HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2002-03-05FILE
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD DATE Q
TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2002
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on Tuesday, March 5, 2002, in Town Hall,
215 North Tioga, Ithaca, New York, at 7:30 p.m.
PRESENT: Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva. Hoffmann, Board Member; George Conneman, Board
Member; Tracy Mitrano, Board Member (7:47 p.m.); Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe, Board
Member; Kevin Talty, Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director of Planning; John Barney, Attorney
for the Town; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering (arrived @ 7:49 p.m.); Susan Ritter, Assistant
Director of Planning; Mike Smith, Environmental Planner; Christine Balestra- Lehman, Planner.
ALSO PRESENT: Kristina Roger, Conifer Realty; Stephen Nicholson,. 220 Yaples Road; Louise
Mudrak, 693 Coddington Road;, Eric Mulvihill, WHCU; Bruce John, Better Housing; Amy Dade, SRF &
Associates; David Harding, Carl Jahn & Associated; Stacy Crawford, Better Housing; Lauren Bishop,
Ithaca Journal; Jeff Kirschman, 1005 Danby Road; Tye Wolfe, Ithaca Times; Tom Gilbert, IAD; Joe
Gerughty, Ithacan; Joe Pateris, Ithacan; Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Layton, 1029 Danby Road; John Yntema,
993 Danby Road; Tom Salm, VP of Ithaca College; Anne Morrisette, Director of Coddington Road
Community Center; Keith McNeil, 139 Oakwood Lane; Carl Segrecci, Ithaca College; Rory Rockman,
Ithaca College; Fred Vanderburg, Ithaca College; David Herrick, TG Miller; Vince Nicotra, QVK
Design; Dave Harding, QVK Design; Peter Meskill, Tompkins County Sheriff,
Chairperson Wilcox declared the meeting duly opened at 7:37 p.m. and accepted for the record the
Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on February 25, 2002, and February 27, 2002, together with the properties under
discussion, as appropriate, upon the Clerks of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Danby, upon the
Tompkins County Commissioner of Planning, upon the Tompkins County Commissioner of Public
Works, and upon the applicants and /or agents, as appropriate, on February 27, 2002. (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.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - The first item of business this evening is persons to be heard. If there is a
member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning Board this evening on an issue or an
item, which is not on this evening's agenda, we ask you to please step forward to the microphone and
podium that we have set up this evening. Give us your name and address, and we will be very
interested to hear what you have to say this evening. There being none we will move onto the
second item on this evening's agenda.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 7:39 p.m.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR Determination, Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington
Road.
Chairperson Wilcox - Speaking for the applicant is... If I'm not mistaken, you are Claudia Brenner,
Could I ask you to give us a business address please?
Claudia Brenner - My business address is 528 West Green Street in Ithaca.
Chairperson Wilcox - You have been through this before, but would you give us an overview of the
project, as it is proposed and any environmental issues that you are aware of.
Ms. Brenner - The project hasn't changed substantially since our last visit before this board. What
actually happened is that our permission expired and so we are coming before the board again to get
new permission for essentially the same project. We've grown in square footage. We probably
should've built it while we had the chance, but our square footage grew a little bit. We are asking for
minor changes to the site plan, which we can talk about, but I don't believe that it is that important to
the short environmental assessment form. So I think for the purposes of that form there have been
no changes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - I noticed one difference aside from the changes in the building. In the
earlier plan it said to remove the concrete pad adjacent to the building, but in the new drawing it
doesn't say that.
Ms. Brenner - That's right. What happened was that we are proposing a slightly different turn around
parking for the building, which will not conflict with the concrete pad in the small of the building back
there. Assuming that everyone is happy with our new site plan, we will be able to leave that intact.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions? I would ask the board to look at the short environmental
assessment form. Question 10, present land use in the vicinity. Applicant has checked agricultural
and open space. I believe residential would be appropriate. There are some residential. The
following question, number 11, "Does proposed action involve a permit, approval or funding from any
other government agency ?" I think the answer is yes; the New York State Dormitory Authority and
the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals will also have to provide you with an approval as well.
Ms. Brenner - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - So if those changes are acceptable... Any further discussion on environmental
review? There being none, would someone like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Conneman - I'll move it.
2
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by George Conneman. Seconded by Larry Thayer. He had his hand
up first if that's okay. Staff? There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by
saying "aye'
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? Are there any abstentions? There are none. The motion is
passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 46 - SEQR, Preliminary
& Final
Site Plan
Approval and a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding
Special Approval,
Coddington
Road Community Center, 920 Coddington Road, Town
of Ithaca
Tax Parcel
No. 47 -1 -11.3.
MOTION made by George Conneman, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
10 This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed site plan
modifications to the Coddington Road Community Center located at 920 Coddington Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3, Residence District R -30. The modifications include
increasing the proposed addition from 1,400 +/- square feet to 1,900 +/- square feet (1,700 +/
square feet in the rear and 200 +/- square feet in front of the existing building) and changes to
the layout of the two parking spaces, turnaround, and walkways. Coddington Road
Community Center, Owner /Applicant; Claudia Brenner, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board is legislatively
determined to act as Lead Agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval,
and
3. The Planning Board, on March 5, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Short
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Topographic Map Showing a Portion of Lands of the
Coddington Road Community Center" dated 6129199 and Received on January 30, 2002, "First
Floor Plan" dated December 15, 1999, "Elevations" Drawing No. 9 and Drawing No. 10, dated
December 15, 1999, prepared by Claudia Brenner, and other application material, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED.
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 action as proposed, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement will
not be required.
3
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Thayer, Howe, Talty.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mitrano.
The motion was declared to be carried.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval (Special
Approval was granted in December 1999, but has expired) for the proposed site plan
modifications to the Coddington Road Community Center located at 920 Coddington Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47. -1 -11.3, Residence District R -30. The modifications included
increasing the proposed addition from 1,400 ± square feet to 1,900 ± square feet (1,700 ±
square feet in the rear and 200 ± square feet in front of the existing building) and changes to
the layout of the two parking spaces, turnaround, and walkways, which will also result in
minor modifications to the Town of Ithaca ball field. Coddington Road Community Center,
Owner /Applicants Claudia Brenner, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 7:41 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions of Ms. Brenner this evening? I have one if I may... The prior plan
labeled one of the parking spaces as handicapped.
Ms. Brenner - That should show parking space number 1 as handicapped.
Chairperson Wilcox - We will add a condition to the resolution.
Ms. Brenner - That's why the concrete walk...
Chairperson Wilcox - You are aware of the fact that the Town has recommended that the new
baseball backstop be installed roughly 30 feet from the turnaround.
Ms. Brenner - Yes. I just talked with Mike Smith about that. We have no problem with that. We
showed it as 50 feet trying to have absolutely no possibility of any conflict between anybody behind
the backstop and any part of that parking turnaround. But, in fact, 30 or 35 feet should work. That
would leave plenty of room for the ball field.
Chairperson Wilcox - Members of the board, anybody have an issue with the ball field being 30 feet
instead of 50 feet? Any other questions? Claudia, I will ask you take a seat for a second. This is a
public hearing ladies and gentlemen, if there is a member of the audience who wished to address the
Planning Board this evening on this specific agenda item, once again we ask you to please step to
the microphone, give us a name and an address and we will be very interested to hear what you have
to say this evening. There being none, I will close the public hearing at 7:45 p.m. and bring the
matter back to the board.
n
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
You have funding this time, right?
Ms. Brenner - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - We can get rid of that temporary trailer?
Ms. Brenner - Absolutely.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think Larry has the sinking chair.
Board Member Thayer - We will take care of that in a minute.
Chairperson Wilcox - You'd better hurry up and switch right now before she gets here.
Female voice - Would you like to hear about our funding?
Chairperson Wilcox - No. We are trying to stay on schedule this evening. It is going to be a long
meeting.
Board Member Hoffmann - I move the proposed resolution.
Chairperson Wilcox -.So moved by Eva Hoffmann. Do I have a second? Seconded by Kevin Talty.
Changes, Mr. Barney? We would like ... we need to add a clause to modify the labeling of the parking
space number 1 to indicate that it is a handicapped parking space.
Board Member Hoffmann - Handicapped accessible.
Chairperson Wilcox - Handicapped accessible, thank you. That would
topographic map. Is there already a clause in here in regard to the backstop?
need to modify that one to also modify the plans to show the backstop, the
being 30 feet from the turnaround area.
Ms. Brenner - From the existing backstop.
Chairperson Wilcox - Kevin are those changes acceptable?
Board Member Talty - That's fine.
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other changes?
be on drawing labeled
The answer is no. We
baseball field backstop,
6i
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Attorney Barney - I am not 100 percent sure, I haven't had a chance to go back and look. Is the lease
with the Town describing a specific land area?
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I ask whoever responds to come to the microphone and provide a name
and address please.
Ann Morrisette, Director of Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington Road - The
question being does the Town easement have boundaries... actual formal boundaries. I believe it
does. I don't know if it is described in the contract that we have with the Town, but is seems to
always appear on the drawings as definite boundaries. I know there was some discussion about
whether... It definitely includes the parking area and then when the parking area was resurfaced two
years ago, the front parking area there, there was some discussion about the drive that goes up by
the building, whether that was in or out of...
Attorney Barney - This additional addition to the building... will that impact?
Ms. Morrisette - No, none of the building would. The only area in question would be what is shown as
the drive that goes alongside the building. Does that show the hedgerow that divides the ball field
from where the small pavilion is?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes.
Ms. Morrisette = That's always been the demarcation for the easement area. The turnaround would
be on the Town easement.
Attorney Barney - It has been so long since I looked at that a thousand years ago. I am trying to
remember what exactly that easement said with respect... Maybe it would be wise if we just inserted
a condition... you have to go to the BZA any way. Between now and the time you get to the BZA that
the applicant and the Town Attorney have a chance to review the easement area and make sure we
are not impacting. If we are to modify the easement...
Chairperson Wilcox - You'll right.that out?
Attorney Barney - I sure will.
Chairperson Wilcox - Kevin, is that acceptable?
Board Member Talty - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva, as well?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other comments? There being none, all those in favor please signal by
saying "aye ".
C:1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? There are no abstentions. The motion is passed
unanimously. Thank you very much.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 47 - Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval, Coddington Road Community
Center, 920 Coddington Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3.
MOTION made by Eva Hoffmann, seconded by Kevin Tally.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a recommendation
to the Zoning Board. of Appeals regarding Special Approval for the proposed site plan
modifications to the Coddington Road Community Center located at 920 Coddington Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3, Residence District R -30. The modifications include
increasing the proposed addition from 1,400 +/- square feet to 1,900 +/- square feet (1,700 +/-
square feet in the rear and 200 +/- square feet in front of the existing building) and changes to
the layout of the two parking spaces, turnaround, and walkways. Coddington Road
Community Center, Owner /Applicant; Claudia Brenner, Agent, and
2. This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as lead agency
in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, has, on March 5, 2002, made a
negative determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 5, 2002, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate, plans entitled "Topographic Map Showing a Portion of Lands of the Coddington
Road Community Center" dated 6129199 and Received on January 30, 2002, "First Floor Plan"
dated December 15, 1999, "Elevations" Drawing No. 9 and Drawing No. 10, dated December
15, 1999, prepared by Claudia Brenner, and other application material, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for Preliminary
and Final Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary and Final Site Plan Checklists,
having determined from the materials presented that such waiver will result in neither a
significant alteration of the purpose of site plan control nor the policies enunciated or implied
by the Town Board, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary and Final Site Plan
Approval for the proposed 1,900 +/- square foot addition to the Coddington Road Community
Center located at 920 Coddington Road, as shown on plans entitled "Topographic Map
Showing a Portion of Lands of the Coddington Road Community Center" dated 6129199 and
7
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Received on January 30, 2002, "First Floor Plan" dated December 15, 1999, "Elevations"
Drawing No. 9 and Drawing No. 10, dated December 15, 1999, prepared by Claudia Brenner,
subject to the following conditions:
a. granting by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the required Special Approval for the
proposed project;
b, that the temporary office trailer on the site be removed on or before November 5, 2002;
C, submission of an original of the final site plan on mylar, vellum or paper, revised to show
applicable revision dates and the new location of the backstop with the 30 foot
dimension, to be retained by the Town of Ithaca;
d, modify site plan to show labeling of parking space #1 as a handicapped accessible
parking space and the relocation of the backstop approximately 30 feet south of its
current location;
e. confirmation by the Attorney for the town with the assistance of the applicant and the
Director of Planning that the proposed site plan alterations do not adversely affect the
easement of the Town for use of the ball field and related facilities prior to the issuance
of any building permit, and
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board, in making a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals,
determines the following:
a. there is a need for the proposed use in the proposed location;
b. the existing and probable future character of the neighborhood in which the use is to be
located will not be adversely affected;
C, the proposed use is in accordance with a comprehensive plan of development of the
Town;
2. That the Planning Board reports to the Zoning Board of Appeals its recommendation that the
aforementioned request for Special Approval be approved.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe, Tally.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
E:1
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - One down. Are you able to stay late this evening?
Board Member Mitrano - I don't know.
Chairperson Wilcox - There is some grapes and some cheese.
Board Member Mitrano - Is that an indication of how long everyone expects we are going to be here?
Board Member Talty - The good news is that they did not bring any bedding or cots.
Board Member Mitrano - My children don't have a mother. Where are your children tonight, Fred?
Chairperson Wilcox - Where are my children tonight? One, the fifteen year old, is at home hopefully
doing homework, but probably getting ready to watch Star Trek. My 19- year -old daughter hopefully is
in her apartment downtown doing her homework as well. I'm old.
Board Member Mitrano - No kidding. That's great. Is she going to Cornell or Ithaca College?
Chairperson Wilcox - She is going to TC3 right now.
Board Member Mitrano - Excellent.
Chairperson Wilcox - She is interested in child development.
Board Member Mitrano - No kidding.
Chairperson Wilcox - We pay her tuition, but other than that self - supporting. She is working at IC3.
Board Member Mitrano - Excellent.
Chairperson Wilcox - Which is the daycare facility. She works there 25 to 30 hours a week, pays her
rent. I don't know how she does it. I can just imagine what rent is downtown for a studio apartment.
Board Member Mitrano - Yes. It is very expensive here. With the students they push the rent up so
high. Does she want to come over after two years to the Human Development Department at
Cornell?
Chairperson Wilcox - She's thought about that. She has also looked at Cazenovia. It is expensive.
That's what dad is thinking about.
Board Member Mitrano - Hey, I think about it already.
Chairperson Wilcox - All right. Let me take this opportunity to read this notice.
AGENDA ITEM: SEAR, Determination, Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II and III, Conifer
Drive.
X
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - A couple things before we get going here. For those of you who have just
recently entered the room, I again want to point out that there are two fire exits. There is the door
through which you entered and there is a second door to my left. I also want to explain the process to
those of you who may not regularly attend Planning Board meetings. With the board's permission I
would like to do it just a little bit different this evening, something that I have done in the past. My
feeling is that many of the concerns of the public, which they wish to address, probably have to do
with the environmental issues. The process that we work under starts with the environmental review.
When and if that review is completed, the application is considered complete at which point, we then
move to the public hearing. Very often, the public wants to comment on the environmental issues
and they are given an opportunity only after the environmental issues have already been decided
upon. So after the applicant has given their presentation, after the board has had a chance to
question them and their representatives, I would give the members of the audience a chance to
comment with regard to environmental issues. When and if we make a negative declaration of
environmental significance and we move to the public hearing, then the public will once again have a
chance to comment on the proposal, the site plan and everything about it. I will also do this for
College Circle, as once again the environmental issues are important and the public would wish to
address us on. I will go through the same explanation probably at that point when we get to that.
Having said that, Kris Rogers are you going to take the lead this evening?
Kristina Rogers - David Harding will take the lead. I will be here for answers.
Chairperson Wilcox - David, we had a hard time picking you up on the tape recording when you were
here last. The problem is how do you stay near the microphone and point to the materials that you
brought. We have a little laser pointer. You have a baton.
Mr. Harding - Mr. Fennessey couldn't be here, but I brought his baton.
Chairperson Wilcox - I will ask you to do the best that you can to stay near the microphone and
reference the materials that you brought. I also offer the chance to the public and the news media, if
you wish to come behind to get a better view of the materials; you are welcome to do that as well.
Having said that, the floor is yours. Name and address, please.
David Harding, Carl Jahn & Associates, 450 S Salina Street, Syracuse - I am the landscape architect
on the project. Because John Fennessey couldn't make it tonight he asked me to take the lead. Kris
will help out when she can if there is something that I can't answer.
I've got displayed before you the same rendered plan that we had presented at the meeting last
week. Also, on the other easel a revised subdivision plan that reflects the extension of an easement
extending up into the two large rear parcels so that they have some form of legal access. I have
handed out a packet with three plans in there. One is a reduced version of the subdivision plan on
top. The second plan is a revised landscaping plan, which responds to one of the comments that was
received, I believe from the Environmental Commission about the degree of plantings that were on
the site. That plan does increase the plantings. We have added fifteen additional trees into it. On
10
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
the reverse side of the rendering, I have highlighted in yellow the additional trees that have been
added in to try to give it more substance; I think was the nature of the comment.
The third page of the packet that I submitted is the future - planting plan for the third phase of
development of the three apartment buildings along the west edge of the site. That will show you that
in addition to the plantings that are going in as part of the current contract along the property lines to
buffer the area, there will be additional tree plantings in and amongst the buildings as well as plant
beds around the foundations of the buildings. The plan also indicates the existing 24 -inch maple that
we are proposing to save over in that vicinity and the establishment of a segmental retaining wall
similar to the approach that was used on the Phase I development.
I am open to any questions that you might have or any comments?
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you prepared to discuss the site plan as revised and handed out this
evening in terms of what is being proposed? Excuse me, subdivision.
Mr. Harding - The concern at the last Planning Board meeting was that when the individual lots are
created for purposes of the development, we ended up with this lot that is highlighted in green and
this lot that is highlighted in blue without formal road frontage or legal access. What Conifer Realty is
proposing to do on this plan in this area that you see cross hatched in pink, is to develop an access
easement that leads to these two lots that has legal rights to maintain an access out to Conifer Drive.
We are not proposing to actually develop the road back there at this point. It would just be land
access ... a paper street if you will. That easement does extend 100 feet into the properties. It could
simply be converted into a formal roadway at such time that Conifer Drive was developed into a
formal road. You may notice that the alignment is a little bit off with the intersection. That was for
purposes of just trying to simplify the subdivision at this point. At such time that the road is into the
rear portion of the site is developed, the formal roadway would correlate...
Chairperson Wilcox - Mr. Barney, any questions?
Attorney Barney - A couple. Is there some reason why it couldn't be extended out to be 100 feet wide
system with Conifer Drive along Route 79?
Mr. Harding - The 100 feet seemed excessive for either a Town road right -of -way or for that matter
essentially a private access easement. I suppose it could be...
Attorney Barney - The reason for the 100 feet is to give a little more room to make the determination
to where the road itself, if it becomes necessary to put one in, where the travel portion of the road
should go. Basically, Conifer Realty, as I understand it; owns all three of the pieces for the time
being. You are not really conveying it to anybody but yourself anyway. You are basically reserving
somewhat a larger, wider piece for future need should you decide to develop these other two pieces
in a way that requires the road to be shifted over a few feet at a time when perhaps by then Phase II
might have been conveyed to a different entity. We would kind of like to see it widened out a little bit.
Mr. Harding - Comments not audible.
11
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Kristina Rogers, Project Director with Conifer Realty - We did prepare draft easement language that
we can give to you tonight Mr. Barney. It refers to an exhibit that would be attached to the actual
description of the access easement. It guarantees continued access to the Town, which you have
now presently over the Conifer Drive, which has been extended through a 30 foot wide easement to
the north where the parklands are. It maintains that effort to the Town as well as guarantees access
to the remaining lands of Cerrachi and Conifer Realty Corp. Conifer Realty LLT will be taking over the
land acquisition. We also brought a draft of the cross easement language that we have between the
two phases of apartments over Conifer Drive and the maintenance of that driveway until such time it
becomes a dedicated road.
Attorney Barney - That would be good if you could get it either tonight or the next day or so. The
other issue one has is one looks at this if it ever had to become a public road to provide access to
those two large parcels in the back is there is no real provision for a turnaround of any sort in terms of
a circle. I am wondering whether it wouldn't be possible to program something like that in. Either
there or ... basically gives us enough room that if a snowplow had to come at some point.
Chairperson Wilcox - David, could you please go to the map and show the bus turnaround please?
Mr. Harding - The bus turnaround is currently at the end of the existing drive.
Ms. Rogers - I think the intent of the access easement now is to guarantee at least a 100 foot of
frontage in access to public roads to the back lands. At such time that we would formally develop and
extend the road back there, yes, it would be in order to ... single family subdivision or loop through to
later phases of the apartment... There would have to be a formal plan for what is going back there. At
that time ... what the road would look like.
Attorney Barney - I guess my concern is if you didn't do it and somehow this land got conveyed to
somebody else, but they wanted the public road. It seems to me that we would need to have enough
room to accomplish that turnaround.
Ms. Rogers - Maybe that's where the 100 feet wide would accommodate.
Attorney Barney - It would accommodate
Again, with all the common ownership if it
time when you come in to develop the oth
could give its consent to that revision and
case may be. But pending that, the
protected ... a public road if necessary.
in part, but again it would depend on how you configured it.
could be shown as a potential turnaround and then at such
er parcels, at that point if you wanted to revise it, this board
be a modified... subdivision modified site plan, whatever the
subdivision that you are planning right now would be
Chairperson Wilcox - You should be careful about common ownership, by the way. There are
numerous, separate legal entities that have been set up to control the various parcels here. I don't
know whether they have common ownership or not.
Attorney Barney - The Phase II is going to be different ownership as I understand it from these two
lots in the back and Conifer Drive.
12
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Ms. Rogers - Conifer Realty LLC is the common entity to the various ownership entities. They're
limited partnerships or limited liability companies set up to own each one. We are the general
partners.
Chairperson Wilcox - The stormwater detention basin is also a third. Is .that...I would have to go
back... Is that a third company that owns some of?
Ms. Rogers, Technically, yeah. Conifer Realty Corporation owns that right now. We will be
purchasing that from them along with the Cerrachi land.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay.
Mr. Harding - The detention basin is part of the Phase II parcel.
Chairperson Wilcox - So, John, you suggested...
Attorney Barney - Widening the easement to 100 feet to match up with the 100 feet coming off of
Route 79.
Chairperson Wilcox - That would be part of the subdivision.
Attorney Barney - And then adding a turnaround of some sort at least shown as possible public
highway turnaround somewhere north of the division line between Phase II and the other two parcels.
Chairperson Wilcox - That would be part of the site plan. All right. All set, John, for now?
Attorney Barney - For the moment.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. The board? Who wants to begin? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. Again, these things come up in no particular order. There were
some mention of sidewalks and that the TCAT representative in a letter wrote that they would like to
see a sidewalk up to the bus stop. And I don't see anything like that on the plans. Is that something
that you are going to provide us with?
Ms. Rogers - We talked about... The school buses right now loop through the apartment's parking lot.
We expected that was the same for the.. apartments as well. And the TCAT bus system ... would
have supervised children who would walk down to that bus shelter and wait for the public bus line. In
that regard, we felt that we didn't need the sidewalk...
Mr. Harding - Right now the entrance is coming forth... it is fairly ample in accommodating traffic in
two directions and pedestrian travel along the shoulders. The case in many instances... it is possible
to provide a ... walk, Conifer's position is that they did not feel it was necessary.
Board Member Hoffmann - I beg to differ. I think it is necessary, especially looking at the drawings
showing the width of the road and having been up there again recently and looking at that road. The
13
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
existing access road into the first phase of the development is not striped in any way. So, that means
that cars find it hard to know how far they should stay from the shoulder or the edge of the pavement,
I should say. On the south side of the road that goes east/west, the part that goes east/west, there is
some grass and it is somewhat level next to the pavement, but on the north side it really drops off and
there is not any shoulder. It's really ... I don't think it would be very pleasant to walk there as an adult,
much less to have children walking there. I think there are several of us who have reacted to the fact
that there aren't any sidewalks, which should've been there already. I would like very much to see a
sidewalk at least coming from this part of the project up to where the bus shelter would be. And
where would the bus shelter be?
Mr. Harding - Comments not audible.
Chairperson Wilcox - You would like to see a sidewalk possibly running along that portion of the
entranceway that runs east/west?
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes.
Board Member Thayer - I would think also that there would be foot traffic between Phase I and Phase
II that would need a sidewalk.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think so too.
Board Member Thayer - If you talk about...
Chairperson Wilcox - I warn the board that we are heading over towards site plan instead of
environmental review, but go ahead and finish your thought.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think that is part of an environmental concern about the setting.
Mr. Kanter - Fred?
Chairperson Wilcox - Jon.
Mr. Kanter - If I could clarify the TCAT comment. It was a preliminary one. We haven't actually
received a letter from them formally yet, but the comment about the sidewalk was based on a
preliminary meeting that I had with TCAT representatives. They indicated that really to encourage
use of the bus stop and bus shelter, they would like to see a sidewalk as you have been mentioning.
I expect that they will make that a formal comment when we do get their letter. So that was kind of
like an early flag that that would probably be a consideration. We have also gotten unofficial
confirmation from TCAT that they would be willing to extend the bus route up into the circle subject, of
course, to them reviewing the plans for the turnaround and accessibility and all those issues.
Chairperson Wilcox - The floor is yours.
Board Member Hoffmann - Shall I continue? I would like to see the additional plantings that you
suggested within the development itself, but as I drove there looking at the visual impact of this rather
i[!
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
than... comparing it with the existing one ... I think somewhere in the papers it said that the visual study
that had been done for the first phase would apply to the second phase, too. I don't quite agree
because I feel that when you travel from the west down towards Ithaca, there are a lot of trees on
what is labeled the Murray parcel between these two developments. Big trees that really block the
view of Phase I of this development, but there aren't any such trees blocking the view from the west
of this part that we are now looking at. I would like to see many more plantings of even initially bigger
trees than you have scheduled here. They are quite smaller ones you have proposed. And on both
the roadside along Mecklenburg Road as well as on the north /south western edge of the property
there. Because I think one needs that to screen the views of these buildings. They are very close to
the road and the plantings that are in the existing part of Phase I are so small that you barely see
them. The evergreens are not looking very healthy.
Mr. Harding - ...the size of the plants indicate... There are additional costs to develop the access
road into the site. We are trying to balance that out...
Ms. Rogers - I think we have a willingness to increase plantings... the number of plantings or work on
the size ... to dramatically increase the size of the plants plus increase the number of...it is a
geometric...
Board Member Hoffmann - I understand that the larger plants...
Ms. Rogers - In terms of the approach from the west, we have a context of larger plants on that
corner to help...but we could accommodate through the balance of the site. We could do larger
plantings ... to get better coverage.
Board Member Hoffmann - What I especially would like to see is a denser buffer along the road than
what you have proposed. I see what you have proposed is more plants that Phase I had, but it still
looks more or less like a row of trees. I would like to see some depth there too, of plants of different
heights initially and as they mature so that it looks more natural. It does not have to look like a fence.
Chairperson Wilcox - I am looking for some sort of signal of concurrence.
Board Member Mitrano - I agree.
Board Member Thayer - I agree.
Chairperson Wilcox - We'll put that down for later. Continue, Eva,
Board Member Hoffmann - All right. I would like to have another description of the wetland area and
the drainage capacity of that whole area, again. Also, I am concerned how that large, what is it, 20 by
50 feet large spillway is going to look as one goes by there along the road.
Mr. Harding - The wetland area that you are speaking of is this yellow portion. A small finger of it
extends over to the creek... construction of the detention basin berms. There is also a portion that is
being filled to the west of it as a result of the turnaround of the TCAT bus. Right now there is a
general drainage path coming from the west flowing to the east. We have concentrated a channel
15
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
that correlates with linear wetland. The wetland is not flat right now. It is probably a five percent
slope from one end to the other, but because of the amount of water that is being channeled in a fairly
sizeable watershed maintains a width of... If you have been on site you have seen that the... primarily
consists of cattails. What we are proposing to do is in the area of the wetland ... to remain ... we will be
putting silt fence around that and construction fence around it. The detention basin will be brought
out to the east of there essentially broadening the elevation of the wetland. With the continued
concentration of water back into the retention basin, we are expecting that wetland to actually to grow
out to the perimeter of the retention basin.
The site plan that I showed in the last meeting... I have the exhibit here again. This is the erosion
and sedimentation control plan that will be incorporated into the final drawings pursuant to the DEC
permit requirements. What we are proposing to do at the initial base construction is to have a
contractor excavate temporary sediment basins upstream of the wetland into the stormwater during
construction will be discharged and allowed to filter out through perforated sand pipes. That will
segregate out and dispense silt. Once all the surfaces of the project site are at grade and the status
of vegetation is stabilized, those temporary retention basins will be filled in and topsoil will be seeded
as well. The retention basins will serve as the permanent stormwater management facility. We
expect that the wetlands that we are protecting and the additional wetland area that will spread from
there will contribute to stormwater quality management.
Board Member Hoffmann - Will that whole larger wetland area be planted in a similar way to how the
existing one is planted or growing now?
Mr. Harding - The wetlands are primarily cattail dominated. The cattails are really an invasive
species. They quite quickly spread into the environment. We are not at this point proposing to do
any elaborate wetland plantings. We are proposing to restabilize the bottom of the detention basin
quickly with grasses and let the cattails spread out naturally into the area.
Board Member Hoffmann - How does that large rocky area there...?
Mr. Harding - Ma'am, I apologize. I remember now that was a big issue for you at the last meeting. I
haven't devised a plan or a submission, but we will certainly incorporate into the final plans the
realization of the coconut fiber, textile... remember we talked about going with a geosynthetic geo
textile erosion control blanket and how it will provide the erosion protection of the riprap without
compromising the integrity of the bank. That is a matrix of plastic fibers with ... a half inch to an inch
thick. You lay it down over the surface of the ground, over the topsoil. As I pointed out at the last
meeting, the riprap is in a fairly no conspicuous location facing the buffer area of the creek. However,
there could be some potential in the future for a trail development down there. So the comment is
appropriate... in anticipation of the potential future amenities.
Board Member Hoffmann - That just reminds me, is that called a spillway?
Mr. Harding - Yes, that is a spillway.
Board Member Hoffmann - Does it slope towards the creek or away from the creek?
16
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Mr. Harding - It slopes towards the creek. The spillway is the break in the berm, the fine break in the
berm so that at some point the water in the detention basin rises up to the top of the berm, it provides
a controlled route down the base of the berm and towards a different direction, in this case the creek.
One of the reasons that we had proposed riprap in the first place is because it gives you a little bit
better of a velocity reduction than the erosion control blanket, in terms of slowing the slope down and
reintroducing it backs out onto the... surfaces. I will look at looking at using appropriate field materials
to slow that velocity down.
Mr. Kanter - David, the last time we talked about this, were you mentioning that there could be more
difficult problems with maintenance or long -term upkeep of that synthetic material as opposed to rock.
Mr. Harding - The discussion that we had at the last meeting, I initially said that we could use a
coconut fiber. Dan Walker pointed out that that is not. as long lived as a geosynthetic blanket.
Neither is as long lived as riprap. The rock for all purposes has a 50 plus year life cycle. The coconut
fiber blanket has a three to five year life expectancy. Geosynthetics, their biggest enemy is UV rays..
I think those blankets are generally rated for ten years. They are pretty much a temporary measure
until such time that you get good root establishment from your grasses.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think I am beginning to understand. Thank you.
Mr. Walker - David, what was the frequency of storm with that that would utilize that spillway?
Mr. Harding - It would not be utilized until the 100 year storm. At that point with the depth of flow with
that spillway, I think it is only inches. At the function of the detention basin, the insides, based on a
100 year developed system versus the... condition...
Mr. Walker - That is using the eight inch?
Mr. Harding - That is using the eight inch pipe.
Mr. Walker - There is sufficient volume in there then. Hopefully we will never see that spillway flow.
Mr. Harding - We would hope so.
Mr. Walker - That would give it sufficient time for vegetation.
Mr. Harding - Chances are very, very remote that the spillway. would ever see...
Mr. Walker - ...they did not maintain it frequently enough to keep it clean, so it was plugged up.
Mr. Harding - It is good to have an emergency spillway because you never know.
Chairperson Wilcox - Dan, while we are on the topic of stormwater retention, do you have any
comments at this time?
17
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Mr. Walker - Based on the size of the spillway and the fact that they will be containing a 100 year
storm in it and they are reducing flood control flows to the highway. You probably have to make them
put more water back into the highway drainage ditch. They have adequately addressed the
stormwater questions.
Chairperson Wilcox - How about the issues in terms of during construction and dealing with
the. ..given the large amount of earth that will be cleared for construction and potential for the water to
pick up to silt and...
Mr. Walker - Temporary construction pods will address it and adequately control that.
Chairperson Wilcox - If I am not mistaken, you still need additional details from them.
Mr. Walker - Oh, we need details.
Chairperson Wilcox - But, from what you heard so far...
Mr. Walker - The concept is excellent.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other comments?
Mr. Walker - Not related to this.
Chairperson Wilcox - All right. Anybody else? I've got a few things I'd like to go over. We have an
interesting letter from the State Department of Transportation. I'll just read, "the emergency access
road on the western side of the property, further labeled on sheet C3 will not be allowed. Our
experience with these is they quickly become short cut driveway and potential safety problem ". Staff
has offered the opinion that maybe the State of New York doesn't understand the purpose of this
emergency access and maybe isn't aware of the fact that there is a plan to gate it or chain it or in
some way require keyed access. I don't know whose responsibility it is to go back to the State and
have them review this. I believe that second access road is important. Because if we don't have it,
then we have a single access point for both Phase I and Phase II that could be blocked. It is
important that that issue be resolved and that the State allows a curb cut.
Mr. Harding - Kris had followed up discussions with DOT and could speak to that. But, before we do,
I just wanted to point out one thing. And that was, my recollection was that on the Phase I
development we had identified an emergency access point in a similar fashion, which correlated to
where the walkway came down to the highway. But, when I look back at the plans now, I don't find
any reference to that whatsoever. I could swear that was on there, at least in the initial planning
phase of the project. It maybe that the DOT had a similar issue back then and made us take it off. I
just don't recall. Phase I technically does not have that secondary emergency access. It is probably
a more demanding configuration in terms of single access.
Chairperson Wilcox - That access would have been closer to the 90- degree turn in the road anyways.
We would have had some sight line issues.
In
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPPOVED
Ms. Rogers - John Fennessey put in the initial phone call to DOT. Tom Cory did call me back. Tom
Cory, at this point, was pretty adamant that DOT would not allow an additional access point. l tried to
work together... His position is that he didn't see the necessity for it and was concerned that it would
be a future hazard because of the potential for it to be misused and become a primary access point
instead of an emergency access point. I discussed with him that there would be crash gates. It
would be a gravel roadway. He said that the gates tend to disappear or get left open...
Chairperson Wilcox - Do we know what their problem is? I assume that there is no issue here with
something that was done, for example, when the first phase of Eco Village was built. The secondary
access road was chained. There's a lock. The key is available to emergency...
Mr. Kanter - That is not on a State highway.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, I know, but the lock key is available to emergency personnel. Yes, I
know it is not on a State highway.
Mr. Harding - They are pretty protective. They do not like to be out of the norm...
Mr. Kanter - You might want to consider adding a further resolved in our resolution if we get to that
point indicating that desire and then that could evoke some further communications with the State.
Mr. Walker - I would recommend that. We have experience with the State. We have a development
on Route 79, Penny Lane that has such emergency access that is chained. The State expressed a
concern about that, but we prevailed so...
Chairperson Wilcox - We have that to show as an example, a positive example.
Ms. Rogers - Comments not audible.
Mr. Walker - It is on the east side of Ithaca.
Chairperson Wilcox - It is actually Route 79 on the other side of town.
Mr. Walker - It looks like a driveway.
Mr. Harding - We would consider this emergency access as a temporary facility at such time that the
development proceeds to the north side of Linderman Creek. One of the concepts that Conifer is
leaning towards is providing a ... across the creek that would extend into that parking lot. It correlates
with current water line right of way, which could provide a permanent... secondary access.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think it is important to provide a second point of entrance to Phase I and
Phase II, Okay. We talked about TCAT. We talked about landscaping. We mentioned subdivision,
wetland, and stormwater. We have alluded to the large area that will be cleared and the need to deal
with stormwater runoff while the site is under construction and the existing vegetation is no longer
there. I want to talk about the lighting. They are shown on drawing C2. It is a very open luminar. It
is sort of an old fashioned looking style of light, lantern if you will. I am concerned about light spillage
19
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
or the ability for someone to see the bulb and therefore, perceive the presence of glare and why this
was chosen instead of the usual box type, cutoff, downward facing.
Mr. Harding - That was chosen for consistency with what was done in the Phase I development. I
think it is slightly more out of visual aesthetics, not considering the illuminating aspect of it. I guess
the question that I would ask is have you observed the Phase I lighting and noticed any adverse
characteristics with that lighting. This is a duplication of that with the exception that, as I mentioned
before, we are going to lower the height of that fixture because they were just a little too far out of
reach... They have a tendency to reduce spillage.
Chairperson Wilcox - I have never been there during the evening hours or at night. So I can't say
anything. I have not heard anything.
Board Member Hoffmann - No. I haven't either.
Chairperson Wilcox - Staff, do you have any issues in regard to...
Ms. Ritter - No. I haven't heard anything.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. That is all on my list. Anybody else? Eva?
Board Member Hoffmann - Just one more thing. When you showed us that drawing, yes, which
shows another road going north from that most westerly road. That is another crossing of the creek
there.
Mr. Harding - Yeah, that is. Right now this is just preliminary, conceptual. Conifer is not really
anxiously studying it further. It maybe there it may not. It was just merely suggesting that that might
be a trade off to the emergency access.
Board Member Hoffmann - I just wanted to ask if staff has any point of view about that.
Mr. Walker - I would like to see it. Wherever that road is there's...) almost thought we had a culvert in
there.
Mr. Harding - Comments not audible.
Mr. Walker - That road is right over the top of our main water transmission main on that route. We
used it when we talked about the,. for maintenance purposes we do put stream crossing in there with
a culvert pipe. So, I haven't been down in that section for a while. I don't quite remember if there is a
pipe in there or not. We've mowed that at least once a year. I know that we are able to get a tractor
across the creek. So the creek is not really much of a creek up there, I don't believe. I know that we
can cross it anywhere.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay. Just one final thing. In looking at the drawing you have that shows
the plantings, in that upper left corner, there is a lot of vegetation indicated with green. It covers up
the building, northern most building. What does that mean?
20
TOWN OF ITRACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Mr. Harding - What this plan is showing right now is the future locations of the three apartment
buildings. Under the work that is being conducted under this contract, the clearing and removal of the
trees would not extend as far as it would need to accommodate that third unit. At such time that they
were going to construct it, there would be some additional clearings. If you look at the future - planting
plan on the drawing that I handed out, I think that you will that that tree line is cut back a little more.
Board Member Hoffmann - But you would make an attempt to not remove any more trees than
necessary there because it is close to the creek. Is that dashed line on L6 the one that would show
how far the trees would be cut back? No, that would cut back. No, that is something else, isn't it?
Mr. Harding - No. That is the setback line. That is the tree line right now. It correlates with the
green. Here you can see how once that building is developed in the future the tree line will be cut
back a little bit more. So it is scalping out that much.
Board Member Hoffmann - So, that is on L7. I just want to mention that for the record.
Mr. Harding - We have these buildings sandwiched pretty close together. As close as we can right
now and still maintain the layout of the distance that we need on the sidewalks to provide handicap
access.
Chairperson Wilcox - When I say Phase II, what does that mean to you?
Mr. Harding - Phase II is the work that is shown on this drawing out to this property line, but not
including the future buildings, which are labeled as future buildings. So there is a "3" labeled on the
planting plan with identify as to what it is. It is going in under this contract. So that is why...the
plantings that we are showing along that westerly property line is all work that will be done under this
contract. The grading that we are showing on this plan will be done. At such time that we build the
three additional buildings, there will be some additional minor earthwork necessary. Some additional
storm system extension to extend it past the house and pick up drainage.
Chairperson Wilcox - And you consider that Phase III?
Mr. Harding - That is Phase lll.
Chairperson Wilcox - So you are seeking, in your terminology, approval for Phases II and III this
evening or preliminary approval.
Mr. Harding - That is correct.
Chairperson Wilcox - The reason that I brought up, John, I was looking at the legal notice which
refers to II and III and I was looking at the draft resolutions that we were given, which then refer to
Phase II. It was just in my mind about properly labeling it.
Mr. Kanter - For most purposes, approvals would be for Phases II and III. If there are references in
the resolution...
21
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - There are references to Phase II only.
Mr. Kanter - If there are some inconsistencies, then they should be referring to 11 and Ill.
Attorney Barney - Except, we are not approving the buildings.
Mr. Kanter - Well, that's a question because in a sense we have received basically as much detail on
Phase Ill as Phase II. 1 would actually prefer seeing approval on the details for all.
Chairperson Wilcox - They have shown the tree cut line, for example, for that northwestern most
building before the building is built. Then on drawing that Eva just referenced...
Board Member Hoffmann - L7.
Chairperson Wilcox - Drawing L7, they show how that tree line should be cut.
Mr. Kanter - That's why we are asking for details on the landscaping plan for that. The buildings, as
far as I know, will be basically the same model type units as the II. For all purposes we are
approving...
Chairperson Wilcox - We are approving Phase II and III with the understanding that the last three
building would be built at some later time.
Mr. Kanter - In fact the rezoning request is for the full Phase II and III property.
Mr. Walker - All the site work is going to be done, basically. All the utility work and the developed
north grading because they need fill for Phase II, correct.
Mr. Harding - That's correct.
Mr. Walker - The only thing would be three building permits to be issued.
Board Member Thayer - So they don't have to come back to us for Phase III?
Chairperson Wilcox - They would not have to come back to us for the three additional buildings.
Mr. Kanter - As long as sufficient final plan details are submitted:
Chairperson Wilcox - You're correct. Absolutely. Anybody else? Are we all set as I look around?
Board Member Hoffmann - Just one more thing. Last time I had talked to you about berming and not
being very happy to see unintended berms appearing. I can't remember if there was any difference in
the grading in the plan that you showed us tonight that was different.
Mr. Harding - No. There is no difference.
22
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - David, I think you very honest with us last time you were here when you said,
"yeah, the berms were higher than shown on the plans because we wound up with more fill than we
intended".
Mr. Harding - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - You might therefore understand that when we actually get to the resolution, if
we get there, there might be a condition, which says, "berms will not be higher than shown ". Which
means, if you have extra fill, for whatever reason, it will be moved off site so that we don't have this
happen again.
Ms. Rogers - Comments not audible.
Chairperson Wilcox - Somebody took advantage of it and got caught. Eagle eyes over here.
Anybody else? Anybody on staff?
Ms. Ritter - No additional comments.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would you take a seat? I'm going to give the members of the public a chance.
For those of you who may have walked in late, it is my opinion and the opinion of members of the
board that many of the issues with Linderman Creek are environmental issues. I would like to give
the public a chance to speak to the board, address the board on the environmental issues now. Then
when and if we actually get to review the site plan, you will then get an opportunity to speak with
regard to the actual site plan. Therefore, if there is a member of the audience that is here this
evening who wishes to address the Planning Board at this time on any of the environmental issues
with regard to Linderman Creek. Again, you will have a chance during the public hearing period,
presumably coming up soon, to comment on any issues with regard to it. I will ask you to step to the
microphone. We always ask for a name and address. We will be glad to hear what you have to say:
By speaking now, you will still have the opportunity to speak during the public hearing.
Keith, how are you, sir? Would you step to the microphone? It has been I long time since I've seen
you.
Keith McNeil - My name is Keith McNeil. I live at 139 Oakwood Lane,
Chairperson Wilcox - Good evening, sir.
Mr. McNeil - My principal question is whether or not if any of this development of Phase II and Phase
III runs parallel to Oakwood Lane northward. In other words, is this all westward towards
Mecklenburg? Some of you may know that I am one of the five people that sued and tried to prevent
this development in the first place. I have some other things that I'll save for the Town Board or
something at another date. But, I just wondered ... at one time when George Frantz was the city
planner, his big dream was to have a playground a little north of where the buildings are at the
present time. What I wondered was, was any of this development... because I came in and I looked
at the plans. For an old insurance agent, it is a little.. .for me and a little thick to. I could not tell if any
23
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
of the development was going northward along, parallel to Oakwood Lane up toward Bundy Road or
whether it is all westward toward Mecklenburg.
Chairperson Wilcox - David? Mr. Harding, I will ask you to do me a favor. Normally I will have the
public address us and we respond to them. It might be easier to use that site plan right there. Keith, I
know you're getting up in years, can you look at that?
Mr. Harding - This is the existing Phase I development. All the development that we are proposing .is
to the west of Phase I. Nothing is going north.
Mr. McNeil - That is all I needed to know. Thank you, very much.
Chairperson Wilcox - Keith, how are you doing, by the way?
Mr. McNeil - Okay.
Board Member Hoffmann - Not right now, anyway.
Chairperson Wilcox - You're right. Would anyone else like to address the board on the environmental
issues this evening? There be no one else, I will bring it back to the board. I don't think it is
necessary to go through the various letters that we have received from ... other than to acknowledge
the fact that we have received correspondence from the Tompkins County Department of Planning,
Department of Agricultural and Markets. Let me just check to see what else we have here amongst
all the other...
Attorney Barney - New York State DOT.
Chairperson Wilcox - Obviously, New York State DOT. The New York State Housing Trust Fund
Corporation, Tompkins County Department of Health, the City of Ithaca, all have either concurred with
our designation as lead agency or, not to my knowledge, brought any significant environmental issues
to light. That being said, if there is no further discussion with regard to the environmental issues,
would some one like to move the SEQR motion?
Board Member Thayer - I'll move the SEAR.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Larry Thayer. Do I have a second?
Board Member Howe - Second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Rod Howe. Okay. Jonathan and Mr. Barney, here the top of the
SEQR motion refers to Phase II as does "Whereas" clause number one.
Mr. Kanter - Please add II and III.
Chairperson Wilcox - The other issue that comes up is we were handed three revised drawings this
evening. I don't know whether they require any changes to the draft motion.
24
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Board Member Thayer - the 5200 -foot that Jon was talking about.
Chairperson Wilcox - That will be on the site plan. We have, for example, the final revised site plan is
now to be revised as of 3/4. We have drawing L6 now revised as of March 4 and we have, Eva,
drawing L7 now.
Board Member Hoffmann - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - They are referenced on the resolution specifically. We need to, bear with me
here. On the back page of number 6, we should add a reference to drawing L7.
Board Member Hoffmann - So L1 through L7.
Chairperson Wilcox - How about we keep it as L1 through L6 and C1 through C4 dated January 17th
Then L7 dated March 5, 2002. Sheets A01 through A04 dated the 17th and the 21st. And now,
instead of a preliminary subdivision plat dated January 29th, now something called revised final plan
dated March 4th
Board Member Hoffmann - I think also on the first page, whereas number 3, again it mentions Phase
11, but should say Phase 11 and III.
Chairperson Wilcox - Correct. Those changes are acceptable Rod and Larry?
Board Member Thayer - Yes.
Mr. Kanter - I think there is a revised L6 also.
Chairperson Wilcox - You're right. It is way down at the bottom under the L6 is the date. It is very
date. Are you all set Mr. Barney?
Attorney Barney - I think so.
Chairperson Wilcox - They're being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying
"aye°
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed. Are there any abstentions? The motion is passed. Thank
you very much.
RESOLUTION NO. 200248 - SEOR, Proposed Rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval,
Linderman Creek Apartments, Phase 11 & III, Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte 79).
MOTION by Larry Thayer, seconded by Rod Howe.
25
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
WHEREAS:
1. Conifer Realty, LLC has requested Rezoning, Site Plan, and Subdivision approval for the
proposed Linderman Creek Phases II and III development to consist of 96 apartment units (72
units to be built initially in Phase II, 24 units to be considered in Phase Ill) in twelve buildings to
be located on 15.2 acres to be located off of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte 79) at Conifer Drive,
a private drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 27 -1 -13.12 and — 13.16, Residence District R-
15.. The proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks,
landscaping, and a recreation area including a pavilion, and play structures. The proposed
development would consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped
accessible or handicapped adaptable. The applicant has requested a rezoning of the
proposed housing site from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence. Estate of Anthony
Ceracche, Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent, and
2. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated April 9, 2001, has referred the petition to
rezone the above - referenced parcel to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and has
authorized and requested that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board act as lead agency for
environmental review of the proposed rezoning, and
3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting of February 5, 2002, declared its intent to
act as lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed Rezoning, Site Plan, and
Subdivision Approval for the proposed Linderman .Creek Apartments Phases ll and III, and
circulated a notice of intent to serve as lead agency to involved and interested agencies, and
4. The proposed Rezoning, Site Plan, and Subdivision Approval are Type I actions pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local
Law No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of
Ithaca, and
5. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on February 19, 2002, began review of the Full
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, and other application
materials, and
6. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans, Sheets L -1 through L -6 and C -1 through C -4,
dated January 17, 2002, Sheets A -101 through A -104, dated January 17, 2002 and January
21, 2002, a preliminary subdivision plat dated January 29, 2002, a revised sheet L -6 dated
March 4, 2002, a sheet L -7 dated March 5, 2002, and a revised Final Plan last revised March
41 2002, and other application materials, and
7. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on March 5, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part I prepared by the applicant, the
Parts II and Ill of the EAF as well as a Visual EAF Addendum, prepared by the Town Planning
staff, and has reviewed other application materials, and
8. The above- referenced EAF incorporates specific studies and reports prepared and submitted
by the applicant, including, but not necessarily limited to, a Site Impact Traffic Evaluation
26
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
(January, 2002), a Stormwater Drainage Report (January 17, 2002), and a Wetland
Delineation Report (June 29, 2001, with additional maps and information submitted January
28, 2002 and February 7, 2002), and
9. The EAF and other application materials include relevant references and analysis of the
cumulative impacts associated with possible future phases of development on remaining
portions of the property being acquired by Conifer Realty LLC, and
10. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Rezoning, Site Plan, and Subdivision Approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved Agencies,
hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the above
described actions,
AND BE IT FURTHER 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. A notice of this determination will be duly filed and published pursuant to the provisions of
6NYCRR Part 617.12.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe Tally,
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closed this segment of the meeting at 8:53 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan
Approval, and a Recommendation to the Town Board on the Rezoning of +/- 15.266 acres from
Residential R =15 to Multiple Residence MR, for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments
Phase II and III development located on Conifer Drive (a private drive), just off Mecklenburg
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.16, Residence District R -15. The
proposal includes 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase 11, 24 units to be
constructed in Phase 111) in twelve buildings on 14 +/- acres of a 45 +/- acre parcel. The
proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks, landscaping,
and a recreation area including a pavilion and play structures. A bus stop and bus turnaround
area is proposed for the northern end of Conifer Drive. The proposed development would
consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped accessible or
WA
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
handicapped adaptable. The applicant is also requesting to subdivide Tax Parcel No. 27 -1-
13.12 into three lots and Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -13.16 into additional lots for ownership purposes.
Approximately 57 acres will remain undeveloped initially, but will be retained by Confer Realty
for possible future residential expansion. Estate of Anthony Ceracche, Owner (fax Parcel No.
27 -1- 13.12), and Home Properties of New York, Owner (Tax Parcel No. 27-1- 13.16); Conifer
Reality, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opened the public hearing at 8:54 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - Does the board have any questions of the applicant at this time? There being
none, I will give the public a chance to- speak. This is the public hearing with regard to the preliminary
approval of Linderman Creek regarding the site plan, subdivision and a recommendation from this
board to the Town Board. If there is a member of the audience who wishes to address the Planning
Board this evening, we now ask you to please came to the microphone, give us your name and
address. We will be very interested to hear what you have to say this evening. Keith?
Mr. McNeil - My concern living on Oakwood Lane all along has been that the Town wanted the
access road next to the water tower, the right of way that the City had. After I gave two speeches to
the Common Council, Mayor Cohen promised me they would never get that access road up through
there to get up to the development. The next thing I knew the Town of Ithaca was in there building an
access road up through. They went half way up. Then the Town Engineer told me that they were
going to build a gate across so that there wouldn't be any access. I was told the other day that there
would be pedestrian access. As I say, my big concern was that those of us that live on Oakwood
Lane, which has been a pristine development for all these years ... if there was an access road getting
up to a playground... That is why I ask the question of whether one was going to be built up above
there. If there was possible access through there, that a lot of cars would park on Oakwood Lane and
people would get out and walk up to the playground up through the pedestrian right of way, which I
understand that they are going to have. But if there is not a playground then I'm not concerned any
more. But I thought that if that did occur and a lot of cars parked on Oakwood Lane, that those of us
who had that property up there, I lived up there since 1966, would be forced to build sidewalks at
$3,000 per family or so. But if I understand it correctly, there will be no playground.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Keith.
Mr. Kanter - Well, we might want to add though for the r
Creek development, but the Town owns parkland off of that
have plans at some point in the future to develop that as
pedestrian access through the-Oakwood Lane. So there
Town project. That has nothing to do at this point with the
are definite plans for a Town park to be developed there.
ecord, that not as part of the Linderman
water tower access way. The Town does
a Town park. There very well could be
is no misunderstanding that would be a
Linderman Creek development, but there
Board Member Mitrano - And if so, Jonathan would there be alternate sites for parking and access
such that people wouldn't be steered towards going on the lane where this gentleman lives?
Mr. Kanter - Well, at the point where the park is developed, one would assume that the full access
road through the Cerrachi property up into the Perry property and through Bundy Road would be
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
completed. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any real access to our park. So at that point, presumably
the pedestrian access way would be for... residents in the City of Ithaca to use the Town park if they
so chose. We do tend to do these things in a more cooperative way. Pedestrian access would
primarily be for neighborhood connection to the park rather than for other outside people to use that
access way.
Board Member Mitrano - Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Walker - The portion of the park that is actually on the Conifer edge of the
wooded area. Right now the preliminary planning, as I understand it would
basically a low impact natural area. Possibly with some walking paths throug
development on the site other than maintenance of trees and things like that
Town is a fairly heavily
be to maintain that as
i it, but maybe not any
The
the Perry property, which is to the north, has open fields on it. That is being looked
recreational development site for a playfield or whatever.
through the Town on the road connecting Bundy Road
developed only when the residential development
recreation in that area.
Board Member Mitrano - Okay. Thank you.
The access to that we
parcel that is on
at as a possible
uld definitely be
with Mecklenburg Road. It would be
in the area created a demand for
Chairperson Wilcox - Keith,.did you follow that? Keith, come on up.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think it might be helpful if he could see that lower map there.
that kind of
Chairperson Wilcox - Let me orient you. You live over here. Here's that paper street. Essentially the
discussion is saying that ... and here is the Town parkland right here. There is also more Town
parkland to the north. Before this will get developed, two things have to happen. One, there is going
to need to be the development of the land to which to generate the need for a park. Two, this paper
street, it's not even a paper street; this street would have to be built to provide access to the park.
For the Town to provide access to this park, you would have to be along this Town road. We are not
going to provide access across this City paper street that comes off Oakwood Lane,
Mr. McNeil - Before this is all developed, at 76 years of age, I'm not going to be around to worry too
much about it.
Board Member Thayer - That's right, Keith. Take care.
Chairperson Wilcox - Keith is a former member of Common Council. Did you run for Mayor?
Mr. McNeil - Did I? Yes. I won by ten votes against Ed Conley
votes.
Chairperson Wilcox - I apologize for forgetting.
Mr. McNeil - I was also the Chair of the Urban Renewal in Ithaca.
Then the recount said I lost by nine
29
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - He also taught me insurance by the way. Is there anybody else who would like
to address the board this evening? There being none, I will close the public hearing at 9:02 p.m. and
bring the matter back to the board.
Board Member Conneman - The sidewalks...
Chairperson Wilcox - Eva brought up ... what was brought up was potential turnaround by Mr. Barney.
Sidewalks, additional plantings and as I kind of looked at the board to get a sense of the board as she
was talking, there seemed to general agreement for those. So I have them written down here. Some
of the issues are already covered in the draft resolution that was provided to us. Questions with
regard to the site plan itself? The buildings, the colors, the materials, the...
Board Member Hoffmann - Weren't we told that we were going to get to see the colors and materials
before the final or was that the other project?
Chairperson Wilcox - The draft resolution does have a condition requiring a description of building
materials and colors for the proposed buildings. So that is in there. It's acknowledged that we
haven't seen them. Kris, you will get a copy of the resolution. It is four and a half pages now and
likely to grow. Since nobody else has any issues, I have an issue.
Board Member Talty - I do.
Chairperson Wilcox - Kevin? Please, go ahead.
Board Member Talty - It is more of a question with regards to the dumpsters and the containment. I
noticed that there are two 60 -inch doors, which is 10 feet across when they are both open. So post to
post. The dumpster itself fit perfectly inside this drawing here is six feet, which gives two feet each
side. I don't know if anybody has ever seen a dumpster being unloaded or not or how they put them
back in, but more often than not, it is eventually going to happen where they are going to hit the
posts, the doors, whatever. After a certain amount of time. The dumpster areas look like... Is it a
standard practice to have those gates ten feet? Is that standard?
Mr. Harding - The detail that we have on the drawing is a standard that has been utilized by Conifer
Realty on several of the other projects around upstate New York. We have had a good degree of
success. I am presuming that it will work here also. Although, I do understand there are some front -
end approach and rear end approach dumpsters. That will be worked out on the final details.
Board Member Talty - Specifically during winter months when snow is on the ground, it is much more
difficult for the accessibility of these machines to grab the dumpsters, empty them and then put them
back in. That was just a concern of mine that I wanted to bring up.
Chairperson Wilcox - Those machines look deadly, don't they, those trucks with those spikes.
Board Member Talty - They can be.
Board Member Mitrano - Did you get the mounds in?
Cc
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Good point. We want to make sure our attorney over there is writing. But you
are right, no berms higher than shown on the plans. Here's my issue. The draft resolution, top of
page 3 says, "there is a need for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase II in the proposed
location. In particular, there is a need for affordable housing, the type proposed by the applicant ". I
haven't seen anything. I apologize that when I was reviewing these materials this evening again
before the meeting, I realized that when Phase I came before us part of the materials that we
received was a market study, which explained the methodology and how the demand was derived. It
showed that there was the necessary demand to justify the building of Phase I. In going through all
the materials again, I realized we see nothing, I see nothing that shows that there is a need for Phase
II.
Ms. Rogers - I can certainly send a copy of the market study that was done specifically for Phase II.
Chairperson Wilcox - I assume that you had to create it in order to get the funding.
Ms. Rogers - Yes. It has to be an independent market study. It cannot be done by us as developers.
It is a requirement of the State Division of Housing and Independent Market Analysis. We can
provide a copy of that. Also, we can give you a copy of the current waiting list for the first phase.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you have a waiting list?
Ms. Rogers - Not tonight, but I can give it to you...
Chairperson Wilcox - Does a waiting list exist? Do you know how many names are on it ?'
Ms. Rogers - I don't know how many names, but I talked with the site manager today and she said it
is a one -year waiting list.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay.
Board Member Thayer - That was mentioned before.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. You're right. I asked the woman to come up...
Board Member Mitrano - I remember the study.
Chairperson Wilcox - Let me ask you a question just in case I need to make a representation. In the
previous market study to show that the demand existed, the study, the consultant referenced a
company called Claritas as supplying demographic data. Do you know if Claritas is referenced in the
current study for Phase II?
Ms. Rogers - Claritas would be a source of information for Phase II.
Chairperson Wilcox - Having said that, let me make the representation that I am the Vice President of
Claritas. My job is producing demographic estimates. This comes up every one in a while and that I
31
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
had no knowledge of this particular study and that I have no gain or the company has no potential
gain whether we approve or not approve this. I would just like to get that representation out. You
have dealt with' my issue and I appreciate it. Thank you. I would like to see that market study for the
record.
Mr. Kanter - I think also, Fred...
Board Member Mitrano - Is it your recollection that you have given us that market study?
Ms. Rogers - I don't think we have.
Chairperson Wilcox - We saw it for Phase I but I have not seen it for Phase II.
Mr. Kanter - I think also the timeframe for this whole approval process is part of the problem. I
believe, I remember much earlier materials submitted during the sketch plan phases of this, where
some of that kind of material was submitted.
Chairperson Wilcox - A year ago.
Mr. Kanter -Yeah, it could've...
Chairperson Wilcox - I must apologize to. Normally when I review the materials on Friday or
Saturday I catch this sort of thing. I can call up on Monday and say there is something missing. I
didn't catch that until today as well. Okay. All right.
Board Member Mitrano - Let's go.
Chairperson Wilcox - Who would like to move the motion, as drafted?
Board Member Mitrano - I will.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved by Tracy Mitrano. Do I have a second?
Board Member Conneman - I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by George Conneman. All right. Mr. Barney, you have been keeping
an eye and an ear to what we have talked about.
Attorney Barney - I am not sure I got everything.
Chairperson Wilcox - Let's see how we do.
Attorney Barney - A new item "k" in the conditions relating to the site plan approval, "modification of
the site plan to show the proposed access easement running north from Conifer Drive to be 100 feet
in width rather than 60 feet and to show a proposed turnaround at or near the end of such access
easement north of the north line of the Phase II parcel (area 12.494 +/- acres) ". Then a new "I ", "no
32
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
berms are to be constructed higher than shown on the plans and all other construction is to be fully in
accordance with the approved plans". "M"...
Board Member Hoffmann - Can I suggest that they not only be higher but not in any other location
than where they are shown on the plan?
Chairperson Wilcox - They caught that by the second phrase.
Attorney Barney - The problem I have with this doing this at all is with any construction your suppose
to be only in accordance with the approved plans. So any deviation is an improper deviation and is
subject to basically a denial of a Certificate of Occupancy or whatever recourse the Town might have.
I don't think we want to get into saying that everything in this plan repeating in your resolution that you
have to do everything in accordance with the plans. I realize that the berms are a little bit of a cause
celebre from the last time around so we will highlight them. But I think really if we say that all
construction is to be done in accordance with the plans that are really reiterating what the law is
anyway.
Chairperson Wilcox - It is no different than if a certain convenience store owner came to us with some
site plan modifications and said he would use recessed lighting ... you can god damn well know that
we would put a special clause in to insure there is recessed lighting. Thank you for seeing where we
are coming from. Go ahead, John. Pardon my French.
Attorney Barney - Was that French?
Chairperson Wilcox - My French. Pardon me.
Attorney Barney - It sounded perfectly English to me but I don't know. Provision a new "m ", "provision
of a copy of the market study demonstrating the demand for the additional units prior to final site plan
approval ". I don't know if there was something else.
Chairperson Wilcox - There was a desire to ... somehow we want to talk about the desire to pursue the
secondary emergency access. I don't know how we do that.
Mr. Kanter - I have a further resolved, some wording suggested if you want to...
Chairperson Wilcox - That deals with emergency access?
Mr. Kanter - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - How would you put it, Jon?
Mr. Kanter - We could do something like, "Further Resolved, that the Planning Board hereby finds
that there is a need for an emergency access as shown on the site plan sheet L1 for safety purposes
and therefore requests that New York State Department of Transportation consider approval of such
emergency access ". Actually, we could add in there that, "such emergency access could be gated
restricted, not for general public access ".
33
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Similar to the gated access to Commonland community. So we can use that as
an example. Okay. There is the issue of the sidewalks, but that is taken care of in "e ". Additional
plantings is taken care of in "f ", "revision to include the proposed landscaping for Phase III portion of
the site located in the western edge of the property as well as additional landscaping throughout the
development as discussed at the meeting ". And what was discussed at the meeting by Eva was
additional plantings along Route 79.
Board Member Hoffmann - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - To screen the Phase II from the vehicles and the residences across the street.
Board Member Hoffmann - As well as along the western border.
Chairperson Wilcox - Of Phase III?
Board Member Hoffmann - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - Which is already mentioned in the resolution. Are those changes acceptable?
Board Member Mitrano - Another man's got a question.
Mr. Walker - I have a slight addition.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Hold on. Are changes so far acceptable?
Board Member Conneman - Yes.
Mr. Kanter - Wait. Could I suggest one small correction? The condition "k" that John suggested
regarding the easement I think pertains more to the subdivision plat approval than to the site plan. So
could we perhaps put that under the earlier...?
Chairperson Wilcox - It is interesting. Part of it refers to subdivision, which is modifying the access
way to be 100 feet wide, but the second part of what he proposed refers to site plan, which is to show
the potential turnaround. So we may need to split that up into two...
Attorney Barney - You know what I would suggest because I think that most of the conditions on the
site plan here are concerned about with respect to the subdivision. So why don't we just add a
general "g" in the subdivision saying, "in compliance with all the conditions related to site plan
approval are set forth... ".
Chairperson Wilcox - That would be at the top of page 4. I'm sorry John, would you speak this way
so they can hear?
Attorney Barney - I'm sorry. So because most of the concerns that are expressed relative to the site
plan are equally relevant and valid concerns relative to the subdivision, we just add a kind of omnibus
CM
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
provision "g" at the top of page 4 that says, "in compliance with all of the conditions related to site
plan approval set forth below ". It would bring all of them in as well.
Mr. Walker - Okay. Under the further resolved one, subparagraph c...
Chairperson Wilcox - What page are we on? Oh, we're on page 4 still.
Mr. Walker - In addition to that I would like to have added, it says, "preparation of submission of final
design and construction
improvements ". After that
supply improvements" for
plan approval.
details on both the proposed drainage and stormwater management
I would like to add a comma, "sanitary sewer improvements, and water
review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to final subdivision, site
Chairperson Wilcox - Changes acceptable?
Board Member Mitrano - Yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry, I lost track. Who moved and seconded?
Board Member Mitrano - I did and George did.
Mr. Kanter - I have one more. It is kind of related to the sidewalks, but since we still don't have a
confirmation by TCAT on the bus route, I would kind of like to see evidence of commitment by TCAT
to extend the bus route and install the shelter prior to final site plan approval. I mean, not that they
should install the shelter prior to final site plan approval, but evidence of their commitment to it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Written evidence, yes, rather than unofficial phone conversations or something
like that they intend to.
Mr. Kanter - And, that shouldn't be a problem because my understanding was we were hoping to get
it for tonight, but it should be forth coming.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is that last change acceptable?
Board Member Mitrano - Yup.
Board Member Hoffmann - Did you have something you wanted to add about lighting?
Chairperson Wilcox - Ah, no. I'm fine. I'm fine with lighting. They answered my question. There is a
general change. We need to change Phase II to Phase II and III, both in the title and various places
through out the resolution. Similar to what was done to SEOR. There will also be changes
throughout the resolution to reference the revised three pages, either the two revised pages that were
supplied this evening and the new one page and, Carrie, I assume you can make those changes here
similar to the way they were done on the SEOR. Thank you. Mr. Barney, I.will give you a second...
Attorney Barney - No. I was just trying to pick up the changes, too.
35
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - You're set?
Attorney Barney - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Staff? Board?
Board Member Mitrano - Yes, sir.
Chairperson Wilcox - There being no further discussion, all those in favor please signal by saying
"aye"
Board - Aye.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those opposed? Are there any abstentions? There being none the motion
is passed unanimously. Thank you very much.
RESOLUTION NO. 2002 -19 - Preliminary Site Plan Approval, Preliminary Subdivision Approval,
and Recommendation to Town Board Regarding Rezoning, Linderman Creek Apartments,
Phase 11 & 111, Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte 79).
MOTION made by Tracy Mitrano, seconded by George Conneman.
WHEREAS:
1. Conifer Realty, LLC has requested a Rezoning, Site Plan, and Subdivision approval for the
proposed Linderman Creek Phases II and Ill development to consist of 96 apartment units (72
units to be built initially in Phase 11, 24 units to be considered in Phase Ill) in twelve buildings to
be located on 15.2 acres to be located off of Mecklenburg Road (NYS Rte 79) at Conifer Drive,
a private drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 27 -1 -13.12 and - 13.16, Residence District R-
15. The proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks,
landscaping, and a recreation area including a pavilion, and play structures. The proposed
development would consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped
accessible or handicapped adaptable. The applicant has requested a rezoning of the
proposed housing site from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence. Estate of Anthony
Ceracche, Owner; Conifer Realty, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent, and
2. The Town of Ithaca Town Board, in a resolution dated April 9, 2001, has referred the petition to
rezone the above - referenced parcel to the Planning Board for a recommendation, and has
authorized and requested that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board act as lead agency for
environmental review of the proposed rezoning, and
3. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board, at its meeting of February 5, 2002, declared its intent to
act as lead agency for the environmental review of the proposed Rezoning, Site Plan, and
Subdivision Approval for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase Il, and circulated a
notice of intent to serve as lead agency to involved and interested agencies, and
36
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 M I NUTES
APPROVED
4. The proposed Rezoning, Site Plan and Subdivision Approval are Type 1 actions pursuant to the
State Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Town of Ithaca Local Law
No. 5 of the Year 1988 Providing for Environmental Review of Actions in the Town of Ithaca,
and
5. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on February 19, 2002, began review of the Full
Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part i prepared by the applicant, and other application
materials, and
6. The applicant has submitted preliminary plans, Sheets L -1 through L -6 and C -1 through C -4,
dated January 17, 2002, Sheets A -101 through A -104, dated January 17, 2002 and January
211 2002, and other application materials and drawings, and
7. The Planning Board, at a meeting held on March 5, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate the Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part 1 prepared by the applicant, the
Parts II and 111 of the EAF as well as a Visual EAF Addendum, prepared by the Town Planning
staff, and has reviewed other application materials, and
8. The above- referenced EAF incorporates specific studies and reports prepared and submitted
by the applicant, including, but not necessarily limited to, a Site Impact Traffic Evaluation
(January, 2002), a Stormwater Drainage Report (January 17, 2002), and a Wetland
Delineation Report (June 29, 2001, with additional maps and information submitted January
28, 2002 and February 7, 2002), and
9. The EAF and other application materials include relevant references and analysis of the
cumulative impacts associated with possible future phases of development on remaining
portions of the property being acquired by Conifer Realty LLC, and
10. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Rezoning, Site Plan, and Subdivision Approval, and
11. The Town Planning Board established itself as lead agency at the March 5, 2002 meeting, and
made a negative determination of environmental significance, and
12. The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on March 5, 2002, has reviewed and accepted
as adequate preliminary plans entitled, "Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11, Preliminary
Site Plan & Details (L -1), Overall Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, & Details (L -2), Enlarged
Grading Plan -West (L -3), Enlarged Grading Plan -East (L -4), Storm System Plan & Details (L-
5), Planting Plan & Details (L -6), Site Utilities Plan & Details (C -1), Site Electric & Lighting Plan
(C -2), Site Utility Details (C -3), and Site Utility Details (C -4), " prepared by Carl Jahn &
Associates and dated January 17, 2002; floor plans entitled "Linderman Creek Apartments
Phase 11, One Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A -101), Two Bedroom Unit Plans &
Elevations (A -102), Three Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A -103), " dated January 17, 2002,
and "Community Building Plan & Elevations (A- 104)," dated January 21, 2002, all prepared by
DLK Architecture, P.C.; a preliminary subdivision plat entitled "Revised Final Plan, Linderman
th
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2102 MINUTES
APPROVED
Creek Apartments, Lands Now or Formerly Anthony Ceracche, Part of Military Lot 56, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by C. T. Male Associates, P.C., and dated
January 29, 2002; a revised sheet L -6 dated March 4, 2002, a sheet L -7 dated March 5, 2002,
and a revised Final Plan last revised March 4, 2002, and other application materials`
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, pursuant to Article XIV, Section 78 of the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Ordinance, hereby finds that:
a. There is a need for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phases 1i and ill in the
proposed location, and in particular, there is a need for affordable housing of the type
proposed by the applicant, and
b. The existing and probable future character of the Town of Ithaca will not be adversely affected
by the proposed rezoning and apartment development, and
c. The proposed rezoning from R -15 Residence to MR Multiple Residence is in accordance with
a comprehensive plan of development of the Town, which designates the project site as
appropriate for "Suburban Residential" development, and in addition, is adequately served by
public water and sewer facilities and will be served by public transit, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby recommends that the Town of Ithaca Town
Board enact the proposed local law to amend the Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordnance by
rezoning those portions of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1 -13.16 which
are proposed for the Linderman Creek Apartments Phases 11 and 111 development, as shown
on the plan entitled "Proposed Zone Change for Phases II and 111 Linderman Creek
Apartments, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," dated January 30, 2002, to be
more specifically described in a "Schedule A" to be included in the proposed Local Law,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Subdivision Approval for the proposed
subdivision of Tax Parcel No. 27- 1- 13.12, 42.9 + 1- acres total, into three lots of 10.415+1- acres,
2.772 + /- acres, and 29.069 + 1- acres (.736 + /- acres part of DOT highway); and the subdivision
of Tax Parcel No, 27- 01- 13.16, 32.44 + 1- acres total, into three lots of 1.634 + 1- acres, 2.079+/ -
acres, and 28.7 + 1- acres, as shown on the plat entitled "Revised Final Plan, Linderman Creek
Apartments, Lands Now or Formerly Anthony Ceracche, Part of Military Lot 56, "dated January
19, 2002, and prepared by C. T. Male Associates, P. C., conditioned upon the following:
a. Rezoning by the Town Board for the proposed project site as described above from R-
15 Residence District to Multiple Residence District, prior to the consideration of Final
Subdivision Approval,
b. Approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals of any variances related to the subdivision,
prior to Final Subdivision Approval,
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
C. Submission of easements guaranteeing access of the large remaining parcels to
Conifer Drive, for review and approval by the Attorney for the Town, prior to Final
Subdivision Approval,
d. Revision of the subdivision plat to include accurate proposed acreages and labeling and
clarification of the proposed subdivided parcels as well as the necessary easements to
ensure access to the future development sites, prior to Final Subdivision Approval,
e. No building permits for future phases or development of the remaining large parcels
located north of Phase I and Phase 11 shall be issued until the access road, extending
from Conifer Drive and over Linderman Creek is reviewed and approved by the Town
Highway Superintendent and Town Engineer,
f. Before construction of the future access road is commenced, any required wetland
permits shall be obtained and a copy forwarded to the Town of Ithaca for review,
g. compliance with all of the conditions set forth below with respect to the site plan
approval.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed
Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and 111 development to consist of 96 apartment units (72
units to be built initially in Phase 11, 24 units to be considered in Phase 111) in twelve buildings
and a community building to be located on 15.2 acres of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel Nos. 27 -1-
13.12 and 27- 1- 13.16, as shown on plans entitled "Linderman Creek Apartments Phase ll,
Preliminary Site Plan & Details (L -1), Overall Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, & Details (L-
2), Enlarged Grading Plan -West (L -3), Enlarged Grading Plan -East (L -4), Storm System Plan
& Details (L -5), Planting Plan & Details (L -6), Site Utilities Plan & Details (C -1), Site Electric &
Lighting Plan (C -2), Site Utility Details (C -3), and Site Utility Details (C -4)," prepared by Carl
Jahn & Associates and dated January 17, 2002; floor plans entitled "Linderman Creek
Apartments Phase li, One Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A -101), Two Bedroom Unit Plans
& Elevations (A -102), Three Bedroom Unit Plans & Elevations (A- 103)," dated January 17,
2002, and "Community Building Plan & Elevations (A- 104)," dated January 21, 2002, all
prepared by DLK Architecture, P.C.; a preliminary subdivision plat entitled "Revised Final Plan,
Linderman Creek Apartments, Lands Now or Formerly Anthony Ceracche, Part of Military Lot
56, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," prepared by C. T. Male Associates, P, C,
and dated January 29, 2002; and other application materials, conditioned upon the following:
a. Rezoning by the Town Board for the proposed project site as described above from R-
15 Residence District to Multiple Residence District, prior to the consideration of Final
Site Plan Approval,
b. Obtaining of the necessary Final Subdivision Approval, prior to or concurrent with, Final
Site Plan Approval,
39
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
C, Preparation and submission of final design and construction details of all proposed
drainage, stormwater management, sanitary sewer and water supply improvements for
review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to Final Site Plan Approval,
d. Submission of a description of building materials and colors for the proposed buildings
and cut sheets for luminaries on the light poles, prior to Final Site Plan Approval,
e. Revision of plans to show the addition of a sidewalk from the Phase ll development
area to the proposed TCAT bus shelter and submission of details of the bus shelter and
method of installation, prior to Final Site Plan Approval,
f. Revision of the planting plan to include proposed landscaping for the Phase Ill portion of
the site, located on the western edge of the property, as well as additional landscaping
throughout the development, as discussed at the meeting of March 5, 2002, including
additional plantings along Route 79 and along the entrance road,
g. Submission of final detailed sedimentation and erosion control plan, as per the
requirements of the NYS Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for
review and approval by the Town Engineer, prior to Final Site Plan Approval,
h. Submission of details for the proposed stormwater detention basin, including a
description of how the existing wetland will function and be re- landscaped and treated,
prior to Final Site Plan Approval,
i. Provision of record of application for and approval status of all necessary permits from
county, state, and /or federal agencies, prior to issuance of any building permits,
j. Revision of Sheet L -2, "Overall Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, & Details," to
include the name and seal of the registered land surveyor or engineer who prepared the
topographic and boundary survey, prior to the issuance of any building permits, and
k. modification of the site plan to show the proposed access easement running north from
Conifer Drive, to be 100 feet in width rather than 60 feet, and to show a proposed turn-
around at or near the end of such access easement north of the north line of the Phase
11 parcel (area 12.494 ± acres),
1. no berms are to be constructed higher than shown on the plans, and all other
construction is to be fully in accordance with the approved plans,
M. provision of a copy of the market study demonstrating the demand for the additional
units prior to final site plan approval,
no submission of written evidence of comment by Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit to
extend Bus' Route No. 15 to enter Conifer Drive to pick up and discharge passengers
and to provide the bus shelter to be installed at the proposed turn around,
ut
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Planning Board hereby finds that there is a need for an emergency access as shown on the
site plan sheets L -1, L -2, C -2 and others, for safety purposes, and that such emergency access
should be gate controlled and not open for public access, and therefore, requests that the New York
State Department of Transportation consider approval of such emergency access.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe Tally.
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox - I would suspect that this is going take a couple of minutes for them to set up.
Why don't we recess for five minutes?
The board took a brief recess from 9:18 p.m. until 9:26 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - At 9:26 p.m., we have resumed the Planning Board meeting this evening, after
our short recess. Before we get going, a large number of people have entered the room. I think it is
appropriate once again to point out that there are two fire exits to this room. There is the door to my
right, which is to your left, through which you entered. The second door is to my left, which is to the
audience's right. For those of you who have just come in, you may or may not be regular Planning
Board attendees. I'd like to point out how we are going to structure this, this evening. The first part
will be the environmental review. I presume the applicant will have a presentation at which point they
will be questioned by members of the board on various aspects of the environmental review. After
that is concluded, I will then give members of the public a chance to address the Planning Board on
any environmental issues they may wish to speak to us about. This is not in place of the public
hearing, but is an addition to the public hearing. We make that offer this evening because many of
the issues surrounding College Circle are the environmental issues. There are obviously site plan
issues, but many of them are environmental. If at such time the board makes a negative
determination of environmental significance and we move on to the actual site plan review, there will
be a legally publicized and published public hearing. The members of the public anybody else here
this evening will have a chance to address the Planning Board on any other issues, including the
environmental, but mostly with regard to the proposed site plan.
AGENDA ITEM: SEQR Determination, College Circle Apartments Phase II & III, 1033 Danby
Road.
Chairperson Wilcox opened this segment of the meeting at 9:28 p.m.
Herman Sieverding, Integrated Acquisition and Development, 15 Thornwood Drive.
41
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - I would ask that members of the audience who are in attendance this evening, if
you do intend to speak, it is important that you sign the sheet outside. It makes it easier for us and
the secretary to make sure that we capture your name and address properly, even though I will ask
you to state it when you come up to speak. There is a sign up sheet outside and we ask you to
please indicate your presence here this evening. Thank you very much.
Mr. Sieverding - Before we begin I, the appropriate thing to do ... all the members of our team are here
tonight to present out plan. From Ithaca College: Carl Segrecci, Tom Salm, Rory Rockman, and Fred
Vanderburg. From TG Miller, Dave Herrick, all the site planning and stormwater management. Vince
Nicotra and Dave Harding from QVK Design. Amy Dade from SRF Associates prepared our traffic
study.
I thought what we would do today is, if it works within the context of what you just laid out Fred, is
explain a little bit, again, of what the content of our site plan application is. Call. on our design team to
present various aspects of that plan. I think once the plans are presented, I think there is some
context to the environmental review discussion. Then go through from the key aspects of the long
environmental assessment form. I think we could follow that, if we could, with responding to some of
the elements, some of issues that the board raised during our sketch plan conference. Then maybe
following that, deal with formal question on the neg dec, then move on to site plan review.
Chairperson Wilcox - Very good.
Mr. Sieverding - The application is for Phase II. 1 think there are four principal elements of that
application. There are, as we presented earlier during sketch plan, the reconfigured buildings. The
buildings that are slightly changed from the original plan that was approved by the Town in 1988. 1
think, as we explained earlier, that is the plan that is really focused on eliminating the curve,
substituting setbacks within each section of the building, and try to standardize the apartment design.
In terms of the site plan, we have worked off the basic design principles of the original plan of the
circle.
I think, as we indicated in our sketch plan conference, there were a couple of elements in that plan
that we would like to change. That has been included in this application. They are extending the
parking lot in the northern corner of the site, adding the community building in the central portion of
the site. I think how that community building functions will be addressed more fully when Rory from
Ithaca College presents the program production. As well as, reconfiguring the parking lot. I think we
have come up with a more efficient design layout for that parking lot that will result in some additional
spaces. We've also done something that was not required in 1988, which is providing handicap
parking spaces. I think there is a total of twelve located in appropriate locations throughout the site.
The third major element that has been added to this plan is the community building. That now is a
building of approximately 7,885 square feet. I think we viewed this now as the main organizing
element on that site. It will be the focus of a lot of the program and activities that the college is going
to bring to the property, in terms of its management. The fourth element that is a key part of this
application is a request for increased occupancy. As you remember, when we discussed this last
time, the original site plan approval was predicated on a maximum occupancy of 600 residents.
When we were here during sketch plan, I think we talked about the request for increasing that to 750
residents and outlined a variety of reasons why we thought that was necessary. Principally, and
42
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
again we will talk about that more fully when we discuss the management, the additional investment
in both initial capital expense and the cost of building that community building. As well as ongoing
operating expenses that are going to be experienced when both the college and Integrated
Acquisition that need to be justified by the increased occupancy.
Those are the elements of our application, what we are asking you to consider and what the focus is
of the environmental review and the site plan review. I think clearly a very sort of key element of that
plan, although not part of our application is the connector road. I think both representatives from
Ithaca College and QTK Design are prepared tonight to talk a little bit more fully about the possible
design of that road. Fred, you recognize that as not part of our application. So I think the details of
that road and exactly what kind of material, its sizing and whatever kind of environmental review may
need to be done for that project, I think we all recognize it needs to be done as part of a separate
application that the college will be submitting to the.Town Planning Board for your consideration, but
also to approve that element of the proposal. I think the key thing here, in terms of our moving
forward with our application, is that we recognize that the college is making a commitment to build
that road and then have that road in place and ready to be used by August of 2003.
I think various aspects of this application have been reviewed by a variety of different people. We
have had several meetings with Town staff, Andy Frost and Dan Walker. We've met with the Fire
Chief relative to fire access and safety. I think there is a letter from Brian in the application that sort of
summarizes those meetings. We have also had several meetings with the folks at TCAT. Again, I
think in that application there is a letter from Bob Ghearing that describes our discussions and some
possible options relative to bus service to the site.
We have also met with Sheriff Peter Meskill, who is here tonight. We discussed with him the change
in management and get his point of view relative to whether the kinds of things we are'suggesting will
make an improvement in the property. I think you have a letter in your application from Peter that
affirms that. The changes to the property will indeed make a big impact in terms of how that property
functions, particularly with respect to all its neighbors.
I think to start out with, giving you a little more detailed explanation of what each of these particular
elements are. I would like to start with Dave Herrick, who will go through the site plan.
Chairperson Wilcox - David, you have the luxury of being able to talk with a nice full voice. So if you
can continue to do that that will allow you to move between them and still allow us to pick you up.
The closer you can bring it the better. As I said earlier this evening, those members of the public who
wish to come up and see the visuals that we are looking at, you are invited to some up around us,
behind us, and that obviously, is also extended to members of the media who are here this evening
as well. David?
David Herrick, TG Miller - I wanted to go through five or six general items that blend SEQR issues
with site plan issues. If I get carried away, feel free to interrupt and ask me to stick to environmental
only. But I think there is relevance and significance in how I've got to present this material so that you
can get some of the answers on environmental questions..
43
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
The first thing I will do is give a very quick overview of what has changed from sketch plan to
preliminary site plan. I will use our drawings that we have prepared to discuss the site layout, grading
and how it affects environmental factors. Talk about utilities briefly and then get into more discussion
on stormwater management.
So using the sketch plan that is on my left, which is what we presented to the board back in January,
there are just a couple of subtle differences and documented on my right is the rendered version of
our current site plan. The first thing is that this cul -de -sac parking lot, the dead -end up to the
northeast corner, you can see that there has been a change in the alignment. Both in the radius of
the parking extension and also in the alignment of the northerly house. That was done after we got
into the grading issues. We found that it made sense to move that alignment, straighten it out...
Chairperson Wilcox - Could you just point to it? Either one.
Mr. Herrick pointed the area out to the board.
Mr. Herrick - Some retaining walls popped up on site, again, as a result of looking at detailed grading
plans. There is one significant wall that is proposed for units 69 through 71. There is also a smaller
wall that is proposed down at the beginning of the Phase II project, here at this location. We have
modified the sidewalk layout, both for the community building. There has also been the addition of a
jogging trail that connects the sidewalks to this circle area on campus. The community building has
changed. You will hear more about the community building program from Vince Nicotra. The service
area that will be used for that facility has expanded along the front and to the east. That is a small
adjustment.
The parking spaces, as Herman mentioned, we've added some handicap accessible spaces. Both in
Phase I and in Phase II. It reflects about two percent of the total parking count. The preliminary site
plan now has a parking count of 529 spaces, which is down from the 533 that we came to the board
with during sketch plan.
The last subtle modification that we made is in the intersection of the existing Phase I; we modified
curb radii at that location so that we could accommodate bus turning movements if our new street
turned out to be one of the bus routes.
Site layout and grading. What really drove our grading plan, in addition to having reasonable slopes
for vehicular access, was to get access into, as many of these new buildings as we could that are
ADA compliant. The original '88 -'89 plan had considerably more steps proposed for this phase of the
project. We have worked to get rid of those steps to provide five percent and eight percent slopes for
walks and ramps so that there can be ADA access to these units. The only one that we can't
accommodate because it is located on probably the steepest portion of the site is unit 65. That the
unit here (Mr. Herrick pointed to unit 65).
The loop road profile for Phase II varies generally between one and four percent through the parking
areas. We purposely made it steeper through the connecting links, which are those landscape areas
at the beginning of the road extension. These sections through here where there is no parking are
going to be closer to 9.9 or 10 percent slopes. Those are the steepest slopes that we have within the
MAI
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
road system. Within the parking, we've tried to keep a four percent cross slope so that access
vehicles and doors opening is manageable. That is similar slope that we used on J -Lot parking at
Ithaca College, if you're familiar with that lot.
Now all these grading factors, access to buildings, road slopes and cross slopes on parking, have
committed us to a pretty large volume of earth removal. Frankly, without making substantial changes
in the project, we can't get that number down any further. There is the possibility, and I will get into
that in a minute, of utilizing some other areas on the site for spoils so that we could drop that number
down. But certainly there is going to be a large volume of truck traffic that will be leaving the site.
This is an issue the ERC addressed. This 12 -foot wall that has been proposed on the backside of
units 69 through 71, is one that we think we could eliminate. We had some concerns about whether
or not there were clusters of significant trees there that warranted constructing that wall. It would be a
fairly expensive wall to build. What I would like to get a sense from the board on tonight is whether or
not removing that wall and using the slope fill would be something that we could come back with and
show in the final site plan.
There is, and I know you don't like having last minutes issues sprung on you, but there is a sketch
that we put together, Herman is going to pass out, that address the interest or quest from the Fire
Department on that cul -de -sac parking lot to provide some mechanism for them to turn around their
larger vehicles. They have an internal policy of requiring a turnaround somewhere for cul -de -sacs
that exceed 300 feet in depth. We have a parking lot here that extends well beyond 300 feet. So our
proposal to the fire department, and this will be confirmed at an upcoming meeting, is to utilize the
landscaped areas between the two parking bays as a location for vehicles to back in and drive over
and then pull out. We are expanding the width of the landscape island. It would turn out to be what
we call re- enforced turf section. Something that an emergency vehicle could actually drive over,
cross a mountable curb, turn around on and then pull straight out. Does everyone follow?
Chairperson Wilcox - Can you show me on that rendering where it would be located?
Mr. Herrick - The landscape areas between these two parking spaces and that's the proposed
location by the fire department for this turnaround.
Chairperson Wilcox - The trucks would have enough room to do a K -turn?
Mr. Herrick - That's the idea. It would be a K -turn at that location.
Chairperson Wilcox - They would back off the paved surface?
Mr. Herrick - They would back over a mountable curb onto this re- enforced curb section. Very simply,
it is a deep gravel section with a thinner layer of topsoil, which you grow grass on. It would be able to
support a fire truck.
Chairperson Wilcox - The mountable curbs are those curves with a 45- degree slope.
Mr. Herrick - It would be mountable for those vehicles, but still be a barrier for cars.
45
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - And visible enough to emergency personnel to know that it is there. Well, they
would be trained. They would obviously go up there and know that it is there. It's one thing to build
and another thing for the fire department to actually see that it is physically there so they use it should
they require it.
Mr. Sieverding - The recommendations were actually suggested by Brian Wilbur. There is also an
associated loss.of four parking spaces on the new...
Board Member Hoffmann - I have a question about it. On that drawing, the colored drawing, there
are plantings and trees there. Wouldn't that be a problem?
Mr. Herrick - Yeah, there are four trees shown. Three of the four would have to be eliminated. It
wasn't possible to keep the tree itself. They would have to be in a restricted grass area. There would
not be any plants...
Board Member Hoffmann - So that plan is not valid, really.
Chairperson Wilcox - It was good until this came along. It's not that we don't like changes, it's that
you don't like changes either.
Mr. Herrick - The alternative really isn't practical. That would be to construct something at the end of
the parking lot.
Chairperson Wilcox - To close that loop, yeah.
Mr. Herrick - It would be very difficult to grade in enough area to turn such a vehicle around. We
would either be over onto the college property or we would have some excessive further excavation
to make there. We saw this adjustment and sacrifice of a few parking spaces to make this larger
green area work for two purposes.
Board Member Hoffmann - And would it be just in that one spot that you indicated?
Mr. Herrick - Just for that cul -de -sac in that one location.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay.
Mr. Herrick - Utility extensions. Dan Walker has confirmed with me that we do have sewer capacity
available in the Town system. An issue that he and I will work together on for final would be possible
dedication of some of these new 8 -inch diameter mains to the Town for Town ownership and
maintenance. Some of the lines within Phase I had been proposed and built to Town standards with
the possibility that they could be dedicated to the Town for long term maintenance.
Water service was an important issue that came up at sketch plan. I presented the possibility that we
may have to construct an additional pressure reducing station somewhere in the vicinity of our project
so that we could boost pressures to the upper end of these new units. The condition now, as it has
been presented to us by our mechanical, electrical and plumbing consultant, is that the sprinkler
,e
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
demand is not as great as was envisioned back in 1989. Given the ways these units will be built, the
way that they will be sprinklered, we have a much lower flow requirement at a lower pressure, such
that we no longer feel, based on some testing that was done in the field, that that pressure reducing
station is going to be required. What was shown on the preliminary site plan was an indication that
there may need to be a single story structure out towards Danby Road, right adjacent to the Layton
parcel to accommodate that pressure reducing station. That is gone from the plan at this point. We
feel that there is sufficient pressure and flow in the Town system and within the College Circle system
to accommodate the sprinkler demands and the domestic demands for the project. What we will
further research with Brian Wilbur is what are the actual hydrant flows that can be realized if the fire
department chooses to draw flow out of the system greater than what we have tested it at. Dan, I
don't know if you care to jump in at this point, to sort of solidify my observations.
Mr. Walker - The nature of the pressure regulating station that the Town currently operates on East
King Road, there are three pressure rating valves in that station. A 2 -inch, which functions during
most domestic need. Then a 4 -inch, that on higher flows opens, which were the two valves I believed
that opened during the flow test. There is also an 8 -inch valve on that system, which basically
removes all restriction from the flow from the Ridgecrest tank, which effectively gives unlimited flow
for fire purposes in this particular area. The negative effect of that is if you stop the flow quickly, you
build real high pressures at other points in the system. The fire department is aware of this. In an
emergency situation where they needed that high flow and they would be using it without shutting it
down, they are aware of how our system operates. I believe there will be adequate flow and
pressure.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is there adequate today or what we're saying is by adjusting...?
Mr. Walker - No. With the current valves that are there.
Chairperson Wilcox - You can adjust...
Mr. Walker - They open automatically.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay.
Mr. Walker - The thing is, once you open them and you start them flowing, you've gotta keep water
flowing and shut the flow down gradually so you allow the bigger valve to close on its rate without a
lot of water hammer being generated.
Chairperson Wilcox - But, as you said, this happens...
Mr. Walker - It happens infrequently and we've been training the fire department in how to properly
operate that system ever since about five years ago they were flowing hydrants on Stone Quarry
Road. I know we have enough flow because when they opened the first fire hydrant out it ran nicely
for about ten, fifteen seconds. Then the flow doubled and then it doubled again, then it doubled
again. The firemen weren't experienced at flowing hydrants. They slammed it shut and sent a shock
wave all the way back up and broke a pipe in the pressure regulating station. We have instituted a
rather rigid training program with the fire department.
47
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Attorney Barney - We paid big dollars to College Circle for that.
Mr. Walker - It wasn't College Circle.
Attorney Barney - It believe it was College Circle. It was John Novarr anyway.
Mr. Walker - Yeah, I believe at that you're right. It did surge. David mentioned when they were
checking pressure valves that there is a check valve on the sprinkler system. It was registering 150
pounds when normally it is about 60 to 70 pounds up there. At some point the pressure increased.
Now, they are supposed to have pressure regulating valves on the services. So, high pressures in a
service area are not the responsibility of the municipality. They are the responsibility of the property
owner.
Mr. Herrick - The regulators would typically be on the domestic service.
Mr. Walker - Right.
Mr. Herrick - To sum it up, we tested the condition that would be a natural condition to see. Where a
sprinkler system, a series of heads are called to come on line to put out a fire in an apartment and
under those conditions we can properly provide flow and pressure to the upper most unit, which is
one of the four bedrooms up here at the eastern end of the site.
Chairperson Wilcox - And you can show that to the satisfaction...
Mr. Herrick - We already have. The flow test that was conducted between our office and Bolton
Point, results of that were compiled and we put it together in a document that we shared with Dan and
Brian.
Mr. Walker - Just to follow up on that. Back when this Phase I was built and the project was looked
at, there was a concern about the pressure for the second phase. Since that time, which was 1988 or
'89, we have made improvements and added an extra valve at the pressure regulating station, which
has resulted in a satisfactory condition today.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. David?
Mr. Herrick - Stormwater management is my last section. We stated in our study that there were
certain objectives that this development was shooting for. One was to naturally comply with the
current State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements for projects of this size with
respect to temporary and permanent water quality practices. The second was to provide some
additional peak flow attenuation that wasn't there, wasn't required to be there and wasn't designed or
built to be there with Phase I and add to that detention basin a water quality practice that would help
remove pollutants. To restore some of the general drainage patterns that existed on the property
prior to any development in 1988. That is the way we looked at stormwater in this study was pre
Phase I conditions to post Phase III conditions.
.•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
The detention facility that we are looking at will volumetrically be almost two times what is currently
there. There is some significant excavation work that has to be done within the basin. In order to get
that volume to attenuate the storm events from the two year to the one hundred year, we gave special
focus to the 50 year design storm event, knowing that the State would have an interest in looking at
the capacity of their existing culvert, which crosses Danby Road. In a nutshell, what we have done
with the grading and with the new outlet structure in that basin is to mitigate the increases in peak
flows from the development of most of the impervious surfaces in this project. I say most of because
there are certain pieces of the project, mainly the access road off Route 96 that we can't physically
get to the detention basin. There is a small portion and that is primarily is here of the overall project
that we can't get into our facility. But, of that that we do run through the system, we are able to keep
the peak flows through the State culvert at its 50 year design capacity so that we aren't going to see
any increase there. There are some other adjoining property drainage problems that have surfaced.
We feel that we have been able to address most of those.
The Yntemas have had and presented to the board some pictures of conditions in 2000 where they
had some flooding across their back property. Working with the college, we have put together a plan
that would, through a large Swale and a large diameter pipe, pick up most of the flow...pick up all the
flow that caused that condition and get it down to the storm sewer system on 96B so that we would
eliminate that condition. Now in a very recent meeting that we had with Mr. Yntema, we had to
resolve what design storm should we look at for sizing the both the Swale and the pipe. Collectively
we agreed that that should be of the two year design storm, which is very conservative. In the final
set of documents that we will submit to the Town, you will see sizing of swales and that pipe system
for a 50 year flow.
Another area that was mention in our site visit came from Mrs. Layton regarding the Swale that was
built in Phase I that is located behind units 20 and 24.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, David. I was going to ask you to point.
Mr. Herrick - That Swale runs along the property line and dumps into the detention facility. We are
adding some additional watershed into that Swale. We will go back and verify what size that Swale
needs to be. That is another item of concern that we will address and conclude in the final design
submission.
Last, with respect to stormwater, the concern that we had from the Town Highway Superintendent,
we found impacts down on Stone Quarry Road from this project. What we have been able to show
and document in our study is that he will not see flow conditions exacerbated as result of completion
of the project. In fact, I believe those conditions will be improved. We will be picking up more area
and will be detained in the new basin. It certainly won't be any worse. I think that there are
conditions on Stone Quarry Road that we don't have control of, but you won't see an exacerbation of
that condition from this completed project. If there are no questions at this point, I will introduce Vince
Nicotra, who would discuss with you the landscaping.
Vince Nicotra, QPK Design - I am the architect for the project. The plan that Dave has been referring
to in front of you has also been rendered to indicate punt material that we propose. Basically what
the concept is that we want to carry some of the plant material that now exists in the Phase I project,
,•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
which is the lighter colored buildings down in the western end of the site, into the second phase of the
site. So that their project does have a look of a unified project. Primarily what we are looking at is the
existing project has Red maples around dumpster locations. We propose to use very similar plant
treatment around the dumpster locations using Red maples and in the parking complex. Dave
mentioned that this parking lot will be revised to accommodate for the fire department. That will be
modified in the next phase submission.
As with the existing units, we are proposing heavy locus along the front of the existing units. We will
probably do the same treatment with the proposed Phase II units. We will use low Junipers at the
walks. Taken together, there will be some continuity of plant material between Phase I and Phase II.
We had proposed that between the buildings we use Austrian pines, similar to what was there.
Based on some of the comments that we've gotten, we would be willing to change those to ... we will
revise that in the next planting. We have taken care not to use any plants that are on the invasive
species list, which I think was a concern last time. That is not the case with the proposed planting
plan. Some of the things that we are looking at adding is sort of creating this community building in
the center, which is going to be a fairly public space. Move the jogging path in the back of the
existing units and the Phase II units. We want to separate the public and the semi public zones. So
we are proposing a series of planting beds, which you see outlined here. Which would consist of
Canary grasses and shrub material that would create some tiered planting areas that would provide
some separation for tenants, for the students between the public zone and the semi public zone.
Then there is a path for them to walk through. Initially, we wanted to continue the trees that exist
here, which are Red oaks. And along the street where there are no buildings, by planting some
additional Red oaks. So the continuity of the entrance...
There was some commentary about trying to preserve existing vegetation. Dave Herrick mentioned
earlier that potentially there are some species here that want to be preserved. We feel like we could
probably do that in here and provide protection during construction to preserve some of the existing
species. We will know those absolutely during the next submission. Along the back of the upper unit
here, there is some fairly decent grading of about three to one. We are looking at grass and such.
We want to get that in place as quickly as possible to stabilize the slope. Over time that area will
certainly return towards a more natural state. The grasses can grow to help mitigate runoff on the
site.
Chairperson Wilcox - What is unique about those grasses?
Mr. Nicotra - Just that they grow very quickly and because they are low, versus putting a shrub up
there, it will intercept water flow and help to stabilize the flow. That is primarily what we've proposed
for the planting plan. You have in your submission, in, detail, each of the plants that are proposed.
I would like to move right into the architectural plans for the Phase II buildings, the community
building and then talk about the...
Chairperson Wilcox - You're on a roll, keep going.
Mr. Nicotra - The proposed buildings, which are in purple, we had talked about in some detail at our
last meeting. Basically we have not changed anything significantly with regards to those buildings.
6001
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
We are still proposing the same 9 buildings, 60 apartment units, consisting of four bedroom and five
bedroom apartments. I think what is significant to note, as Herman had mentioned, that we are trying
to mitigate some of the problems that the existing buildings have in that we are eliminating the curved
facades, but yet we are still creating architectural leaf by stepping the buildings in the front and in the
back. The materials that we have proposed, again, have not changed. Asphalt roof shingles, brick in
the front of two colors with an accent color. Three colors of well maintenance vinyl siding.
So this is consistent with what we had presented last time. Not really any significant change to what
we had previously proposed. The footprints are within about one percent of what the original
approved plan was ten years ago.
This is something that you have not seen in detail. This is the proposed community building
structure. Again, what is significant about this is that it is the one piece that is going to create the
focus for the community. Given some of the program elements that the campus would like to see
here, what we have included in here is administrative offices for the campus, a resident director's
office, and a mail center. A service desk where students can come up and if they can get a package
there is someone there that can sort their larger packages out. There is a laundry facility, an exercise
room, a recreation room, a meeting room, which is the large room here with the tables. The
kitchenette is right here and the laundry facility, which I mentioned earlier. Then we have men's and
women's restrooms and mechanical rooms, janitor's closets and service functions. I think what is
important about this is that this is really focused for the residents of College Circle, the students. It is
meant to be for their use primarily.
The elevations illustrate the architecture that we are proposing. If you compare it to the buildings,
they are using the same materials that I just explained. One story structure, approximately 7885
square feet is what we are proposing.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions? Okay.
Mr. Nicotra - I think you will hear from Roy Rothman from Ithaca College who will talk a little bit from
their perspective about the building outside of the architectural implications.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, sir.
Mr. Nicotra - We would like to give you some thoughts on the connector road. Ithaca College has
also retained us to begin to formulize some concepts for this. I think Tom Salm will give us a short
introduction and then I will walk you through the specifics.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Again, you guys are welcome to come back here if you like. Good
evening, Tom.
Tom Salm, Ithaca College - Good evening. I'm Vice President for Business at Ithaca College. 325
Job Hail, Ithaca College is my address. I will be very brief. Simply to say that the college wants this
connection road. This is the first pass through from institutional viewpoint at looking what this would
be. I would remind you that as part of our master plan, if you remember, one of the items that we
were looking at is a Field House and the location of that is on the way up the road down in this area
51
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
above our playing field. The football field is right there. If we were to be able to carry out that plan, it
would be subject to fundraising and so on. The whole area in here will be under consideration as part
of the master plan and how we might do parking and what we might have to do with some of those
playing fields. I mention that simply because what Vince has put together here on a preliminary basis
is intended to make sure that we can get the road in place to meet our obligations under the planning
considerations of having the road in place by the time that we opened up the new section in fall of
2003. But, the ultimate plan could be something different than this. So what we would like to do is
make sure that you understand that we will put the road in. We commit ourselves to that, but we are
not sure what we think the final configuration would be. We may want to come back and change
some of these fields. As you know, we've had discussions about possibly going up on the top of the
hill with some playing fields if we had to supplant some of those because of the field house. We are
pretty confident that the place for the field house is on the side of that hill connecting it to the existing
football field, taking advantage of having the stands that would be built into the building and so on.
That is getting totally outside the thing for tonight, but its such a big piece of our plan and what we are
showing in our master plan that it is critical to us so it makes the road a little longer term and what we
think we would do over the long term for the college. With that, I will turn it back over to Vince.
Chairperson Wilcox - Actually, it is important because as I think you know, the discussions that we
had before indicate that this board wants to see and in fact will require some sort of connector road in
order to go along with increased density.
Mr. Salm - Right.
Chairperson Wilcox - So it is important to know that the plans are being worked on. You, I believe,
are aware of the fact that the draft resolution in front of us ties the increased density to the completion
and operation of that connector road.
Mr. Salm - I am here largely to say that we will meet that obligation with no question. All I want to do
is leave open the possibility. We will have something that will work that will allow students to flow
back in forth to their vehicular. I just wanted to let you know from a Planning Board viewpoint that
down the road in a couple of years with our master plan, if we're successful, we may want to come
back and say we want to output that road another way. It'll still be a connector road so there is no
question that we're obliging ourselves to that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, Tom.
Mr. Nicotra - In that regard, what we're proposing at this stage and started discussion with the college
is... This is the existing property line right now between College Circle and Ithaca College Campus.
These buildings here at the lower end of the sheet here are existing buildings. These are two of the
northeastern most proposed buildings. The yellow that you see is a proposed two lane paved
roadway that would connect from the end of this existing parking lot and attach to the existing L -lot
extension pavements. The red is a proposed pedestrian extension of the two sidewalks that now
occur at College Circle and would follow what would be the old sort of pathway to get to the campus.
We have proposed to have the pedestrians continue to use that. Then we would connect and create
a new paved walk, eight foot wide, along the existing L -lot that would edge the existing playing field.
Then as we move towards the ball field, create a crossover point and take pedestrians and bicycles
52
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
down the western most portions. We are proposing some improvements here because right now this
is an existing one -way street, one -way access to L -lot. What we would like to do is separate the
traffic that now exists in this area and allow the road to bypass two way traffic to bypass L -lot so that
traffic that is using this road does not interfere with traffic in L -lot. I think that is the extent of the
concept that we are trying to work with the college and will be before this group again as we move
forward with plan for this aspect of the project.
Chairperson Wilcox - The road would be built to normal specifications sufficient to carry emergency
vehicles, fire trucks, etc.?
Mr. Nicotra - We are gathering those perimeters currently. It is intended to accommodate, obviously,
all vehicular traffic that might transfer across here.
Mr. Sieverding - That concludes the presentation of all the plans, which are the context for the long
environmental assessment form that we submitted as part of our application. I think what we would
like to do at this point is focus on several elements of that plan to give you a little bit more detailed
explanation of the kinds of analysis that was conducted. If we could start with Amy Dade from SRF &
Associates, who conducted the traffic study, to talk about the traffic impacts on analyzing that LEAF.
Amy Dade, SRF & Associates - We conducted the traffic analysis for the College Circle Apartments
project. Our traffic analysis looked at comparing traffic volume data that was collected at three
intersections. The first intersection was the Ithaca College intersection with Route 9613. The second
was College Circle Drive, the existing access, and the third was King Road. We looked at the am and
pm commuter peak period as well as the peak period for the College Circle Apartments. The counts
were done in January on the 23rd and 24th. The morning counts were done between 7:00 and 9:00
a.m. at Ithaca College and at King Road, At College Circle Drive they were done in the morning from
7:00 to 11:00 a.m. to identify the peaks of the site. In the afternoon they were done between 3:00
and 6:00 p.m. at Ithaca College and at King Road. At College Circle they were done between 2:00
and 6:00 p.m. In addition, we did a license plate survey at Ithaca College driveway to identify traffic
traveling between the college and College Circle Apartments. The result of that survey identified that
65 percent of the traffic turning left out of the college was in fact headed to College Circle Apartments.
We can expect that all of that traffic will use the connector roadway in place.
Our calculations of additional trips related to the new beds and apartments at College Circle
Apartments are based on existing trip generation for the existing apartment units. In addition, our site
traffic distribution, that is where people are going to and coming from is also based on the existing
distribution pattern at College Circle Apartments.
We analyzed three conditions. The first was the existing conditions to create a baseline to compare
to. The second was the approved full development condition, which is 600 beds. The third was the
proposed development conditions, which add an additional 150 beds. The results of our analysis
concluded that there were no significant impact to the capacity condition at any of the existing study
area intersections.
In addition, we looked at the potential need for a left turn lane at the site access drive, College Circle
Drive. Our study concluded that a left turn lane would not be warranted. Upon submission of this
report to the New York State Department of Transportation, we received a letter from them
6v
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
concluding that they agreed with our traffic report and methodology. They agreed that a left turn lane
would not be needed on 96B.
Chairperson Wilcox - Did you not conclude that a left turn lane was warranted, but could be mitigated
by other measures?
Ms. Dade - It is warranted, but we determined that it was not needed because there is ample
shoulder room and we are going to actually decrease traffic volumes, the left turn volumes, as a result
of the connector road. Are there any questions?
Attorney Barney - Again, the dates you did your study were January 23rd and 24th?
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, John. I quickly checked.
Ms. Dade - College was in session.
Chairperson Wilcox - It was a Wednesday and a Thursday and they were in session this year. Thank
you for asking that. Anybody else? We're all set. Thank you. We may call you back, though.
Mr. Sieverding - I think that in the staff comments on the LEAF there were a few comments made
relative to the stormwater management study that Dave put together.
Mr. Herrick.- The section of Part II dealing with impacts on waters on Page 2, beginning on Page 2.
The first comment that I would address is on Page 3. 1 mentioned earlier that several local concerns
came forth through many different media. We know what some of the problems have been in the
past. We looked to address those. We will be analyzing and re- grading those particular swales that
will see additional flow. We will be looking at a 50 year design event for the Yntema resolution, the
channel and pipe system. I think that knowing what is expected and what we are proposing should
take care of many of these issues on Page 3. There is an expectation that we will come through with
a planting plan for the new wetland in the detention basin. I will be working with a company called
Terrestrial Environmental Specialist. They focus on wetland issues, both existing and constructed
wetlands. They will be providing for us for incorporation in our next set of documents. The planting
plan and recommended construction procedures so that we have in the end ... a functioning wetland
for our stormwater treatment.
A subtle suggestion, again on Page 3, was that we have a large watershed east of our project. The
majority of the watershed at College Circle is actually to the east of our property. The concern was
raised that there will be a collection of that off site runoff routed around the project. Some portions of
the upland watershed will be routed through our new basin, but there is a large portion that will not.
There is the suggestion that because we are now collecting that runoff, which at one point had flowed
across the property, that that may present a problem. I would suggest that it will not create an issue.
We do need to properly collect that water and get it around the site so that it doesn't exacerbate
conditions both during construction and once we are permanently restored. So I feel that the process
that we've shown and recommendations that we made are sound for dealing with water off site to the
east of our project.
54
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - And sufficient.
Mr. Herrick - And sufficient. Yes.
Page 4 makes reference to the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. We will prepare that again, in
conjunction with the final construction documents that actually is a State requirement for the SPDES
permit. The last issue that I would direct your attention to is on Page 8. It dealt with the question of
adequate water pressure for the uphill units. I've already pretty well explained it to you. We have
resolved that there is sufficient pressure and flow of both the domestic and sprinkler needs in Phase
II.
Board Member Conneman - David, I am not sure if this is environmental or if it is site plan. That
retention basin is the one that you showed us on our field trip up there.
Mr. Herrick - That's correct. That is the site that we'll be modifying.
Board Member Conneman - Are you going to fence that?
Mr. Herrick - No.
Board Member Conneman - Are you going to put an alligator in it?
Mr. Herrick - Well, the wetland design actually is a shallow marsh. So there will be pockets of water
that may be 18 inches deep and some very smaller areas where it may be 40 to 48 inches deep, but
it won't be a wet pond where you will be drawing activity for those hot summer days or fall days. I
certainly wouldn't want to be rolling around in the wetlands.
Board Member Conneman - You said you were going to excavate. quite a bit.
Mr. Herrick - That is right.
Chairperson Wilcox - That was sized based upon requirements in 1988.
Mr. Herrick - The size that is there, the design was for a much lesser reduction in peak flows. So no
we will need that extra volume so that we capture and detain runoff from a wide range of design
storms from the two year to the hundred year.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, David.
Mr. Sieverding - Okay, there are a couple more issues that were raised in staff comments and
discussed during sketch plan conference. I think there are some questions about the proposed
density of the site, as we've more fully explanation in the application. On a 30 acre site, with a 149
units, the proposed density is 4.88 units per acre. We've included some information that compares to
other multi- family residential projects in the County. If you take a look at those the average is
between 12 to 15 units per acres. So I think the proposed density of College Circle is much less than
many of those other multi - family residential projects.
55
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry Herman. What did you say it was?
Mr. Sieverding - It is 4.88 unit per acre. I think if you take a look a number of others that we've
included aerial photographs that delineate site boundaries and units for Eastwood Commons,
Hasbrouck Apartments, Warrenwood Apartments. All of those generally range in the area of between
12 to 15 units per acre. So, I think College Circle by comparison is significantly less dense.
Chairperson Wilcox - It is easy for us to compare it to Linderman Creek, which we just did, which was
a little over 6 units per acre.
Mr. Sieverding - I think as staff pointed out in their comment and their narrative addressing this point
is that the Comprehensive Plan called this an Urban Residential area with a proposed density of
between 5 to 15 units per acre. Again, we are below the lower threshold of that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Of course that doesn't take into account persons per acre, which may be a little
higher here.
Mr. Sieverding - Well, we could talk about that. In fact I have taken a look at that.
Board Member Hoffmann - That's what I was going to ask about.
Mr. Sieverding - I anticipated that there might be a question along that line. I think if we take a look at
the proposed level of 750 persons, we're talking about 25 persons per acre. If you take a look at
Warrenwood Apartments, there are a total of 180 apartments on that site. There are 61 one
bedrooms, 80 two bedrooms, 20 three bedrooms. We estimate the population in that site to be
approximately 32 persons per acre. If we take a look at Northwood Apartments where there are 271
units. Again, a mix of one, two, and three bedrooms unit, and you take a look at what the population
of that site is, I think we are talking approximately 40 people per acre. So again, I think even
compared on actual occupancy basis, given the large site... This is a large site relative to many other
multiple family residential products in the county. It is unusual in this county to find a 30 acre,
developable multi - family residential site. Given that large of a site, this is relatively low density
whether you are looking at units per acre or persons per acre. I think you could also take a look at it
from the point of view of zoning. Your zoning ordinance would allow thirty percent lot coverage. On a
30 acre site, that is approximately 395,000 square feet of footprint. If you are building a two -story
building that is somewhere under 800,000 square feet of development. If you figure a mix of two,
three, four, five bedroom apartments and an average unit size of around 1500 square feet per
apartment, you are talking approximately 530 apartments could be theoretical, the maximum
development of the site. That size of development would equate to about nine acres of development
on a 30 acre site. I'll give you the parking to support that, but again if you take a look at the Zoning
Ordinance and the requirement of every one parking space for every apartment then an additional
parking space for every three units. That would give you approximately 700 parking to support 530
units. At an average of 300 square feet per parking space, that is parking space plus circulation isles,
you are talking about an additional 4.9 acres of development for parking. Together the theoretical
maximum would be about 14 acres, slightly less than half of the total site. Again, by comparison with
56
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
a 149 units, even at 750 occupants and approximately 529 parking spaces, I think by all measures,
this is a pretty low density for the site.
Board Member Hoffmann - You just threw a lot of numbers at me and I have trouble following you, but
just out of curiosity you mentioned Warrenwood Apartments and Northwood, I think. You mentioned
Warrenwood Apartments where there are 32 persons per acre and the Northwood with 40 persons
per acre. What was the average number of people per apartment there when you did that estimate?
Mr. Sieverding - That is looking at, again a mix of units, the one bedroom, two bedroom and three
bedroom apartments. Assuming that on the one bedroom apartments you have units that are only
occupied by one person and you have some units that are occupied by two. In the two bedroom
apartments you have some units that are occupied by three person and others by two. So working
through like that you come up with a population there of about 535 persons and dividing that by the
size of the site you come up with that kind of ratio.
Board Member Hoffmann - I looked at some of the numbers. I did some very simple division and
multiplication. It looks like in the newer buildings that you are developing that you will have an
average of 5 persons per unit, housing unit. In the older ones, the existing ones look like it was 3.6
persons per housing unit. But, if you are increasing the number, it must be increased in all the
buildings in order not to have too many people in each apartment in the new development. I see
some of them can have six people in them.
Mr. Sieverding - Exactly. Again, you need to take a look at the mix of units. I think when the
development is fully built; there will be a mix of two, three, four and five bedroom apartments. Some
of the four and five bedroom apartments may have five persons in four and six persons in five. That
is how we get up to the 750. Those units are appropriately sized for it. We specifically, with the help
of QPK and the college, targeted the larger bedrooms within those apartments for the potential
double occupancy. These are the bedrooms that will be anywhere between a 145 and 160 square
feet. So those are pretty sizable-rooms.
Board Member Hoffmann - In the new buildings that you are proposing, all the units would have either
four or five bedrooms.
Mr. Sieverding - Yes. The new apartment buildings are all four and five bedrooms.
Board Member Hoffmann - So that could hold five or six people in each unit.
Mr. Sieverding - Correct.
Board Member Hoffmann - That is pretty concentrated living there.
Mr. Sieverding - Again, it is all on a 30 acre site. The impacts of the development aren't related to just
the building. It is the entire site that is important.
57
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
I think an additional issue, in terms of environmental review; I think has to do with both the Unique
Natural Area and Scarlet oak Grove that was originally identified back in 1988 when this project was
first brought before you. I think we can talk about the Scarlet oak area first.
Chairperson Wilcox - While Herman is looking, I will tell you that this is an ad for College Circle from
the Ithacan. Students will have the ability... Obviously it assumes that they're going to get their
approval. Beyond that, $6700 for single bedroom, $5800 for a double. It is still expensive.
Mr. Sieverding - I think if we could just say a few words about the Scarlet oak and the Unique Natural
Area. I think that those of you that walked the site with us have an understanding of the issue that's
described in the site plan application. The initial site visit conducted by Wesley and Ostman
suggested that there was a row of Scarlet oak in this area of the site. Mr. Sieverding described the
UNA. Comments not audible.
There is more flexibility to encroach on this area... I see that in the recommendation that you have
from the Environmental Review Committee. I think they agreed with that assessment and didn't feel
that there would be any loss in terms of the quality of the site by doing that. We would hope that as
far as tonight's discussion we could get the flexibility to remove that retaining wall and work the
natural grade down to the proposed walkway.
There was also some discussion during sketch plan substantive to that about the extension of this
parking lot back to the Unique Natural Area. Again, I think after having several landscape architects
assess that area and I think after having looked at a study that the college had done by Ecological
Associates that analyzed the sort of ecology of that entire South Hill Swamp area. I think everyone
agrees that we're that both in terms of the county's designation of this as a Unique Natural Area and
the Ecological Associates study is a locally abundant resource that isn't really part of that South Hill
Swamp area that is unique. I think our plan reflects encroaching into that area and the
recommendation we received so far seems to support that. We would like to get confirmation that
that becomes part of our final site plan.
Part of the LEAF also addresses the question having to do as to whether or not blasting will occur
during construction. I think we indicated that it would. We also provided a letter from the licensed
contractor that sort of explains the procedure. We also provided the map that sort of outlined what
this sort of sphere of influence would be if any blasting were to take part. If it occurs, it would have to
do with the foundations for buildings. I think included in our application is a drawing that shows ... the
area that blasting will occur. It clearly shows that it is already concentrated on our site. Again, staff
recommendations in terms of the proposed resolution, there is a suggestion that there ought to be
some limitations placed on the hours during which this activity can occur. Those hours were left
blank. We would like to suggest to you, after talking with the contractor, that if we could do this
between 8:00 in the morning and 5:00 in the afternoon.
I think related to the topic, again I think it is the second condition to the proposed resolution for site
plan approval, has to deal with the amount of material that is being hauled off and the truck traffic. I
think it was indicated that approximately 25,000 cubic yards of material that would hauled off. David
spoke earlier to our ability... It will certainly give us an opportunity here to form... It won't be
significant. It might be about 3,000 yards or so. It would help in terms of reducing the number of trips
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
off the site. Again, I think in the staff recommendations to the board, that in the condition there's a
suggestion that we define the hours that the truck traffic take place. We would like to suggest to you
that they be allowed to do that between the hours of 7:00 in the morning and 5:00 in the afternoon.
Chairperson Wilcox - What were those hours, Herman?
Mr. Sieverding - For the blasting 8 to 5 and for the truck traffic truck hauling off material, 7 to 5. 1 think
that concludes our review anyway of the Long Environmental Assessment Form. I think during the
sketch plan conference there were several other issues that were raised that we would like to address
at this point. They really concern the management of the project.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can we do that later?
Mr. Sieverding - We could.
Chairperson Wilcox - We can get through the environmental review, I think, and then we can get to
that. I think that is part of site plan if that is okay with you.
Mr. Sieverding - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - Where do we want to start? Who wants to go first?
Board Member Talty - I'll go first.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay, we'll start at that end. We'll try to bring some order to this.
Board Member Talty - After the site tour or walk, there was a great deal of water that was on the
property. At the time there were a few people, both some of the staff, some of the board and some of
the people that were there that had concerns with regards to the water and also the grade. At one
point, our map is down right now, but it was initially when we first went into the wooded area, there
was a pretty steep grade there. I don't know what the degree was, but I have personal issues with
regards to eliminating the retaining wall. I understand the documentation that has been provided, but
it is a pretty steep grade there. I just wanted to make that point.
Second thing is, I would never endorse blasting at 8:00 a.m., ever. I think that maybe a more
appropriate time may be 9:00 or 10:00 a.m., and definitely not on a weekend. I think that is just a
consideration for the people that are in the area, even though its during times that maybe there won't
be as many students or people in the initial buildings, but just consideration for the neighbors.
Trucking at 7:00 a.m. is a lot of noise. I don't know if you've been around trucks, but 7:00 a.m. is
pretty early to start the trucks. So I wouldn't endorse that time either, probably around the same time
as the blasting, 9:00 to 10:00 a.m. Again, no weekends, or very limited on the weekend.
The only other concern that I had was the traffic study. I really thought you did a great job, by the
way, on that traffic study, especially considering the access road. I would never use the word
"eliminate" the traffic that is going to come out of the primary entrance right now with constitutes to
the connecting road. There is still going to be some kind of traffic coming out of there.
59
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
For a little humor involved, I think that the men's and women's room have to be switched around on
the community building. That's it for me.
Chairperson Wilcox - I agree with your comment about the connector road would eliminate all traffic
out on Route 96B. The assumption is made in the traffic study that it would, but I think that's
unrealistic. Some people will still go out there.
Board Member Thayer - I think there is a little concern about the connector road being a conversion
for the streetlight, that stop sign on 96B. I don't really think that's a problem. I think that they will not
want to go through a parking lot and then weave their way around. So I don't see a problem with that.
I would agree with Kevin. The hours should be a little further up in the day.
Chairperson Wilcox - We'll see if we can find a compromise on that. As I come around, anybody?
Board Member Mitrano - Can I have a brief explanation again as to why the retaining wall is desired
to be eliminated?
Mr. Sieverding - That retaining wall on one end I think could be as high as 13 feet. Thirteen feet
would probably require some sort of fencing or something else on top of it. We think of it as an
unnatural landform.
Board Member Mitrano - So for aesthetic reasons you want to eliminate it?
Mr. Sieverding - Aesthetic reasons and I'll be frank with you, the cost as well. It is a very expensive
wall to build. If there isn't anything that is particularly unique about this area. We think it is ,a much
more natural approach to dealing with that than building a huge retaining wall.
Board Member Mitrano - And the retaining wall is there now for what reason?
Mr. Sieverding - It is there because we weren't sure how this row of tree...
Chairperson Wilcox - You are talking about the Scarlet oak. If the Scarlet oak were there, then the
retaining wall should be built to protect them.
Mr. Sieverding - That is why the wall is there.
Board Member Mitrano - And what your study has found is not that they are not, but they are not in
the concentration that was once alleged?
Mr. Sieverding - Exactly right. They are not here and individuals are scattered throughout portions of
the site.
Board Member Mitrano - The consequence to any or all of those trees, Scarlet or regular oak or
whatever, once the retaining wall were to be removed would be what?
Mr. Sieverding - That those trees would be removed as well.
.N
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry, when we say removed, the retaining doesn't exist. It exists on the
plans only. I am concerned that you think that it physically exists out on the site right now.
Board Member Mitrano - No, but if the retaining wall is not put in, the consequence to the trees that
are there is?
Mr. Sieverding - Some of those trees would be lost.
Board Member Mitrano - It would be at the loss of whatever number of unusual species. It would be
at the expense of those trees.
Mr. Sieverding - Right.
Board Member Mitrano - Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - For those of us that walked the site and I'm sorry that you couldn't join us.
Board Member Hoffmann - I was there for part of it. I saw that part.
Chairperson Wilcox - If I'm to believe the landscapers, and who was along, the expert who pointed
out that there were no Scarlet oaks there, then there is nothing special in that site. There's nothing
special that's there, in my opinion. There are trees clearly.
Board Member Mitrano - Could I then have an explanation as to how we...
Chairperson Wilcox - Oh, we've run beyond the Ithaca Journal deadline. I'm sorry.
Board Member Mitrano - Was it the 1988 study that made the allegation that there was this unusual
species there?
Board Member Thayer - Right. Basically.
Board Member Mitrano - And they were just wrong?
Mr. Sieverding - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - Or located it incorrectly.
Mr. Sieverding - Again, I think from the analysis of that portion of the site that we had done by
landscape architects certainly not in concentration suggested in that report.
Mr. Kanter - It was pretty clear that there were other oaks in there, I think, that were pointed out.
There were Red oaks and White oaks mixed in that. There was evidence of start of oaks in there.
Although, they were noticed farther south.
61
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - I believe Nancy Ostman's and Mr. Wesley's report is included in your submittals
and even they state that they weren't sure of the exact location of the Scarlet oak.
Board Member Thayer - Back to the slope on that spur, is the parking lot going to be at a different
level than the buildings at that point because of the slope?
Mr. Sieverding - No. The intent is to have the parking lot and the building at approximately the same
level.
Chairperson Wilcox - That's an awful lot of cut.
Board Member Thayer - An awful lot of blasting because you said the bedrock was only like 40 inches
there.
Mr. Sieverding - Comments not audible.
Chairperson Wilcox - I agree.
Board Member Hoffmann - You were going to say something about the degree of that slope.
Chairperson Wilcox - David was.
Mr. Herrick - What we had suggested the grade line in terms of the interior foundation of the wall...
Board Member Thayer - It seems like there would be a lot less excavation if you could have the
parking lot up on one level and then tier it down for the buildings on the lower level.
Mr. Herrick - The trick there would be that we would want to retain the accessibility in here.
Board Member Thayer - Yeah, you would have to have steps.
Mr. Herrick - We would need to put in ramps.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is this an ADA requirement or just your desire to keep the ground floor
apartments ADA accessible?
Mr. Sieverding - That's what I wanted to address, Fred. I think in sort of talking about some of the
basic design perimeters at the college, I think the intent here is to make the ground floor units
accessible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in terms of ADA it is the four bedroom at ground floor and
the four bedroom units that we are required to make accessible because the five bedroom units are
townhouses. They are two story apartments so we're not required to make that accessible, but I think
it's the desire of both us and the college to make the ground floor of both units accessible. They will
be appropriately sized so that they could be rented to somebody that was disabled and they are not
just limited to the four bedroom apartment.
62
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Related to that wall, I think there are liability concerns. I think is it a combination of aesthetics, having
a 13 foot high wall and liability in terms of protecting people making sure they don't get to the end of it
and practice rock climbing or God knows what.
Board Member Conneman - I have the same concerns that Kevin does about blasting and trucks and
where you are going to take the material. I think that is a real issue. I think also that doing something
about the soils up on that piece of property, you're going to have to blast more than you think. you do.
Those kinds of soils have bedrock and pans very close to the surface.
Chairperson Wilcox - Our lovely south hill shale.
Board Member Conneman - Yeah. We've been through this once before maybe 30 years ago when
we put some sewage lines up there. We found that the bedrock was closer to the surface than they
thought it was. I have a concern also about what is going to be done before you begin construction
that is with the water and also with a lot of other things that go before that. It seems to me that that is
a consideration. I think we have to have some assurance that those things will be done before
construction begins so that we don't pollute the environment and all the things that have to go into
that.
I have some concerns about management and parking spaces, but that is not environmental.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. We will get to it. Young lady?
Board Member Hoffmann - All right. Let's see. Again, I don't have them in any particular order.
About the traffic, there was some statement in the discussion about why the left hand turn off Route
96 into this site was not needed and it mentioned that there was an 8 foot shoulder. So cars that
wanted to pass cars waiting to turn left could go out on the shoulder and pass them. But, I don't think
that that is acceptable behavior in driving typically, is it? Maybe our Sheriff could enlighten us.
Peter Meskill, Tompkins County Sheriff - When a car is stopped making a left hand turn, you can pass
it on the right. The car has to come to a full stop before you can pass it.
Board Member Hoffmann - And that's okay? That's allowed?
Mr. Meskill - If the NYS DOT said it was okay, then it's got to be okay.
Board Member Hoffmann - When I learned, you were not supposed to do that. All right. I am a little
bit disturbed about the fact that the connector road is a separate approval. I would like to know more
details about it. I hear that there is a commitment to build it, but exactly how and where and what the
impacts are and so on troubles me a little bit. I'm worried about... Even though I basically think it is a
good idea to allow a lot of the college traffic to go between these housing units and the college
campus, I'm just worried that maybe the impact of a lot traffic there is going to be a problem there for
some of the neighbors who are living very close along Route 96 with this road now being on the
western side of the playing fields instead of on the eastern side as had been mentioned earlier. It
troubles me that we are thinking of approving this without knowing the exact details of that road.
63
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
I'm also concerned about where the spoils are going to go, not just when they are going to be trucked
out of there, but where they are going to go and which routes will be used to take them there. The
impact of that traffic not just on the immediate area next to Ithaca College, but in other parts of the
City and the Town and surrounding communities. With so many more students as there would be if
we were to commit 750 students living there, what would be the impact on the neighbors of the
parties, even if they are fairly orderly? Chances are that they are not always going to be very orderly.
There will be noise and drinking and so on, but that is a concern for me, too.
Somewhere in one of the comments we got there was a statement that said that it would be a good
idea to have the parking at these apartments designated as campus parking because then the
college would not have to provide parking for these cars on the main campus, as well. I don't know if
that is true, but I would like to find out if that is true. That seems like an advantage if that could be the
case. Early on during the sketch plan review, there were some mention about driveway
improvements at the main drive in to the site and that they would only be done if there was any
money left over. What I seem to remember hearing and seeing something about some drainage
problems as a result of that main drive, too, and water draining out onto Route 96 and maybe creating
problems there. If that is the case, that there are some drainage problems there, I feel that has to be
addressed as part of this. It cannot be something that is put off and done on only if there is any
money left over.
Someone also mentioned, I think maybe it was the Environmental Review Committee, that suggested
making the surfaces in the parking areas in the new ones permeable rather than impermeable. That
would help cut out some of the drainage problems that would result from this. I have mentioned
before that I have seen parking surfaces that are much more permeable than the typical asphalt
ones. They sort of look like concrete blocks laid on their sides and there is sand or some other well
draining material inside and grass can grow in it even, but you can park on it. It is more expensive,
but it might help in a way that would cut out some other expenses. I was wondering ... I am not quite
sure that I heard whether the improvements in the drainage that you are contemplating or proposing
making would not only make the situation worse, but would in fact make the situation better for some
of the properties that are downhill from this property. I would like to see an improvement is possible.
I am not sure that I heard you say that.
You already said that you were going to prepare a planting plan for the wetland, which is good. I will
take a quick look through there; maybe you have some comments Fred. I'll look and see if I can find
some other ones that I have.
Chairperson Wilcox - Fill removal is a definite concern. I would want to know where those trucks are
going to go. I would not want to see those trucks on East King Road as a cut - through over to
Coddington Road or Burns Road to get to 79. The round numbers, we're talking 25,000 cubic yards.
That is either 1250 or 2500 truckloads, depending upon whether you are talking a 10 cubic yard or 20
cubic yard vehicle. That is a lot of vehicles. Yes, they make noise, especially when they are slowing
down and the engines are working. I don't know if 9 or 10, 1 think that when we get to that I think we
can find ourselves a compromise on that as well as the blasting time.
Board Member Mitrano - What alternate route would you expect the trucks to make? I agree with you
about King Road. Where would they go? Down 96, over to Coddington and then Coddington to...
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - It would certainly be our hope that those trucks are on State routes as much as
possible and county routes only when they have to be. Then hopefully, never on a town road. That
could be Town of Ithaca or Town of Dryden or Town of whatever. I think we've all expressed the idea
about the connector road. We expressed it in the previous meeting. We expressed it tonight. The
resolution is also clear that the ability to put 750 person total in these apartments is contingent upon
the connector being done and operational. The TCAT information is wonderful. TCAT running a bus
through every 20 minutes. We'll get to linking college involvement and increased density. I know that
is something that IAD wants to discuss. I don't have a problem with removing the proposed berm
given that the Scarlet oaks are not there, at least not in concentrations.
Board Member Mitrano - Do you mean the retaining wall?
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry, what did I say?
Board Member Mitrano - Berm.
Chairperson Wilcox - I'm sorry, it should be the retaining wall. Thank you. With regards to the
environmental issues I think they have been adequately addressed. Do you have ay other
comments?
Board Member Hoffmann - I have one more comment and that is as I was reading the statements
about the traffic study and how much this internal road would help the traffic situation on Route 96. It
occurred to that Ithaca College has a provision to be able to pull out of this deal at any time. I
remember Mr. Salm said and I hope, as he does, that it won't happen. That if it should happen that
Ithaca College just doesn't get so many students, and then they wouldn't have any need for this
housing. What would happen, I wondered, if in fact there are not so many Ithaca College students
living there? Ithaca College pulls out and other people move into these apartments. Presumably
they would not be using that internal road to Ithaca College campus then. What would be the result
of that on the traffic on Route 96?
Chairperson Wilcox - Good point. I know that Herman wants to address that issue, but I'll give him a
chance to do that when we get to site plan.
Board Member Hoffmann - But to me, that's an environmental concern as well. It could mean that
suddenly all the traffic from having to do with people living in these apartments were to go onto Route
96,
Chairperson Wilcox - That assumes that the density of 750 was still allowed and not possibly
reverting back to the 600 as currently approved.
Board Member Hoffmann - It's true that's already approved, but even that could create problems.
Chairperson Wilcox - I will give your opportunity to address that when we get to that point. That is a
potentially contentious issue. Are there any .environmental issues? We've expressed our feelings
65
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
right now. Is there anything that we need answered right now? Does anybody have a question they
need responded to in order to proceed with the environmental review?
Board Member Mitrano - Well, maybe it's a stretch. I have a question that could be asked now or
later. If this proposal does not go through, what are the college's plans to accommodate the extra
students it anticipates offering admission to?
Chairperson Wilcox - You're making Tom jump up and down.
Mr. Salm - Thank you, Fred. The answer is the same that I gave before in the sketch plan. We need
the 600 to 800 beds as part of our master plan. We want to do it with a developer. We concluded
that we wanted to try to pursue this with College Circle. If this were to fall through, we would be back
asking for 600 to 800 beds someplace else on the campus in very much the same way I suspect in
terms of being apartments. It would certainly be apartment kind of living. Is that okay?
Board Member Mitrano - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else? We'll look to staff. All right.
Mr. Walker - Just one comment. The concern about rebuilding the road.
that road, they are going to rebuild their access road. Guaranteed. One
fill. I know that one of the big other projects where they had a lot of rock.
rock, processed it on site and used it for building roads. Do we have any
this site would be suitable for doing something like that to reduce the quar
If they put 1250 trucks over
question on the quantity of
They actually recycled the
indication if the material on
itity of fill?
Mr. Herrick - The process that we went through to qualify and quantify the rock up there was to use a
pretty good size excavator to test beds. It was an excavator that might very well be on the job to do
mass excavation and utility excavation. We found that we could rip almost all of them with a typical
track mounted excavator. That would suggest that it wasn't shale material. So it might be a little
shaky as a product you could further crush and refine and put into your construction. Probably over
time it would disintegrate. So unless we got into more competent lime stone type of material that we
could quarry, if we had to put that excavated rock into the fills on the site where we handle it and haul
it off.
Mr. Walker - So, if the rock is the weathered shale, as you are talking about, then the blasting
question kind of evaporates also because you wouldn't be blasting.
Mr. Herrick - The blasting, as Herman mentioned, would be for the footers. So they would be of a
little more competent material at the footer depth. That is going to be a trench excavation. Most of
the volume that we've calculated was for developing the sites, grade for the road and not so much the
area based on foundation.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Let's give the public a chance. They've been waiting very patiently and I
thank you for that. As I've explained a couple of times, and I will do just again briefly. Because the
environmental issues are an important aspect of the College Circle Phase II development, I felt it
appropriate to give the public a chance to address the board on environmental issues before we
we
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
proceed on with an environmental determination and possibly to site plan. So if there is a member of
the public out there who wishes to address the Planning Board on an environmental issue or issues
related to the site plan, as Mr. Yntema will be doing shortly, I ask you to please step up. Give us your
name and address and because there appear not to be that many people from the public here
tonight ... we seem to be' overloaded with representatives of IAD and Ithaca College. I will not set a
time limit. All I ask is that you keep to the point.
John Yntema, 993 Danby Road, read from a prepared statement. Please see attachment #1.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you. Can I ask you a question if I may? At the beginning you said that it
the drainage system fails, there is potential flooding on your property. Is that your way of saying that
the proposal as stated, but without necessary construction drawings, might in fact alleviate the
problem? We just don't have one, enough information, and two, if it fails it will fail on your property.
Mr. Yntema - If it goes through the ditch and anything happens at the headwall, anything clogs up the
pipe, it is all going to go around that and toward my property.
Chairperson Wilcox - So. the final determination as to whether these drainage facilities, which would
be on the Ithaca College property, not on the College Circle property. A final determination as to
whether they are sufficient or not will have to be made once the details are provided, number one, for
review by the engineer. Two, what plans will be in place to ensure maintenance of these facilities to
try to lessen the potential if the system fails for whatever reason. If it becomes clogged, most likely.
Mr. Yntema - I was insured by the Ithaca College Representative that the meeting that I had with him,
Mr. Sieverding, and Mr. Herrick, that they would maintain it. I don'tRnow how you enforce that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay.
Mr. Yntema - But I certainly hope they would do what they say.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay. Thank you, Sir.
Board Member Mitrano - John, I have a legal question based on.e.. I'm sorry, John Barney. I have a
legal question.
Attorney Barney - Jon probably would've had the answer.
Board Member Mitrano - In terms of what this gentlemen has just described as a sound and
trespassed, if water damage is a claim of tress, does there have to be specific conditions that have
created the flow of water or is it just fact of the flow of the water, irrespective of construction or
conditions.
Attorney Barney - My rudimentary, and I have to urge the rudimentary. If you have water that sheets
across a property, that is not actionable. But if you channelize water and as a result of that
channelizing you cause damage to property adjacent, you are liable for that damage. Now I don`t
quite fully understand these plans, but it looks to me like there is channelizing occurring in order to
67
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
get it out to the road. So I would think that Ithaca College or whoever is responsible for the
channelizing would have some exposure legally if the channeling caused damage to a joint property.
Board Member Mitrano - This gentleman would have a potential cause of action.
Attorney Barney - The fact that you have a lawsuit, of course, is no great comfort to the problem. I
think in terms of maintenance, I think we have, I don't know what the plan is here. I think up on
Hospicare, on that facility we have a stormwater retention facility and maintenance in place that we
were able to review periodically to see whether it was being complied with or not. I would assume
that something like that could be worked into this as well.
Mr. Walker - I think we had it written so that the Town could go in during an emergency situation and
then back charge the owner and they could take care of it themselves.
Attorney Barney - That is something we might want to consider here as well.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else who would like to address the Planning Board this evening?
Good evening, sir.
Jeff, Kurshner, 1005 Danby Road - Good evening, almost good morning. I live at 1005 Danby Road.
I guess I am neighbors to both Ithaca College and to that 34 foot stretch of land between my property
and John's property. There are several things that I have disagreement with in some of the things
that we've heard tonight. First off, especially considering stormwater management. I am a former
environmental engineer. I took a look at these things. Some of the things about the peak flow
attenuation plan, if you look in the document that they have provided you under stormwater, you will
notice that several sections are diverted away from the retention pond including sections 4, section 6,
section 7. Those are not dealt in those calculations of peak flow to the CNT arch pipe that is just in
front of John's property. That is the pipe that leads down to Stone Quarry Road. Which means that
those calculations were not dealt with. That pipe that was supposed to be on the Ithaca College
property then is then delivering another additional flow to that pipe and then to Stone Quarry Road.
So I have question of whether peak attenuation really does occur from the property because... The
second thing is that they are diverting much of their water from those sections over to Ithaca College
and letting them take care of it in that swale and then in that large delivery pipe that is supposed to go
down through our property.
The second thing is that they said they would restore the general drainage practices pre Phase I
conditions. If you look on figure 2 of the stormwater management you see that is or used to be a
creek that went through the middle of my property between 1.005 and 1007. That creek only exists in
the springtime during high water flows. When the current little 8 inch ditch that is now sitting at the
Ithaca property doesn't really drain that well. I still have a lot of water in my back yard. It doesn't
stand. It goes pretty well, but that is the only time that this creek really drains at this point. It no
longer drains, as I understood, pre 1988 when it did have water flowing through it on a regular basis
according to what I've heard. I've only lived there for two years, but in that time in those last two
years I have driven across Stone Quarry Road when it -has been flooded. It had severe water across
it at least on three occasions. There is more water flowing through that area than these 50 year rains
or we have been extremely lucky.
.:
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
The retention pond I have concern about because it is now going to be a larger pond. There is going
to be standing water in that pond per those plans. At least from what was described, at least 8 to 18
inches of standing water and in some cases up to 48 inches of standing water. Dealing with the West
Nile Virus and the Mosquito populations, there is no mention in the plan for any control of the
Mosquito populations in what is going to be a large stagnant pool of water. Also there is no mention
of an odor control plan because I've seen things that have been left on the lawns around the property
from the college students. I've also seen them write in catsup on the sidewalks, "hotdogs in 3413' So
there is a lot of organic loading going into that retention pond and I really don't want to smell it. My
other concern there is especially for Mosquitoes. From a noise point of view, the community center
is a nice building, but there is also a large basketball courts area and a sandlot volleyball area built
into the same area. First off there is going to be light pollution. Second there will be college students
who like to play basketball and they like to play at night. I have no doubt about that.
Questions about concerns of the patrol those environmental concerns. There was also in some
sketch plans an amphitheatre. Now there is a very large open area in the plan from what I've seen
that would lend itself to other sort of campus events that can be loud and attract large numbers of
people without sufficient parking around there, outside the occupants. This has been described for
the Ithaca campus. In total, many of the other people may be going through that area.
Also the described access road that is to go in there, looked like in the same area where they were
describing to put the large drainage ditch. So either you are driving your buses through a large
drainage ditch, or that really needs to be done. You are asking to approve a plan that I feel is very
incomplete. I will keep my comments short.
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, sir. Anybody else this evening, at this time? All right. I will bring
the matter back to the board. Let's start with the general drainage issues. None of us are engineers,
right? We must rely upon the experts to give us the information. There seems to be, for whatever
reason, some disagreement right now over whether the drainage facilities are appropriate. Part of the
confusion maybe coming from the fact that we are in an unfortunate situation where we are really
dealing with two projects here. We are dealing with the project that we call College Circle, which is
on private property owned by JMS realty. We are dealing with a separate project where we have
gotten very little information other than a sketch plan, which is an access road with drainage
improvements and things like that which will happen on Ithaca College property. Some of the issues
that I hear being raised other than potentially some professional disagreement over whether the
stormwater detention facilities and the drainage facilities are sufficient or not. Maybe we don't have
enough information yet to determine whether they are sufficient or not in terms of engineering
drawings and things like that. Is without knowing exactly what is going on at Ithaca College, how can
we be sure that the problems are going to be mitigated on this. We don't know until we see the plans.
We don't know until we see the plans. We don't know until potentially, hopefully, we ensure that the
plans are sufficient. That the engineers, the certified engineers, the licensed engineers in the State
made that determination, which is what we rely upon. Maybe one of us has special training in civil
engineering, but not that I'm aware of. What it really means is that the proposal from Ithaca College
to deal with drainage problems on the current drainage issues on their site and the connector road is
that much more important to this proposal itself. That we see exactly what is going on there and that
we get an opinion from the Town Engineer with regard to that submittal and how the drainage work
.•
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
can be dealt. Specifically the drainage that is going downhill onto the Ithaca College property
between Mr. Yntema and the other gentleman over that and how it can be channeled through that
right -of -way, that access piece that exists there right now.
We should also point out, that should we get to it, this board is only being asked for preliminary
approval this evening. Final approval for the project, should we get to that, would hinge upon
potentially having seen and approved the drainage details on Ithaca College property. So that we're
sure. So that the engineers, civil engineers, whatever, have the drawings and details in front of them
so that they can make a determination that we can rely upon. That the stormwater drainage, runoff
issues will be handled. That the professionals believe they will be handled. It is the most we can ask.
With regard to things like West Nile Virus and Mosquitoes, they.have been a problem in the Syracuse
area. I am not aware that they've ever been a problem here. I am not sure. Anybody?
Board Member Mitrano - Well, it is a growing problem.
Chairperson Wilcox - Is it a growing problem? I mean it is a growing one in North Syracuse.
Board Member Mitrano - I believe it is a growing problem all over New York State, if not the northeast.
I don't hold myself out as an expert about it. I don't think that the Mosquitoes look at the county lines
or even the Town lines.
Board Member Conneman - But they in fact do...
Board Member Mitrano - I am sure that there are things that entities can do to, if they are not going to
drain them, to treat. Someone over there must know the answer to this. Is that true?
Chairperson Wilcox - We don't run into this.
Mr. Kanter - I guess if there is a concern and if we are going to require some kind of a management
plan for the stormwater facilities that that could be a component of that kind of a plan in some way. It
is yet to be determined. I can't tell you what it would say.
Chairperson Wilcox - Okay.
Board Member Hoffmann - I thought with West Nile Virus, aren't there birds involved too? They
certainly travel over large areas.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes, they do
There is going to be some noise.
Noise issues: basketball, volleyball. This is a campus facility.
Board Member Conneman - What about lights? That is something else.
Chairperson Wilcox - We will deal with lighting when we get to...
Board Member Mitrano - What do we anticipate accomplishing tonight, given it is 11:30 p.m?
70
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - I want to accomplish as much as we can. I understand your desire to get home.
I understand everybody's desire to get home. But also, these people have been sitting out there for a
couple of hours. I want to make sure they get their chance.
Board Member Conneman - Can we make a decision on environmental impact without having details
on the drainage proposal and all that kind of stuff? It seems to me that we can't.
Board Member Thayer - It doesn't sound like we can.
Chairperson Wilcox - Keep going. I'm listening.
Board Member Conneman - That would be my... If you want to put forth exactly what you have here
without addressing the details in drainage and that kind of stuff, I would vote no. I don't see how I
could vote any other way.
Board Member Mitrano - I would rather suggest that we rehear it with those amendments.
Board Member Conneman - That's okay, but I just want to make the point that I don't see what we
can ... we cannot ... I could not look favorably upon this. It does affect the environmental and we don't
have the details. We are not going to get them between now and whatever time we go home either, I
guess.
Chairperson Wilcox - Just so I understand. The issue is that ... let me state it the best way I can.
There are some issues with regard to drainage from this site that will be handled off this site and we
don't have those details.
Mr. Walker - Fred, can I add something?
Chairperson Wilcox - I got some nods and then some others. Yes.
Mr. Walker - Let me just give you some insight from an engineer's standpoint. The hydrologic
analysis that was done was done in a very sound manner using the state of the art technologies that
we have using established procedures. It is showing water is being generated from portions of
watersheds and being transmitted to outlet points. I do believe the analysis in review it and talking
with Mr. Herrick, who did the analysis, that there is a large chunk of watershed that is being
transmitted through the site. There are some actions, the diversions and things that are being shown
on here in concept that actually increase flow path planks. So I do believe the analysis will not
increase the flows on the Danby Road ditch.
In saying that, there are certain assumptions that have been made in this analysis that the ditches
and the pipes will adequately convey the flows. Those are the details that we don't have. As long as
the pipes are built large enough and the inlet details are built right and the ditches are designed
correctly, I feel that environmentally, the watershed can be controlled to not make any problems that
we have today any worse, including the ones on Stone Quarry Road. So from a strictly
environmental stand point, no we don't have every detail, but I can see that the details won't be too
hard to put together and be shown properly. From the standpoint of making this plan work requires
71
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
significant effort off the site for structures. Right now there is no conflict between the owner of the two
properties, the owners of the two properties are all working together, I think.
Chairperson Wilcox - They seem to be. They're all on the same side of the room.
Mr. Walker - I talked to Mike earlier today about the fact that I would want to see a condition that all
the drainage details would be approved by me as the Town Engineer before final approval is granted,
including off site drainage facilities. That no on site mass construction would be started until
outlets ... we start at the bottom of the watershed and work our way up. That includes sediment and
erosion control structures.
Now, earlier this evening you saw another project that came to you with the same level of detail that
this one has, maybe less detail. It is a little less complicated maybe and you approved the
environment statement on drainage and it is a very similar situation. They are promising to give us
the details before the final site plan approval. I believe that we have the same situation here. So I
would recommend that you can, as far as the drainage is concerned, a determination of...
Chairperson Wilcox - So we have sufficient information to believe that
Mr. Walker - That the environmental impact would be minimal for drainage.
Chairperson Wilcox - And any environmental issues related to drainage can be mitigated.
Mr. Walker - Right. As far as Mosquito control, deeper water is actually better for Mosquito control.
They like shallow, nasty water instead of pressure water.
Chairperson Wilcox - Before we get to that, and you offer that as your professional opinion?
Mr. Walker -Yes. That is my recommendation. I believe we have sufficient information. I have had
sufficient information to see that a drainage system can be put in place that will mitigate negative
impacts.
Chairperson Wilcox - Does that change anybody's feeling?
Board Member Conneman - If that is true, why did not the engineers provide those details?
Chairperson Wilcox - I won't speak for them, but...
Attorney Barney - It is a little bit ... when you go to design something, you design first a concept. Then
if the concept is approved by the board, then you go ahead and you spend the hours and hours
making calculations for the design details and implement that concept. What I think I hear Dan
saying is conceptually it is possible to do this. The devil will be in the details, but you don't expect
someone to spend a lot of money on engineering to throw out details in terms of exact sizing of
piping. Until they have the approval of the project, then it is not worthwhile to spend the money to
make that kind of commitment.
W
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Mr. Walker - That is why we have preliminary approvals and final approvals.
Board Member Howe - So Fred, if you're asking if we are feeling comfortable to vote on SEQR, I
would feel comfortable voting on SEQR.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, there was some hesitation. Go ahead.
Board Member Hoffmann - What about the fact that the road plans are proposed to be ready and
brought to us as a separate approval. At the same time they are talking about this internal access,
that's the one I'm talking about, as the one that is going to make a big difference in the traffic situation
and I'm sure there will be some impact having to do with drainage, having to do with the road as well.
Mr. Walker - The road construction details are critical for protecting drainage. I see that road actually
providing some opportunities to control some of that drainage from the adjoining properties, if it is
done properly. I think the conceptual plan and the analysis for the traffic based on the fact that you
have a communicating road off the main road is a good one. So from the standpoint that one, they've
promised to build a drainage system to make these improvements. Two they have promised to build
an internal road to eliminate traffic problems. Those are both considerations in the environmental
review. If the road is not built and the if the drains are not built, you haven't solved the problem. So
you do have a negative environmental impact. Basically, you have to condition your approvals for the
project that all the components are completed before anything is started for your final approvals.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yeah but, what I think I am trying to say is that even though there are
some positive things about building the road there will also maybe be some environmental impacts
from that road, which are not so positive.
Mr. Walker - On the Ithaca College campus you mean?
Board Member Hoffmann - On the people who live around there. I would like to know what Jonathan
Kanter thinks about this to.
Mr. Kanter - Yeah, what does he think? My only comment is that there certainly is a need for the
coordination of the connector road plans with the drainage plans that we've seen that relate to this
site. There is an off site improvement that is shown on this plan that is before the board for approval
tonight that actually is on Ithaca College property. It certainly could enter into the areas where the
connector road is going. It could, as they mentioned, provide actually opportunities for additional
improvements that we've haven't even heard about tonight. I don't think there is the potential that it
would create the kind of additional impacts on surrounding areas that you normally associate with the
road because it is basically is going through the Ithaca College campus. From that standpoint, I'm
comfortable with the board looking at that as a separate review. I think it is imperative that the
connector road be approved in concept in order for this board to agree with the increase in occupancy
of the units as being requested. I think that is really the key that ties in with the connector road. But
other than that, I am quite comfortable with treating connector road plans as a separate project to be
brought in by Ithaca College. We really do have two applicants who are working together. We have
heard in concept the agreements on these things.
73
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - We can and would tie approval of College Circle to... I shouldn't say tie
approval. In this case, condition for example, issuance of Certificates of Occupancy to having that
road that built and the drainage improvements as approved.
Mr. Kanter - In this case, the real key to it is the coordination. To make sure that both plans come
together properly in the long run. That is where the details will come into play.
Chairperson Wilcox - I want to David ... Mr. Herrick you wanted to say something.
Mr. Herrick - Yes, I do. I don't know if I have privilege of the floor to respond to public comments. I
don't know if you wanted to give me that time or not.
Chairperson Wilcox - The floor is yours.
Attorney Barney - For three minutes.
Mr. Walker - As long as you're done by tomorrow.
Chairperson Wilcox - Yeah, make sure you're finished on Tuesday.
Mr. Herrick - One of the important resolutions that we came to following submission of the
documents, was when met with Mr. Yntema to talk about specific improvements on our common
border and those that would be built down to Danby Road. We came to the agreement, it wasn't in
writing but it was hand shakes across the table and thank you for helping, that we would look at sizing
those facilities for the 50 year storm event. That is what we will do. It wasn't until that time that we
came to that conclusion. So therefore, yes while we show pipes flowing downhill with more than
ample grade, it's a fairly steep slope down through there. The reason that I am proposing to pipe it is
that to put an open channel down that same slope would be an environmental disaster. You'd have
such erosion in an open channel down that section that would perpetually be a problem. So piping it
makes sense. Yes, there would be some disturbance of the trees between the two properties.
Whether we have to supplement what is removed with additional is a landscaping item. Certainly we
can make the improvement to correct what right now is already occurring and is a negative impact.
Discharge is already directed towards that property on Danby Road. We are looking to pick it up and
properly get it down to the highway. So yes, the devil is in the details, but we can certainly work out
what pipe size it needs to be. What the sections need to be for the ditch and are all very confirmable.
It is simple math. Its not rocket science.
Chairperson Wilcox - Does that mean that I could do it?
Mr. Herrick - You certainly could. You'd have to change to Town Engineer. A suggestion was made
that our calculations did not include those areas that contribute to the Danby Road culvert, which was
our point of analysis. In fact, we did. The report clarifies the sub areas that all contribute to the
Danby Road culvert that is part of the runoff submission. The routing calculations include what
comes out of the basin and what has to be retained in that basin to make up for the conversion of
pervious to impervious surfaces. We have, this is another assertion that was made that I don't
believe is correct, that there is no increased volume in the basin. Well we have. We are going from
I&LA11
a basin design of 0.9 acre piece, which was the original
is almost a two -fold increase in the volume of that basin
in peak flows from previous flows. So, I think that we
proposed mitigation measures for the stormwater. We
are solid.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
design back in 1989, to a 2.74 acre piece. It
which would be used to store the differences
lave done a responsible job of analyzing the
will get the details together, but the concepts
Eva, you had some questions earlier about the access drive. What we pointed out at sketch plan was
that if we were to in fact curb the islands and both edges of the access drive, that we would have
runoff collected along that curbing flowing down to the shoulder of Danby Road. If the curbing went
in, it would necessitate putting in some catch basins to pick that up before it ran out to the highway.
So that was the relationship between...
Board Member Hoffmann - So what you are saying then is that there is no water flowing there now
without the curbing.
Mr. Herrick - There is water flowing now. It sheets off of the pavement, but it runs off the edge.
Actually, in time it is creating a ratty condition along the edge of that pavement from an aesthetic
perspective. Once you put the curbs in place, than you are definitely channeling the flow. You need
to put the drain intellects in so that it doesn't simply flow out onto the highway.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think my concern was that I don't want to see a situation where there are
problems on the highway because of drainage coming off that drive.
Mr. Herrick - There would be problems if we put curb in, but did not put in catch basins to pick up the
flow before it got to the highway.
Board Member Hoffmann - But the situation now is?
Mr. Herrick - It is status quo.
Board Member Hoffmann - There is no trouble on the highway now?
Mr. Herrick - Not that I'm aware of. I don't know that there are flow problems across the driveway.
Chairperson Wilcox - The problem is the breakup of the asphalt along the side of the entrance and
exit drive instead.
Mr. Herrick - Again, it causes a ratty edge.
Mr. Kanter - One of the comments in the State DOT letter was that they would need to review the final
drainage details to make sure that the water entering into the road right -of -way system would be able
to be accommodated properly. That is certainly one of the conditions that we would have for
approval.
Mr. Herrick - Yeah, that would be part of the traditional highway permit for due process.
75
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Thank you, David.
Board Member Mitrano - With respect to the drainage, this information has been helpful and helpful in
responding to some of the public concerns that were raised. I think originally, Fred, you were asking
Dan or others for their advice by saying that we were not civil engineers. We don't know how to
evaluate the... I think all of that information has been very helpful. I wonder if I, certainly for me in
being able to make a determination on SEQR on those points, but George, you raised the issue of
lights and noise. Is that an environmental issue?
Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely.
Board Member Conneman - I thought we couldn't discuss that. I thought that was not environmental.
Chairperson Wilcox - Lights and noise are environmental as far as I'm concerned.
Board Member Conneman - We can easily mitigate that by saying no lights.
Chairperson Wilcox - That's right.
Board Member Conneman - You can also do something about noise by hiring a manager for the
property.
Board Member - Hoffmann - One could set hours during which the fields could be used and at night
that they wouldn't be used.
Board Member Thayer - They haven't talked about lights. I didn't see anything on there about lights.
Board Member Conneman - My only point is if David said its not rocket science, why didn't they make
the calculations. If it is not rocket science, then they should've done it. When we vote for SEQR,
what does that mean? What does that in fact mean? Does that mean that we say there is no
environmental impact? We have put conditions on that as we do with a preliminary or final site plan.
Attorney Barney - You are voting it as submitted to you, the statements made to you, you're making a
determination that there is no significant adverse environmental impact of the project.
Chairperson Wilcox - It is no significant adverse environmental impact. Clearly not any. Every action
has some.
Board Member Conneman - Of course.
Mr. Walker - Actually, in this case because there are some adverse impacts out there that have
occurred over time and putting diversions in and things, we should be alleviating some of the adverse
impacts already. They will be improving those.
Chairperson Wilcox - Any other questions? Comments?
76
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Mr. Kanter - The lighting of the basketball court, I don't think there is lighting of the basketball court if I
remember the plans.
Mr. Sieverding - In fact, I think when we move onto site plan, we have discussed... the basketball
court and the volleyball court show up on the last site plan. There is no decision by the college to
actually build those things. In fact, we would ask that you remove that condition because I think the
intent is not to develop those facilities immediately. I think the college really wants to get some
experience in operating a property, getting a sense of what students want and need before any kind
of an improvement like that would be proposed. So that is not part of our proposal.
Chairperson Wilcox - If it is on the plans, it is part of the proposal.
Mr. Sieverding - Unfortunately, it showed up on the landscape plan, but it isn't on any of the site
plans. It isn't intended to be part of this proposal at this point.
Chairperson Wilcox - Would someone like to move the SEOR motion? So moved by Rod Howe.
Board Member Thayer - I'll second.
Chairperson Wilcox - Seconded by Larry Thayer. Any further discussion? Everybody know how they
are going to vote? I just want to make sure.
Attorney Barney - You have dragged out this meeting as long as you possibly could. Call for the vote.
Chairperson Wilcox - We're taking more time now with your interruptions.
Attorney Barney - I'm just trying to speed it up a little bit.
Chairperson Wilcox - And you're slowing it down.
Mr. Kanter - People are getting cranky.
Mr. Walker - They're going to fall asleep.
Chairperson Wilcox - All those in favor, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five. All those
opposed? Two. Motion passes five to two. Thank you very much.
RESOLUTION NOw 2002 -20 - SEOR, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, College Circle Ap,
Phase II & 1119 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3.
MOTION made by Rod Howe, seconded by Larry Thayer.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications to
the approved site plan for development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby
77
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The
proposed development includes the construction of 60 apartments that were previously
approved by the Town in 1988, with some proposed modifications to the parking, building
layout and circulation. The proposal also includes a community center building, Ithaca College
campus integration infrastructure and a request for additional apartment occupancy. Ithaca
College proposes to enter into a long -term agreement with Integrated Acquisition and
Development to operate and maintain the College Circle Apartments as campus student
apartment housing. J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp.,
Applicant, and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has declared its intent to
act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval,
parking space variance, and modification of the occupancy condition by the Zoning Board of
Appeals, and
3. The Planning Board, on March 5, 2002, has reviewed and accepted as adequate a Full
Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the applicant, and a Part 11 prepared by
Town Planning Staff, drawings and detail sheets included within the bound submission titled
"Site Plan Approval Submission — College Circle Phase 2," dated February 5, 2002, and other
application material, and
4. The Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of environmental
significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and related actions,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, having received no objections from other Involved
Agencies, hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency to coordinate the environmental review of the
above - described actions,
AND BE IT FURTHER 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, an Environmental Impact Statement will
not be required, and that a notice of this determination will be duly filed and published pursuant to the
provisions of 6 NYCRR Part 617.12.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: Conneman, Tally.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion was declared to be carried.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - All right. There are you happy.
Attorney Barney - I'm glad you did it.
Chairperson Wilcox - Let's try to move quickly here.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modifications in the approved site plan for development at College Circle Apartments located
at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence
District. The proposed development includes the construction of 60 apartments that were
previously approved by the Town in 1988, with some proposed modifications to the parking,
building layout and circulation. The proposal also includes a community center building,
Ithaca College campus integration infrastructure and a request for additional apartment
occupancy above that which was previously approved. Ithaca College proposes to enter into
a long -term agreement with Integrated Acquisition and Development to operate and maintain
the College Circle Apartments as campus student apartment housing. J.M.S. Reality, Owner,
Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox - At 11:55 p.m, the next item is a public hearing.
Board Member Mitrano - May I suggest that we adjourn?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes. Now I will acknowledge that I heard what you said.
Board Member Mitrano - May I suggest that we adjourn?
Chairperson Wilcox - Yes you may. I would like to give those members of the public who have sat
here for three hours a chance to speak if nothing else. I think we owe it to them.
Board Member Mitrano - Well, 1 can appreciate that.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think if we adjourn it, then they'll have another chance to speak.
Board Member Mitrano - I can appreciate that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Agreed, but if they have sat here patiently, of course some just left, but if they've
sat here patiently they deserve the right to speak, especially the gentleman in the back. Having said
that let me open the public hearing. I will allow Sheriff Peter Meskill to go first because we want him
at work tomorrow morning and wide awake.
Peter Meskill, Tompkins County Sheriff - The under sheriff will be there.
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I have a name and address?
Mr. Meskill - 779 Warren Road. I am the Sheriff of Tompkins County. I am here to speak in favor of
this proposal. Integrated Acquisitions and Ithaca College working together to take over ownership
79
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
and management of College Circle Apartments. In short and to be blunt, it has been nothing but a
disaster and a real pain in our back side to deal with this place over the last couple of years in the
relation to the lack of proper management that is going on there and the lack of controls. It has cost
you, as taxpayers, thousands of dollars to go in there and try to clean up the drunken parties in
excess of a thousand people on weekends. Unfortunately, a nice warm fall this year, we were in
there and in there and in there and in there and in there. We take them down to the court and they
come out of court with a slap on their hand. Then we go back to business of selling booze and
drunken brawls. I enclosed a two page letter in here. I want to reiterate how important it is for this
process to happen, however you mitigate stormwater issues that I know are of concern to you and
other issues. For us, this is a huge public safety concern with the way this whole operation exists
now. I believe with people like IAD and Ithaca College, who have experience in doing this based on
the plans that they've put in front of you, it is important to try to make that happen.
Ithaca College Public Safety under the direction of Bob Holt and Assistant Director Norm Wahl are
very qualified, long term law enforcement people in this community. They know their business well,
both in law enforcement and college law enforcement if you will. It is a little different. In Ithaca
College, under resident directors and resident assistants have the ability to have a larger handle on
kids in a way that is not exactly the same type of punishment as it would be charging with a crime that
would be hanging over their heads for the next 40 years of their life. It holds them to campus rules
and regulations. I think that is extremely important as you move through your decision making
process this year. I believe the campus has been very successful with their new regulations. Within
the past year to year and a half and their concern for alcohol consumption on campus. I think they
have shoved it all off campus. I am dealing with it on both sides of the campus. This will deal with
mitigating the, problems on one side of the campus. Will it totally eliminate it? No, it won't totally
eliminate it. It is always going to be unfortunate that the abuse of alcohol is the number one problem
we got in this county as, far as substance abuse. It doesn't matter if it is kids or adults. I just ask you
to look very hard at the combination of people you have and what you have going here. You have a
partnership of a Town Board and I appreciate your dedication at this late hour and Town Staff, Ithaca
College and a developer that has proven themselves for decades in this community. It is dedicated to
put together projects and have a strong past history and that somehow together all of you can come
up with something that will mitigate these issues and give us future models to work from that will
make the community safer and more tolerable for the neighbors as well as mitigating expenses for us.
Thank you.
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else like to address the board this evening? John?
Mr. Yntema - I speak again?
Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely. The SEAR one was a bonus.
Mr. Yntema - I feel that if the college controls Ithaca College Circle that would be a great plus. If the
stormwater drainage goes in as planned, that wouldn't be a great plus. I want to comment to Mr.
Herrick that I brought some of the stormwater problems up that we had discussed at a meeting
because I wanted the Planning Board to be aware of them?
:N
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - Anybody else? Who are we left with? Ithaca College, IAD, and media and a few
residents.
Mr. Kirschman - I would like to agree with the Sheriff. This last year has been intolerable. I live right
behind the last unit. Frequently, my wife will say to me at 3:00 a.m. in the morning, "what the hell are
they up to ". So something does need to be done. We look forward to Ithaca College coming in and
helping us in that situation. Our concerns is just with more of the students being placed in that area
and the drainage or the water, which has been a constant problem for all of us on the down side of
that.
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you believe that drainage issues can be resolved?
Mr. Kirschman - Yes, I believe they can be resolved.
Chairperson Wilcox - Good.
Mr. Kirschman - I just don't like us hanging out there in limbo.
Chairperson Wilcox - Who do we have left, media? Is there anybody else
the Planning Board this evening? If not, I will close the public hearing
morning. Now, what is this board's pleasure at a little after midnight?
opinion that maybe we should resume at a later time. Is that the will of th
proceed on it? I understand that potentially some people may need to go
children and families and they have a life. What is the board's pleasure?
Board Member Howe - I'm exhausted.
Board Member Mitrano - I'm exhausted.
Board Member Talty - How much time do we got left?
who would like to address
at 12:03 on Wednesday
Tracy has expressed the
is board, or do we want to
home because they have
Chairperson Wilcox - Common sense tells me that we have a half an hour left in probably in terms of
questions with regards to...
Board Member. Thayer - We've hatched it over pretty well.
Chairperson Wilcox - Well...
Board Member Mitrano - I have a lot of questions about management.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think there are some issues related to what if Ithaca College and IAD break
their lease and what happens to the density. The draft proposal in front of us is that IAD would have
to come back to have that increased density reviewed. I know that with speaking with Herman
yesterday about making sure the traffic consultant was coming. He mentioned that was something he
wanted to address. I know that he wants to address that this evening. So I'm sure there are some
sticking points that need to be addressed. We are going to be at least a half an hour I would guess.
Loot
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Board Member Thayer - I think my mind stopped about 10.
Board Member Hoffmann - I also think we have to remember that even though preliminary approval
sounds like it is just preliminary and final is the real one, the preliminary approval is really very
important.
Board Member Mitrano - I agree with you.
Board Member Hoffmann - I think I would prefer to continue at another time.
Board Member Conneman - If we give preliminary approval, it is essentially final approval.
Chairperson Wilcox - It is essentially saying you have approval assuming you meet these conditions.
Board Member Thayer - Right.
Board Member Mitrano - Yeah.
Chairperson Wilcox - Absolutely.
Board Member Hoffmann - Also, if we could have some more information finalized for another time
and do the preliminary approval process with more information.
Attorney Barney - What information would you want?
Board Member Hoffmann - Well, some of the things that they have said that they are going to come
up with. Maybe they would have them ready for another meeting. That would make our
determination easier.
Chairperson Wilcox - Jon, what is the March 19th meeting looking like right now?
Mr. Kanter - Well, we have one major item.
Chairperson Wilcox - Which is the?
Mr. Kanter - Cornell Precinct 9 athletic fields. Other than that, there are two fairly ... well one definite
and a second, both fairly small projects.
Chairperson Wilcox - So we have room on the March 19th meeting to resume.
Mr. Kanter - Sure, there is always room. The Cornell athletic fields is gonna be probably a pretty long
review.
Board Member Mitrano - Can the applicants wait for a subsequent meeting?
Mr. Kanter - On the athletic fields?
[SON
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Board Member Mitrano - No.
Chairperson Wilcox - I don't see any reason why we can't finish this in the next meeting. Any issues
other than Tracy?
Board Member Thayer - I won't be here.
Chairperson Wilcox - I understand you won't be here.
Board Member Mitrano - I take Eva's point in so far that maybe is may be helpful for the applicants to
know some of the questions that we are going to be asking. I quickly want to re- enforce that I, like
you Fred, have many questions about management and the default positions if those relationships fail
to work out or expire after four years and are not continuing for whatever reasons. I would be
interested in Ithaca College's point of views to what factors would cause them to withdrawal from the
relationship. I have many, many questions. If stating them that this evening helps them prepare for
the next meeting, then perhaps we can expedite the discussion at that time.
Chairperson Wilcox - Herman, comments?
Mr. Sieverding - Yeah. We came to the meeting prepared to address those issues. We were hoping,
frankly, that we could get to those issues and get through preliminary site plan approval. I think as we
previously expressed. We are up against a fairly tight discussion. The intent or hope is to be able to
begin this project and the construction as soon as the students leave at the end of May. Staff has
proposed a resolution for preliminary site plan approval. I think we have looked at the conditions and
I think we are prepared to discuss those conditions, but if the time is beyond...
Chairperson Wilcox - It's getting late.
Mr. Sieverding - Then I would ask that if we could be scheduled for March 19th. I think pushing this
up to April 2 would be a real problem for us.
Chairperson Wilcox - I don't see a reason why we can't schedule it to the 19th. I don't know whether
we will make you first or last.
Mr. Sieverding - Could we be first on the agenda?
Chairperson Wilcox - They should be first.
Mr. Kanter - I don't know if I would put them first, but I would certainly put them before Cornell.
Chairperson Wilcox - Put them before the Cornell athletic fields and after the two small items.
Board Member Conneman - Sure.
Board Member Mitrano - I think so.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - All right. Make Cornell wait. Ithaca College first, Cornell second. Do we need a
resolution?
Attorney Barney - You have closed the public hearing. I think you can adjourn the matter for further
discussion. You should make clear that the understanding is that the meeting will not be a public
hearing on this. If you want a further public hearing, we need to advertise it.
Chairperson Wilcox - That's right. We've held the public hearing. The board collectively agrees to
adjourn further discussion of this action to the preliminary site plan and the recommendation to the
Town Board to March 19th meeting. So moved. So done.
Board Member Mitrano - I'd like to ask another question about why are our meetings going...
Chairperson Wilcox - Hold on. They are waiting anxiously. Is there anything else you need from us?
Mr. Sieverding - No.
Chairperson Wilcox - March 19th
Attorney Barney - March 19th at 11:00 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox - All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
Board Member Mitrano - Why are our meetings going so late? Do we just, Jonathan, have a backlog
of applicants have schedules?
Attorney Barney - I think it is the nature of the projects that are coming in. We are not getting the
simple two lot subdivisions. We are getting the complex, multiple issue, large institutional type
applications.
Chairperson Wilcox - It was also our hope that we could get through two major reviews tonight and
we didn't.
Board Member Mitrano - Who thought we were going to?
Chairperson Wilcox - Jonathan Kanter and I thought we could get through two of them. Maybe we
could've. It was close.
Board Member Mitrano - I thought we were very good about being brief.
Chairperson Wilcox - There are no minutes to review. It would be appropriate to wish Mr. Thayer the
best of outcomes.
Board Member Thayer - Thank you.
EM
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
MARCH 5, 2002 MINUTES
APPROVED
Chairperson Wilcox - It would be appropriate to wish him a speedy recovery.
Board Member Thayer - I will make one more meeting. The operation has been delayed a week. So
I will be here April 16th
Chairperson Wilcox - It would be appropriate if you are religious to pray for him. Keep him in your
thoughts.
Board Member Thayer - Thank you. I'm on vacation for the next two meetings. I'll make the April 16th
meeting. Then I am going to miss two more.
Chairperson Wilcox - I want to talk about the Waterfront Revitalization Project. You got materials in
front of you in a yellow sheet. Come to the Town Board meeting and you can hear about it if you are
so inclined. Anybody else got anything tonight? Comments, concerns, issues from the board? Other
business from Mr. Kanter?
Board Member Talty - Yes. Whoever brought in the treats, thank you very much. It was very nice.
Chairperson Wilcox - Motion to adjourn. Seconded by George Conneman. We are adjourned at
12:11 a.m. Wednesday morning. Thank you very much.
AGENDA ITEM: ADJOURNMENT:
Upon MOTION, Chairperson Wilcox declared the March 5, 2002 meeting of Town of Ithaca
Planning Board duly adjourned at 12:11 a.m.
Respectfully submitted:
(6U t
Carrie Whitmore,
Deputy Town Clerk/Deputy Receiver of Taxes
Town of Ithaca Planning Board meeting 05 March 2002 1/2
�i•, • one M 1 'l1.
Good evening. My name is John Yntema. I live at 993 Danby Road, in the Town of
Ithaca, between the entrances to Ithaca College and College Circle. My name and
property address appear on several sheets in the College Circle Phase 2 Site Plan
Approval Submission document.
Despite the proposed stormwater management plan, the entire east side of my
property will still be subjected to stormwater runoff from uphill Ithaca College
property in the area of their southernmost soccer field and the adjacent access
roads.
During a Town - sponsored field trip to the College Circle site on February 25th, all
present were impressed.with how wet the proposed hillside development area
was, despite there having been very little rain or snow recently. When most of
this hillside is changed-to buildings and parking lots, I have no doubt that the
runoff will increase considerably.
The entire stormwater collected, on the obviously major subareas 4, 5, 6, and 7,
is designed to go through a pipe adjacent to my property, then to the ditch beside
Danby Road, and then under that road through a culvert next to my driveway.
Due to the slope of land on, and to the east and south of, my property, any
failure of the proposed stormwater drainage would subject my property, home,
and garage to inundation similar to, or worse than, what occurred twice, two
years ago, when several stone retaining walls buckled, and my garage was flooded
with mud. The design and maintenance of the proposed stormwater management
system are of obvious importance to me as a homeowner.
Critical to the stormwater management plan's success are five major items,
mention of which I did not find in the documents:
1. A schedule of construction events is apparently absent from the
documentation. Obviously this is required.
2. A designation of the location of the connector road between College
Circle and Ithaca College, over which TCAT buses, fire engines, service vehicles,
and student vehicles will pass. This connector road will likely cause additional
runoff problems, which need to be accounted for.
3. Sizing of, and a maintenance schedule for, the stormwater runoff
collection ditch, which terminates at the concrete headwall. A cross - sectional
illustration of the drainage ditch, in addition to what is shown as contour lines,
should be required, so the water carrying capacity of the ditch could be
determined. A determination of the drainage pipe size, running from the headwall
down to Danby Road, between my neighbor's property to the south and mine,
Attachment #1
I
Town of Ithaca Planning Board meeting
u•� • on. -u-
05 March 2002
2/2
should be given. Although I was assured, at the February 22nd meeting held with
the major stakeholders of this proposal, that this pipe would be of adequate size
to carry all the stormwater, and that it would be underground, I did not find these
details specified in the document. They should be.
4. Dimensions of, and the maintenance schedule procedures for, the
headwall and the trash rack at the headwall, should also be provided before
approval is given.
5. Sizing of, and a maintenance schedule for, the stormwater runoff
collection ditch, which terminates at the concrete headwall. A cross - sectional
illustration of the drainage ditch, in addition to what is shown as contour lines,
should be required, so the water carrying capacity of the ditch could be
determined.
During the February 25th field trip to College Circle, an Ithaca College
representative stated that the College could begin construction of the drainage
ditch, the headwall, the trash rack, and drainage pipe from the headwall to Danby
Road, "next week." There would need to be specifications submitted and
approved, prior to constructing or installing these items.
Zi
Note: There are 22 lengths of 2 inch galvanized culvert pipe,
connectors, and a flare fitting, stored near the south Ithaca College soccer field.
If the intention is to use these for the drainage pipe from the headwall to the
Danby Road ditch, I would comment that this size pipe is quite inadequate to carry
the water that flooded my property in the past. Open ditches on my property can
carry more water than such a pipe, and those ditches all overflowed in 2000.
Note: Having lost 99 red pines on my property, several years ago, I am not
anxious to see more of them disappear. There are 41 30 ft. tall red pines in the
area through which the drainage pipe is to be laid. Although these trees are not
mentioned in the document, the IC representative indicated that the removed
trees could be replaced (or maybe replanted ?). I would like to see that done, since
they provide a visual and sound buffer between the adjoining properties.
I would suggest to the Planning Board that absolute priority be given to having the
drainage work done before the other site work commences, to avoid any
possibility of more flooding during the major construction, of the proposed
impervious buildings, parking lots, and roads.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Tuesday, March 5, 2002
AGENDA
7:30 P.M. I Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
7:35 P.M. SEQR Determination, Coddington Road Community Center, 920 Coddington Road.
7:40 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a
Recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding Special Approval (Special
Approval was granted in December 1999, but has expired) for the proposed site plan
modifications to the Coddington Road Community Center located at 920 Coddington Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3, Residence District R -30. The modifications include
increasing the proposed addition from 1,400 +/- square feet to 1,900 +/- square feet (1,700 +/-
square feet in the rear and 200 +/- square feet in front of the existing building) and changes to
the layout of the two parking spaces, turnaround, and walkways, which will also result in minor
modifications to the Town of Ithaca ballfield. Coddington Road Community Center,
Owner /Applicant; Claudia Brenner, Agent,
7:45 P.M. SEQR Determination, Linderman Creek Apartments Phase H and III, Conifer Drive,
8:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site
Plan Approval, and a Recommendation to the Town Board on the Rezoning of +/- 15.266 acres
from Residential R -15 to Multiple Residence MR, for the proposed Linderman Creek
Apartments Phase II and III development located on Conifer Drive (a private drive), just off
Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 -13.12 and 27 -1- 13.16, Residence
District R -15. The proposal includes 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase
II, 24 units to be constructed in Phase DI) in twelve buildings on 14 +/- acres of a 45 +/- acre
parcel. The proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks,
landscaping, and a recreation area including a pavilion and play structures. A bus stop and bus
turnaround area is proposed for the northern end of Conifer Drive. The proposed development
would consist of affordable housing units with 36 of the units being handicapped accessible or
handicapped adaptable. The applicant is also requesting to subdivide Tax Parcel No. 27 -1
13.12 into three lots and Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -13.16 into additional lots for.ownership purposes.
Approximately 57 acres will remain undeveloped initially, but will be retained by Confer Realty
for possible future residential expansion. Estate of Anthony Ceracche, Owner (Tax Parcel No.
27 -1- 13.12), and Home Properties of New York, Owner (Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.16); Conifer
Reality, LLC, Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent.
8:45 P.M. SEQR Determination, College Circle Apartments Phase II & III, 1033 Danby Road.
9:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed
modifications in the approved site plan for development at College Circle Apartments located at
1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s 43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence
District. The proposed development includes the construction of 60 apartments that were
previously approved by the Town in 1988, with some proposed modifications to the parking,
building layout and circulation. The proposal also includes a community center building, Ithaca
College campus integration infrastructure and a request for additional apartment occupancy
above that which was previously approved. Ithaca College proposes to enter into a long -term
agreement with Integrated Acquisition and Development to operate and maintain the College
Circle Apartments as campus student apartment housing. J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated
Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant,
8. Persons to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
9. Approval of Minutes: February 19, 2002,
10, Other Business,
11. Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY MARY BRYANT AT
2734747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
The':Ithaca` Journal' ' '� ��` �f
z
Mdnesday; Fetiruary`27, 2Q:a2
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, March 5, 2002
By direction of the Chairperson of the Planning Board, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Public Hearings will be held by the
Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca on Tuesday, March 5, 2002, at 215 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times
and on the following matters:
7:40 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and a Recommendation to the Zoning Board of
Appeals regarding Special Approval (Special Approval was granted in December 1999, but has expired) for
the proposed site plan modifications to the Coddington Road Community Center located at 920 Coddington
Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 47 -1 -11.3, Residence District R -30. The modifications include
increasing the proposed addition from 1,400 +/- square feet to 1,900 +/- square feet (1,700 +/- square feet in
the rear and 200 +/- square feet in front of the existing building) and changes to the layout of the two parking
spaces, turnaround, and walkways, which will also result in minor modifications to the Town of Ithaca
ballfield. Coddington Road Community Center, Owner /Applicant; Claudia Brenner, Agent,
8:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Subdivision Approval, Preliminary Site Plan Approval, and a Recommendation
to the Town Board on the Rezoning of +/- 15.266 acres from Residential R -15 to Multiple Residence MR,
for the proposed Linderman Creek Apartments Phase 11 and III development located on Conifer Drive (a
private drive), just off Mecklenburg Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No's. 27 -1 -13.12 and 27- 1- 13.16,
Residence District R -15. The proposal includes 96 apartment units (72 units to be built initially in Phase II,
24 units to be constructed in Phase III) in twelve buildings on 14 +/- acres of a 45 +/- acre parcel. The
proposal also includes a community building, access drives, parking, sidewalks, landscaping, and a
recreation area including a pavilion and play structures. A bus stop and bus turnaround area is proposed for
the northern end of Conifer Drive. The proposed development would consist of affordable housing units
with 36 of the units being handicapped accessible or handicapped adaptable. The applicant is also requesting
to subdivide Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -13.12 into three lots and Tax Parcel No. 27 -1 -13.16 into additional lots for
ownership purposes. Approximately 57 acres will remain undeveloped initially, but will be retained by
Confer Realty for possible future residential expansion. Estate of Anthony Ceracche, Owner (Tax Parcel No.
27 -1- 13.12), and Home Properties of New York, Owner (Tax Parcel No. 27 -1- 13.16); Conifer Reality, LLC,
Applicant; John Fennessey, Agent.
9:15 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval for the proposed modifications in the approved site plan for
development at College Circle Apartments located at 1033 Danby Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.'s
43 -1 -2.2 and 43- 1 -2.3, Multiple Residence District. The proposed development includes the construction of
60 apartments that were previously approved by the Town in .1988, with some proposed modifications to the
parking, building layout and circulation. The proposal also includes a community center building, Ithaca
College campus integration infrastructure and a request for additional apartment occupancy above that which
was previously approved. Ithaca College proposes to enter into a long -term agreement with Integrated
Acquisition and Development to operate and maintain the College Circle Apartments as campus student
apartment housing. J.M.S. Reality, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development Corp., Applicant,
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections thereto. Persons
may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or other special needs, will be
provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must make such a request not less than 48 hours
prior to the time of the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, February 25, 2002
Publish: Wednesday, February 27, 2002
TOWN OF ITHACA
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING AND PUBLICATION
I, Sandra Polce being duly sworn, depose and say that I am a Senior Typist for the Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York; that the following Notice has been duly posted on the sign
board of the Town of Ithaca and that said Notice has been duly published in the local newspaper,
The Ithaca Journal.
Notice of Public Hearings to be held by the Town of Ithaca Planning Board in the Town of Ithaca
Town Hall 215 North Tioga Street Ithaca New York, on Tuesday, March 5, 2002 commencing
at 7:30 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board — 215 North Tio ag Street.
Date of Posting :
Date of Publication:
February 25, 2002
February 27, 2002
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca.
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 27th day of February 2002.
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No.01CL6052878
Qualified in Tompkins County
Commission.Expires December 26, 20 Da
TOWN OF ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGW IN SHEET
DATE: March 5, 2002
(PEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRMTAD ORES S /AFFILIATION
yv • r I � �.. � �-1 C1,. '� 11 G CJV S
"�` v\ I T �/✓ �'\ � 1� CJ►WJ � �'
� (A IL I LL d ����
C� Cc
CYO 1! <C
? �i�S o C i T
ez--
C } C Cc -4 l
G1
Ol�S7r Gi1� TC
z .
�
T
�vL
ZL
__ _ `i t -z, D--" b y i2d j y'Guu�f