the benefit of the Planning Board. There is the possibility of another such preliminary discussion having to deal with the routing of the piping, and then at some point there will be a recommendation of rezoning that would go to the Town Board. Then the Planning Board would be acting upon the subdivision and site plan, and those issues will include public hearings where the public would be invited to speak at that time. Chairperson Wilcox duly closed the preliminary discussions regarding Cornell University Lake Source Cooling Project at 10:13 p.m. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - DECEMBER 16,1997• The December 16, 1997 Planning Board Minutes were not prepared for tonight's approval. AGENDA ITEM: APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JANUARY 6 1998 The January 6, 1998 Planning Board Minutes were not prepared for tonight's approval. AGENDA ITEM: OTHER BUSINESS: The Planning Board briefly discussed the possibility of having Cornell University return for the February meeting for further discussion on the Lake Source Cooling Project. AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT: Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the January 20, 1998, Meeting of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly adjourned at 10:28 p.m. PLANNING BARD MINUTES 29 JANUARY 20, 1998 APPROVED - MARCH 3. 1998 • Prepared by: Deborah Kelley, Keyboard Specialist/Minutes Recorder Mary Bryant, Administrative Secretary for the Town of Ithaca Planning Board. • I • • TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD 126 East Seneca Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Tuesday. January 20. 1998 AGENDA 7:30 P.M. Persons to be heard. 7:35 P.M. Consideration of a Sketch Plan for the proposed addition to the Montessori School Annex, to consist of approximately 2,000 +/- square feet of additional classroom space, located at 117 East King Road on Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 43 -2 -7, Residence District R -15, Montessori School, Owner /Applicant; Peter Demjanec, Agent. 8:05 P.M. Continuation of consideration of Determination of Significance of Environmental Impact regarding the proposed Mecklenburg Heights development to consist of 56 apartment units in seven buildings to be located on a 9.12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.12, totalling 95 +/- acres. The site is located on Mecklenburg Road, adjacent to the Town of Ithaca/City of Ithaca boundary, R -15 Residence District. The applicant has requested a rezoning of the proposed housing site from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence. The proposed project will also require Subdivision Approval and Site Plan Approval by the Planning Board. Anthony Ceracche, Owner; Conifer Realty, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent. 8:40 P.M. Preliminary discussion regarding Cornell University's proposal to construct a chilled water plant in conjunction with the Lake Source Cooling Project, including the referral from the Town Board requesting a recommendation from the Planning Board regarding the proposed rezoning of the site of the proposed chilled water plant, as well as site plan approval and subdivision approval for the project, located at 983 East Shore Drive on a 3.12 +/- acre portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 19 -1 -5, Business District "E ". Cornell University, Owner /Applicant; W.S. (Lanny) Joyce, P.E., Agent. 5. Approval of Minutes: , 6. Other Business. 7. Adjournment, Jonathan Kanter, AICP Director of Planning 273 -1747 NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT 273 - 1737. (A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.) • • 0 TOWN OF ITHACA AFFADAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION I, Karen McGuire being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Secretary 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 Town of Ithaca Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street. Ithaca. New York on Tuesday January 20 1998 commencing at 7:30 P.M. as per attached. Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Bulletin Board, Front & Entrance of Town Hall. Date of Posting : January 14, 1998 Karen McGuire Town of Ithaca. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF TOMPKINS) Sworn to and subscribed before me this I day of January. Mary J. Saxton Notary Public, State of New d Registration #01SA -50440 ":' Qualified in Tioga C-,,,. My commission Expires 5� }�C, ,, TOWN OF ITJiACA PLANNING BOARD ATTENDANCE SHEET CLQ Date : C� Cly Gx �� l U c PLEASE PRINT YOUR NAME ADDRESS OR AFFILIATE ( Please PRINT to ensure Accuracy in Official Minutes ) V +c c .�..�- � A+ C-7 D C Re &4 km )"I C L I j-\ 61 V�1((� p 6j 9 E l-,�4LK f-e r��