HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 2005-11-29Planning Board Minutes
FILE ' November 29, 2005
Z �2 Approved
DATE SPECIAL MEETING
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2005
.215 NORTH TIOGA STREET, ITHACA NY 14850
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in special session on Tuesday, November 29,
2005, in Town Hall, 2.15 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT
Fred Wilcox, Chairperson; Eva Hoffmann,
Member; Tracy, Mitrano, Board Member;
Board Member; Jonathan Kanter, Director
Town; Crieg Hebdon, Assistant Director of
of Planning; Chris Balestra, Planner; Carrie
Board Member; George Conneman, Board
Larry Thayer, Board Member; Rod Howe,
of Planning; John Barney, Attorney for the
Engineering; Susan Ritter, Assistant Director
Whitmore, Deputy Town Clerk
EXCUSED:
Kevin Talty, Board Member; Mike Smith, Planner; Dan Walker, Director of Engineering
OTHERS
Amy Dake, SRF Associates, 3495 Winton PI, Rochester NY; Noel Desch, Ithacare;
Davis Corson, Ithacare; Mark Macera, Ithacare /Longview; Herman Sieverding, Cornell
University; Deb Caraco, TG Miller; Danielle Carr, QPK design; Eugenia Brieva, QPK
design; Jen McCracken, Integrated Acquisition and Development; Tom Folberg, IAD;
Phil Perjaski, IAD.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Wilcox declares the meeting duly opened at 7:04 p.m., and accepts for the
record Secretary's Affidavit of Posting and Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings
in Town Hall and the Ithaca Journal on November 21, 2005 and November 23, 20057
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 November 23, 2005,
Chairperson Wilcox states the Fire Exit Regulations to those assembled, as required by
the New York State Department of State., Office of Fire Prevention and Control..
PERSONS TO BE HEARD
Mr. Wilcox invited any member of the audience wishing to address the Board on matters
not on the agenda to. come forward. There was no one present wishing to address the
Board.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located to the east
of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 =1 -3.4, Low Density
Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several existing barns and
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
related abandoned buildings and constructing a new three story, +/- 60,000
square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include
new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250
parking spaces. Cornell University, Owners Integrated Acquisition &
Development, Applicant.
Herman Sieverding, Cornell University
Good evening, first of all, thanks very much for scheduling this special meeting. It is
important to us relative to being able to maintain our schedule. We do appreciate you
all getting together to hear this presentation tonight. We're here to talk about what we
presented during the sketch plan conference at the end of September, which is a
proposed 60,00. square foot, 3 story office building with 250 parking spaces and a
redesigned;' curb cut on Pine Tree Road, and a new driveway configuration, on a site
that is located behind the Sizer Building, the Cornell Institute for Social Economic
research, 391 Pine Tree Road, and behind East Hill Plaza, East Hill carwash and Olivia
restaurant.': Since the sketch plan meeting and response to a number of planning board
suggestions, we've modified the site layout somewhat, which I will be presenting, since
David Herrick had to be at another meeting tonight. The drainage plan has also been
revised since sketch plan, and that will be presented by Deb Caraco, who is with TG
Miller and specializes in Stormwater management issues. Various landscape revisions
have been,', made, again in response to some of the comments that we heard during
sketch plan, and that will be presented by Danielle Carr, who is the landscape architect
with QPK design. Exterior building materials, a color palette have been selected, and
Eugenia Brieva, who is the project architect with QPK design is here to present that
portion of the presentation. And SRF has completed its traffic analysis, and Amy Dake
is here from SRF associates to. present the traffic analysis. And also with me tonight to
help out are Jen'; McCracken,, Tom Folberg, and Phil Perjaski, all with Integrated
Acquisition and Development.
In the packets that you received from us, we responded I think to a number of
questions that the Planning board raised during sketch plan, including the state of
parking currently at East Hill Plaza and the. Sizer building, the height of the light poles in
East Hill Plaza, views of the proposed building from various vantage points around the
site. We've made revisions for land banking, relative to the 20% set- aside that's
allowed by the zoning ordinance, and we've also initiated discussions with our General
Contractor; relative to the possibility of re -using some of the demolition material as fill
materials. And we are prepared to discuss the details of that work, if later, after the
presentation, you have any questions about that. And finally, in preparation for this
stage of our review, we've met with Brian Wilbur and Tom Parsons from the Ithaca Fire
Department to review fire truck access, fire hydrant locations, and Tom, I think I sent
you a letter summarizing that meeting. As a result of that meeting, we'll be making
some changes to the parking layout to facilitate fire truck access, plus relocating one of
the hydrants. We've also with me Phil Szezny who is the manager of Tompkins County
Highway Department relative to SRF suggestion for turn movement, dedicated turn
movement lanes in. Pine Tree Road, and had a follow -up conversation with Gerry Stern
relative to'!the implementation of that recommendation. And we've also met with TCAT
2
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
officials in terms of finalizing the location .of the proposed bus shelter, and we'll be going
through those details as part of our presentation. So with that, let me try to fill in for
David Herrick which is a really difficult job to do. .
Chairperson Wilcox — You may need to grab the cordless mic with you, Herman, so that
we can pick you up and record you.
Mr. Sieverding Let me start with the preliminary layout plan and point out some of the
key features and the changes that we've made since sketch plan. I think one of the
principal changes here is that we have, there are two existing curbcuts here, we've
eliminated one curbcut, and then consolidated it over the alignment of the existing
driveway. And that existing entrance driveway has been radically changed since sketch
plan, also partly as a result of recommendations from SRF. We now have a median
that divides one inbound lane which is 15 feet wide, and then two outbound lanes, 20
feet shared by two lanes, there is a dedicated left turn lane, and then a lane for right
turning traffic and traffic going straight. As you come into the site, there is a new
curbcut off 'the entrance driveway now, .rather than off of Pine Tree Road, that provides
access to loading area and small parking at the south end of the Sizer building.
Moving almost 350 feet in on the entrance driveway from Pine Tree Road is the
entrance to our parking lot. This is a 250 -space parking lot. I think we explain in the
narrow portion of our application, the origin of that is really the Town's requirement for
office space, one parking space for every 200 square feet, less the 20% reduction that
the ordinance allows, provided you show a space for the spaces that you're eliminating.
And I think when you work it out, we're taking about a 17% reduction, and we have
shown as 'requested during sketch plan,. the landbank area which is off the north end of
the building, it is an extension of the parking lot at the north end of the building, and we
show the possibility of creating 50 spaces, should that be necessary. The parking lot
layout itself includes rather large planting islands and the end of double loaded parking
bays in the center 1: of the parking lot, and then parking around the perimeter. There are
six handicapped parking spaced provided near the entrance on the west side of the
building, which is really intended to be for employees along with access lanes which I
think will ensure that that part of the parking lot is relatively open, facilitating access for
people into the building.
The building itself has been sited nearly 600 feet from Pine Tree Road and close
to the portion of East Hill Plaza that is currently occupied by Cornell employees. This
building location, I think, is very important to the University in terms of facilitating
communication and contact between the people who will eventually occupy this building
and the people who are. currently working in East Hill Plaza, and I think having a direct
connection between the two is very important to them from a programmatic point of
view. The front entry to the building is defined by a circular driveway which also
provides an opportunity to create 15 parking spaces for visitors, and a sidewalk that
goes completely around the circumference of the circle, eventually leading down to the
parking lot that serves the office space that Cornell has at East Hill Plaza, so that that
direct connection can be made there. And in the center of this circular driveway, is a
3
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
large open area, an opportunity for landscaping, and Danielle will present the plan that's
been put together for that. And of course there's this large plaza that provides a
walkway directly to the main entrance to the building, which is on this east elevation.
Pedestrian circulation generally has been improved since sketch plan. As I mentioned,
there is a sidewalk that goes completely around the perimeter of the circle. They both
start one on each side of.the entry plaza. The sidewalk runs parallel to the entrance
driveway., Wherever possible, we've created a setback between that sidewalk and the
entrance driveway. As we mentioned earlier, we have included the sidewalk along Pine
Tree Road, then that would provide a direct point of connection to the new sidewalk that
has been built along Maple Ave, so there is a continuous, safe, off - road, sidewalk,
Pedestrian access pathway established. We also made a significant change to the
sidewalk that runs along the edge of the parking lot. If you remember during sketch
plan, that sidewalk terminated about right here at the beginning of the parking lot and
across. We have now pushed that sidewalk all the way down to the south to intersect
directly with the sidewalk that runs parallel to the driveway, thereby providing a very
direct path for the employees leaving the building out to Pine Tree and to the Bus
Shelter and',points beyond.
Grading plan, I'm going to touch generally on some major grading issues, and
then Deb, when she talks about the Stormwater plan during the Environmental. Review
portion will pick up on more details. But in general, this site falls from the southeast to
the northwest, and ' that's the way the grading plan has been worked out. The high
point, for instance in this parking lot, is in the southeast corner. The low point is in the
northwest corner, almost immediately off that northwest corner is where our water
quality practice begins, and so the intent here is for grading to basically. allow sheet
drainage across the parking lot and into that water quality practice. There is 'a fairly
substantial ',cut for the parking lot here in the southeast corner and at the same
[inaudible] is a fairly large fill area here at the north end of the building. So, I think when
you take a look at it, the cuts and the fills are fairly well balanced, and we don't expect a
whole lot of! export of material off the site. And I think relative to a question that I think
Kevin asked during sketch plan, what's the possibility for taking a look at demolition
materials that's going to be created when we take down these eleven vacant and
abandoned',barns and paddle stalls. There may be an opportunity to use a lot of that
material in the north edge of the property, and this is something that our general
contractor has agreed to explore with us as we move forward. The grading plan also
includes berms that will run along the whole length of the entrance driveway. That berm
will be bisected by this sidewalk, but, the berms, I think in conjunction with the
landscaping plan that Danielle will talk about, I think do a very effective job of screening
the parking lot as you come in on the entrance driveway.
A few words on the lighting plan. Proposed are 25 -foot light poles along the
entrance driveway, 15 -foot light poles, double headed fixtures within the parking lot.
And then bollard lights flanking the walkway for the employees from the parking lot and
flanking the entry plaza into the main entrance of the building. All of these lights will
have full cut -off fixtures that will direct the light down below the horizontal plane to
reduce glare and side glow. The. preliminary photometric plan which you have in your
H
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
package has been revised somewhat upon closer examination, that plan showed a few
under lit areas in the center portion of the parking lot, and so we have a revised
photometric and lighting plan that takes the light poles along this west edge of the
parking lot, and just moves them in, probably about 40 feet, to be located on these
islands and be replaced with double- headed fixtures that will illuminate the driveway
and the parking lot and take care of those under lit areas in the center portion of the lot.
If you're interested, I have reduced copies of that revised photometric plan, but we think
it's an improvement in the overall illumination for the parking lot.
And finally, just a few words about the utility plan, which we don't have here
blown up but you have in your package. And when you look at that, it's pretty clear that
all the major utilities, sanitary, water, gas telecommunications all come in alongside our
main entrance driveway from Pine Tree Road and this area here. The exception to this
is the electric, and we're proposing to provide electric from the Cornell grid, and that will
be picked .up in a' manhole that currently exists near the overpass for the East Hill
recreation trail where it goes over Pine Tree Road. There's a manhole there where we
can pick up the Cornell electric grid, run it on overhead lines, parallel to Pine Tree Road
to Maple Ave, at Maple Ave, come down, go under Pine Tree Road and stay
underground and run parallel to the NYSEG easement for those high tension electric
lines to a vault, electric vault, which is actually shown on this plan here which is located
north of the building, just off the edge of the parking lot, and then underground from the
electric vault to the transformer pad and then underground from the transformer pad
into the building.
So that's the site plan. I don't know whether you want us to go through the
presentation first and just deal with questions later. OK, so I think with that, Danielle if
you could walk everybody through the landscape plan.
Ms. Carr - Herman introduced me, but my name is Danielle Carr,
Chairperson Wilcox — You're definitely going to. need that so we can pick you up.
Ms. Carr -1 can talk louder.
Chairperson Wilcox — Both.
Ms. Carr - OK, both.
Chairperson Wilcox — the problem is we need to record you. I need a name and a
professional address.
Ms. Carr - Danielle Carr, landscape architect with QPK design. Do you need a street
address?
Chairperson Wilcox — Yeah, I need a street address.
5
Planning Board Minutes.
November 29, 2005
Approved
Ms. Carr - 450 S., Salinas St, Syracuse, NY 13203. I'm not sure about the zip code.
13201
Chairperson Wilcox — We'll find you.
Danielle Carr, QPK design, 450 S. Salinas St. Syracuse, NY
In any case, I'll start by identifying the items that have changed on the landscape
plans from the sketch to the preliminary plans. There were additional plants added to
the west side of the parking lot. Previously there were shown a row of shade trees, and
we've added evergreen trees, a mixture of evergreens, shade trees and some smaller
flowering trees, more quantity and different species to add more plants to the area and
make it less uniform. It will help visually buffer the parking area from Pine Tree road
through the whole season and provide a more natural looking landscape than just the
row of shade trees. Also, additional plantings have been added to both entry areas,
more shrubs, and the species there was changed, some small flowering trees and
shade trees there 'and the entry circle design, which was formerly a pond is now a dry
landscape area., which will have some specimen boulders, stones and a combination of
evergreen, flowering, perennial and ornamental grasses there. In .general the
landscape design, based on the client's preference, was designed for a clean and
understated landscape of larger trees and shrubs to fit the scale of the site building:
Additionally, there are trees along the entry road to create an entry sequence and also
to help screen views into the parking lot and of the proposed building. Berms along the
entry road, or between the entry road and the building and parking area with evergreens
planted on them also help to provide screening visually, from that shopping plaza and
also from the street. Same thing with the plantings along the west side of the parking
lot. In terms of species selection, plants were chosen for there tolerance.for urban
growing conditions, and this site in particular is not urban but an urban condition is such
things as wind and the need for salt tolerance and drought tolerance. Species were
chosen specifically for hardiness, and also their aesthetic qualities: form,. foliage,
texture, the size that they achieve. and flowering. For species selection, specifically, we
did consult the Tompkins County invasive species list; there aren't any species that
we've used that are on the .list. We chose deer resistant species, and also used Cornell
University's recommended urban trees reference to choose some of the specific plants
on the plan. I will point out, there are two main signs, I'll call them sign 1 and sign 2,
both I guess generically labeled, as signs haven't been progressed at this point, as
office building signs. It is anticipated that sign 1 at Pine Tree Road will simply state
Cornell University, 341 Pine Tree Road, and the sign closer to the building entrance will
identify the office 'building. All of the other signs on the site are for traffic control
purposes or to direct employees and visitors into the building or at the appropriate
entrance. Again,', further detailing and zoning and planning requirements will be
addressed between the preliminary and final stages of the project. Those will be
progressed as I mentioned as the progress moves on.
The board here, directly to my left, identifies some of the plant species that we
did use on' the, project; evergreen trees include a mixture of Colorado Blue Spruce,
R
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
White Fir, Concolor Fir, Austrian Pine and Serbian Spruce. All the trees . are deer
resistant. It doesn't mean that deer won't eat them, but they are resistant. Most are salt
tolerant, and all have a fairly good drought tolerance and wind resistance. The trees
selected for the site all have good urban growing conditions tolerance, specifically those
used. around the entry road and the parking area. The honey locusts are used in the
parking lot area and the Freeman maple are used along the road. Both of.those trees
are quite salt tolerant and drop tolerant. Flowering trees used on the site are
crabapples and Serviceberry, flower in the spring and early summer of. the year. And
the other shade tree used on the site is the Red Oak, native to our area and shows very
good urban growing condition tolerance.
Mr. Sieverding -,OK
Ms. Carr - OK.
Mr. Sieverding - Eugenia will now talk about the building elevations and some of the
material selections that we made.
Eugenia Brieva, QPK design
The board here shows basically the design of the building that we are proposing.
To start with the design that we try to do here, this is a very simple floor plan, very
efficient, and conceived as a building that should be flexible and therefore there is an
open plan concept. The. shape doesn't need to be complicated, and the design that we
chose, we tried to use . a color palette that will allow the building to blend with the
surrounding natural environment. Therefore, basically we recognize that around this
building there is a majority of buildings that are two stories, we've chosen to treat the
building two stories high with masonry to tie more with the scale of the neighborhood,
provide a base [inaudible] that simulate stone or tie with stone and treat, especially the
top level of the building with.the majority of glass and metal cladding, which will allow
not only the reflection of the sky but also the perception of a lighter top building. Trying
to not emphasize the three stories but emphasize the [inaudible] what is developing
masonry. I: have brought here a sample board, if you help me there, Herman. Basically
this is a sample of the complete masonry. unit that we will use at the base of the
building, this is about 3 foot four 'story high. And that really gives an idea of grounding
to the building to the landscaped area. We have the masonry is really a combination of
two different bricks. that we are combining 50/50, and we have few areas, small areas in
which we have infills with exterior insulation finish system. We have selected an earth
tone palette, and specifically in the metal cladding and this cornice. This is the color of
the cornice level as well as the column round covers. Other than that we have the glass
in which we have selected a very low level of tint and we have tried to have a minimum
amount of reflectiveness, so we have impression a little bit of this reflection. That is the
material palette is very simple and the basic goal was to recognize the scale of the
neighborhood by differentiating the materials used in the first two levels, and also use
an earth tone palette. These are the window frames, and this light different is just add a
"little bit more of sophistication to the metal [inaudible] of the building, so when there is
I
7
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
this cornice and the metal frames exist within these, there is. some variation, slight
variation to enhance the steady quality of the building.
Let me go next to the section of the building and a very important concept, the
concept that is probably the hardest to understand is the necessity for the height of this
building. We have a client, in this case Cornell University that is committed. to really
create a better quality of office environment. I am sure many of you are familiar with
LEEDS, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. This is a guide that was
created by the United States Green Building council, and institution that regulates,
basically, how sustainable the buildings are, and sustainability is nothing else but the
degree that the building harmonizes with the natural environment and also benefits the
human factor, the people that works in the building. Sustainability was created to try to
elevate the quality of the buildings that were being built. For many, many years the
standard of quality that we had to provide to clients was to meet the code was to meet
ht New York State., Building Code. But if you think in terms of sustainability, when you
just do a building that actually just meets the code, you really are doing something that
is marginally illegal. If you do any less, you wouldn't meet that standard. The US green
building council created the LEED.guidelines to elevate the quality of the environment
that we build. And it is not easy, and it is not easy to find a client that is willing to
support this, because many many times it represents more investment of resources. It
could be built more economically. if you don't try to keep those standards. So, even
though this building has not been told us has to be LEED certified, what we have heard
is that the client is interested in following, as much as possible, the quality of the
guidelines and what the spirit of the guidelines were. In another way, the LEED
certification gives you the public recognition, but the goodness of the built environment
is achieved by following the guidelines, so many of the concepts that I'm going to talk
here relate strictly to that.
So, with this said, the commitment that they have here is basically create an
office building that has an open floor space, open floor means we have everything that
needs installation and elevators and stares concentrated close to the core to liberate as
much floor space, open of the vision, around the perimeter of the building and with
access to natural light. They are committed to modular furniture which also touches one
of the points of LEEDS, don't build a building that is that rigid that when in 10 years the
program changes, the number of offices, the number of employees has to be adjusted
in one section to the other that you don't have to demolish. So, flexibility of the office
space was''key. Now, the higher ceilings that we have to provide is not an easy thing to
necessarily, is not that common, but the reason why we're trying to do it is because it
really is key to set up [inaudible]. The first thing is in this sustainable architecture is that
the human gets constantly connected to the natural environment, and for that natural
light penetration is key. The higher the ceilings, the more natural light that we can get to
the core of the building, and natural light is so important because it is a dynamic
element that critically links the natural environment and the planet with the building
IL
environment and with the human that has to function inside it. Being inside the building
and being able to perceive if you have clouds, if there is snow or there is sun, it is a
quality that makes humans function better. That's why it's so important in the guidelines
of LEEDS. The overall building performance and functionality is enhanced by leaving
KI
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
the maximum open space possible inside, and that's why it is key to have the modular
furniture. All this concept, all this effort, economic effort, and also the necessity of
having approved the higher building will be lost if we do walls that are high and go all,
the way to the ceiling.
So basically, this design, the higher ceilings are key for the design flexibility, the
open floor plan, letting the natural light into the core, permitting this visual connection to
the exterior and the concept also [inaudible] three stories instead of two stories, relates
specifically to a section in the LEEDS guideline that are sustainable sites. Reducing the
footprint, reducing the site disturbance is reducing the runoff of the stormwater
management system that is required for the site. Having less exterior walls and
therefore less energy loss allows mechanical systems to function with a more efficient
use of energy. More efficient use of materials, the amount of materials that we will
afford for roof; for example, is much less if we do these three stories. There are several
things that are optimized when we go to three stories. Finally, there is a human
perception factor inside, and the reason why these concepts have been so well received
in the construction industry, in the light metal industry is because the absentee level of
employees when they work in healthier environments diminishes, and therefore there is
more. productivity and the companies like that. All this concept will not become really
interesting if they wouldn't finally contribute to the economic activity that supports them.
Finally with this Cornell University's commitment to building a quality environment to the
working offices here, we have put a special [inaudible] to the indoor environmental
quality. Daylight, views and also artificial lighting. The fact that we have eleven feet in
the interior' space in this open plan would allow the use of indirect lighting. When you
have indirect lighting, that is the one that strains less your eyes, you need the fixture to
be away from the ceiling to reflect the light at least three feet, that's the minimum that
the standard recommends, the industry standard. Therefore if the fixture is at eight feet
above your working surface, you have the possibility of bouncing light back. The most
recent studies prove that people work better when you don't have the fixtures straight
shining and glaring over your working surface. So, these concepts really all point to
working and producing a higher quality of building. Is it the one that minimizes the
height? No, but here is where there is an opportunity to build something right in the
sense of with the appropriate height so that when you try to do the appropriate lighting,
and to do the appropriate interior. division, you are not limited by taking the simplest
route that will be to'say what is the minimum standard required by code, what is the one
that generates the least problem to get approvals for the building? Let's do it in 9 feet,
and with that, later on, you've limited the quality of what you want to do. So I feel very
honored to'' have the opportunity to work for a client that values these kinds of things.
That's pretty much what I have to say.
Mr. Sieverding - So that's the portion of the presentation that deals with the project
itself, and now we'd just like to spend a few minutes talking about the environmental
impacts. I think when we were here...
Z
Board Member Hoffmann — I just have one question
height?
Ms. Brieva - Eleven feet.
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
What is actually the interior ceiling
Board Member Conneman — I have a question, too, I assume that LEED also includes
natural ventilation, but these windows don't open.
Ms. Brieva We haven't gotten yet to the systems that they've designed to that extent.
Right now,,what we think we're doing is a system that allows control by the user that is
what the sustainability guidelines recommends. In the old times, doing something that
functioned well. mechanically meant having no operable windows. Right now the
systems have evolved to the point that there is sensors that when you open a window,
they detect a higher amount of flow of air and therefore shut the artificial air that you are
providing for a space. So we may very well end up in a system that has some of the
windows operable, but honestly, the answer is we haven't progressed yet to that point to
define that system.
Board Member Howe — And I just want to make sure that I understand, that you are
using LEED principles but it won't be a LEED certified building, are you so close that
why not take the extra step and have Cornell have a LEED certified building?
Ms. Brieva - Part of the defense was, how much can we do? Every university that we
work for right now is trying to pursue this certification because it is a way to prove that
they are trying to do things right. We haven't gotten that command yet as a try. Am
going to say that we are not going to end up being certified? I will be willing to venture
that if we are successful in getting the basic parameters of the building to allow this
certification, we will very well end up with a building that pursues certification, but has
not been post as a recommendation.
Mr. Sieverding - It's not a programmatic requirement.
Ms. Brieva No.
Mr. Sieverding - So in other words, we have not been given the directive to create a
LEEDS certified building, but what we are trying to do is meet as many of those LEED
objectives as possible, whether we're looking at site plan, stormwater management
system or the design of the building. I think that just makes these days good common
sense practice.
Board Member Conneman — Is the orientation of the building also part of the LEED
thing?
Ms. Brieva - Yes.
Board Member Conneman — How is this building oriented?
10
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Ms. Brievao - This building is oriented North to South so that means that we are
minimizing the side of the building that doesn't have direct exposure, and minimizing the
side of the: building that will have the highest heat gain, that is the South, because the
South is where your maximum [inaudible] goes. So we have tried to expose the long
side [ inaudible] to either East or West, therefore you have an hour of the day that you
have direct exposure and then it passes, and that way the building doesn't have an
excessive heat gain.
Board Member Howe — I mean, certainly this is an interesting discussion, because I do
have concerns about the height of the building and you've tried to explain. I think I'd
have an easier time with the height of the building if it actually led to LEED certification.
So that may be part of our discussion.
Ms. Brieva But be aware that the LEED certification is a credential. What we are trying
to do is follow the guideline that tells you how to do it right. Usually, the problem is that
when clients are faced with the fact that doing it right will cost more money, because it is
cheaper to build a building that is nine foot high, that is as far as we get. But in this
case, I think regardless of the credential, to me the part that I enjoy is that they are
sensitive to the fact that they you got to have the possibility of doing it, and this is one of
the most important things is to design it so you allow for the natural light and you allow
for the minimum site disturbance, you minimize the runoff, all these things will be points
after points after point if you were pursuing certification. That's why I'm saying I'm not
surprised if we, at the end of the day, follow that chart that tells you how many credits
you have and you will be basically certified.
Mr. Sieverding - Your
about that, I thin one
review, and maybe if
review, perhaps it will
think we can just open
[tape is flipped]
point relative to the
A the issues that we
we just spend a fey
answer some of the
it up and sort of talk
height of the building and having concerns
were asked to address in the environmental
v minutes going through the environmental
questions that may lingering, and then I
about all of these issues.
Mr. Sieverding - -Aside for obviously completing the long Environmental Assessment
form, I think we agreed, when we were here at sketch plan, that we would also do a
pretty detailed traffic analysis, that we would prepare a stormwater management study
program, that we would do a visual impact analysis to get a sense of how this building
would fit in the context of the neighborhood, and that we would also do a neighborhood
impact assessment and talk a little bit about what the results of that visual impact study
showed, and whether or not in the end it's a positive or a negative influence on the
character of that commercial district. So I think we can start with the traffic study, and
Amy if you could come on, up and talk about that a little bit.
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Amy Dake, SRF Associates, 3495 Winton Place, Building E, suite 110, Rochester
NY 14623
Thanks, Herman. My name is Amy Dake, I'm the senior traffic engineer with SRF
associates, we're 'located at 3495 Winton Place, Building E,, suite 110 in Rochester,
14623. We prepared a traffic study and we. started off first by contacting the town and
going over a scope of study for this area, which included eight existing intersections.
Traffic data was collected at four of the intersections in April of this year; the other data
was obtained from the recent study that was done for the Rite -Aid project across the
street. The Rite -Aid project was included in the background traffic as a part of this
project in addition to some growth on the area highways. As far as recommendations
for this project, we determined that the lanes on Pine Tree Road should be restriped to
provide left turn lanes northbound and southbound for entering this site and the
driveway where the., the northern driveway for the Rite -Aid site. Those are the only
major recommendations that came out of this project, and.I think that's about it for the
traffic.
Mr. Sieverding - Deb, if you could address the stormwater management study.
Deb Caraco, TG Miller Engineers, 203 N. Aurora St. Ithaca, NY 14850
My name's Deb Caraco, I work with TG Miller engineers, which is 203 North Aurora
Street in Ithaca. So, I'm going to be talking about the stormwater management study
that we did. So, the primary goals that we have with stormwater was to protect water
quality, primarily we're concerned about Cascadilla Creek, but overall pollutants leaving
the site. Second major goal that we had was try to control very frequent and small
storm events to protect.stream channels. The third goal was to prevent downstream
flooding. For water quality, the practice that we utilized was a bioretention system. This
is basically a landscaped area. Water goes in through the landscaping, filters down
through the soil bed and exits out of the bottom through a perforated underdrain system.
It's really a" very high efficiency practice, it's aesthetically a very nice practice because it
appears like a landscaped are, mulched landscaped area, but it's depressed rather than
raised up.
As far as controlling small storms, the state's criteria look at a one -year storm
event. So `this is something that is going to happen about once a year, you'll get this
storm. The flow into Cascadilla creek from that storm after development is much much
smaller, it's, cut about in half. There's two reasons for that, one is that the existing sites,
kind of getting back to the idea of LEED and some of the ideas, one of them is site
selection. This is a redevelopment site because it already had lots of buildings on it. So
the amount of pavement, l guess pavement and rooftop, impervious cover, is about the
same before and after development. So the flow is coming off, we're very very similar,
before and:: after development. By adding this practice, it's not a traditional stormwater
pond but its does offer some detention. It was. able to take these smaller storms and
really ratchet them down, again about half the peak flow. So, you know, in terms of
protecting streams, those are the storms you really want to look at,. so we were very
pleased that it was able to come out that way.
12
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
In terms of flow protection, we were looking at bigger storms, storms that happen
once every 10 years, once every 100 years. The peak flows from those storms, ended
up being the same both before and after development. The flows to Cascadilla Creek
were slightly lower for those larger storm events. The main reason for that is that the
land use is' similar. The amount of impervious cover again, relatively similar. Although
the actual drainage to Cascadilla Creek ended up a little bit higher after development
just because of the way the site was graded, the amount of storage, albeit small, in the
stormwater practice was able to shave off the peaks of those flows so that it balanced
out, it had a slight decrease in flows after development.
t
There are two requested. changes to the site plan that don't appear here that
were recommended by the Town, and that we completely agree with, one of them is
that in the site plan and in the preliminary stormwater management plan, the roof does
not drain towards the bioretention filter. That's a change that will happen in the final site
plan, so that all of the parking lot and all of the roof will be treated by the stormwater
practice,, The practice in the original design was very oversized, so, it. does
accommodate, it is sized to accommodate that drainage. The other thing I guess isn't a
change to this plan, but it is a recommended change that we do have a maintenance
items in the preliminary stormwater management study. We have, a table of
recommended frequency of certain types of maintenance. For this practice,. it's very
much like ''a landscaping, you change the mulch frequently, you try to make sure the
plants stay alive in it, you make sure it doesn't clog up. What we didn't have was a
signed maintenance agreement, I believe that was your comment. Cornell University is
committed to performing the maintenance and as part of our final site plan we will have
a signed maintenance agreement from Cornell. So, I'll be glad to entertain any other
questions in the end. Thank you.:
Mr. Sieverding - So the third area of. analysis was the visual impact assessment, which
Eugenia and I. did together, so we're going to explain it together. You had requested
that we take a look at images of the building that give a sense of its height relative to its
surroundings, from five different vantage points: from Pine Tree Road between Maple
and the overpass, the project site is right here behind the East Hill Plaza, another view
was requested from Ellis Hollow Road, looking across the East Hill Plaza parking lot
and building, the third was the intersection of Pine Tree and Snyder Hill Road, the fourth.
is the intersection of Ellis Hollow and Game Farm, and the fifth was kind of across the
open fields in the middle of Game Farm near where the athletic fields were recently
constructed. We did this by, we had TG. Miller locate the four corners of the building
and then mark the finished floor elevation on each stake marked in each corner. We
then pre - measured lengths of rope that took into account the four helium filled balloons
that we were floating from each corner, floated the balloons from each of those four
corners, went to each of these locations. Eugenia took digital photographs, and from
those digital photographs was able to project lines that then give you a sense of what
this building would look like in context. So from that first view, which is from Maple
Avenue looking up toward the site, you see the narrow north end of the building, this
tree cover remains, overshadowed clearly, I think, by these high tension lines that cross
13
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
the site and Maple Avenue at this point where it is a relatively small portion of the
building that is visible as you drive south on Pine Tree.
Board Member Hoffmann — Can we ask questions as you do this?
Mr. Sieverding - Sure.
Board Member Hoffmann — I noticed looking at the plan that the parking lot extends
quite a bit further north than the building does, and I'm wondering if some of those trees
that from here look: like they are covering the building in fact are going to.be there still.
Mr. Sieverding - I think most of these trees are down in this area here, Eva, they are in
the foreground closer to Maple away from the parking lot.
Board Member Hoffmann — I know a lot of them are, but if you look specifically at the
trees that are covering part of the building, part of the western faoade...
Mr. Sieverding - Right here.
Board Member Hoffmann — Right here.
Ms. Brieva' - [inaudible]
Board Member Hoffmann — They are over there?
Mr. Sieverding - Oh yeah, they are way in the foreground, away from the building.
Board Member Hoffmann — Good thank you, because there will also be grading for the
parking lot which comes out further north and I wondered how that would look.
Mr. Sieverding - Remember you're 600 feet back, we're a long ways back from Pine
Tree Road in terms of where this building is.sited. View number 2, which is looking
across the, parking lot from Ellis Hollow, again we're looking at the narrow dimension of
the building, projecting over the highest point of the East Hill Plaza and the portion of
the building that is largely visible from this vantage point is what Eugenia. described as
being that lighter band of building that's above that two story masonry level that consists
largely of glass and the cornets. The total composition from that portion of the building
think is roughly 12 feet between glass and the cornice line.
Board Member Howe — who parked the truck there in that one?
Mr. Sieverding - I'm sorry? Yeah, who parked that truck there? I tried to get the guy to
move but he just wouldn't do it. He was in Burger King too busy eating. View number 3
is taken from the intersection of Snyder Hill and Pine .Tree, and Eugenia is standing
right in the middle .of the road here when she took this picture. And you can see that the
top. of the building corresponds with the tree line in the distance. And I think taking a
14
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
look at these images was one of the reasons for re- examing the color palette that was
chosen for the building. You may remember during sketch plan we showed you a
building that' had sort of bluish teal color glazing and metal at the cornice. So we very, I
should say Eugenia and the folks at QPK I think very consciously selected this sort of
color palette, and sort of helped this building recede in the background and not maybe
punch out as much as some of those lighter buildings that are also in the background,
but obviously much further back. But the point here is that I think the top of the building
roughly corresponds with the top of that tree line, I think will help mitigate that view.
View number 4 was taken from the intersection of Ellis Hollow and Game Farm road,
and in this picture, as well as the next one which is number 5, taken from Game Farm
looking across, the building occupies this sort of middle plain between the Summerhill
apartments '. in the foreground and the much larger buildings on campus in the
background; and we sort of occupy this middle ground, which again has a lot of green
running through it, and I think in again the color palette chosen for the building, I think
this buildings, blends in fairly well with that background and I think in the end would be a
very attractive addition to the neighborhood.
Chairperson' Wilcox'— Before you move on, right behind the building to the left side, is
that the library, is that the library tower sticking up back there?
Mr. Sieverding - Yeah, right here, and this is Barton and this is Duffield Hall, I mean all,,
obviously from back there, very much more dominant features of the landscape than
this building` that sort of occupies this middle ground between the apartments and then
those buildings on campus in the background. And this view, again this is from Game
Farm, looking across the fields, the athletic fields... [inaudible]. We were asked to take it
from the athletic fields, we didn't want to do that because we figured you'd think we
distorted the. picture because we'd be shooting through these high tension power lines
so we moved to the opposite side of the power lines so as not to block the view of the
building. And again the apartments are in the foreground, the building projects just
slightly above it, and it will be largely that lighter, more airy portion of the. building that is
that third floor, and 'given the really dense vegetation in the background, which projects
much higher than the roof of the building. Again, I think this color palette really helps
this building recede and blend in with the background.
Ms. Brieva =. The intention was if you see the predominance of this color palette and you
see also the treatment of trying to maximize the glass on the top level, using also a type
of reflective percentage that will not be, attract over reflections of sun, but reflect the
colors of the materials that already exist around, we think is the best way to end with the
context thatisurrounds the building.
Board Member Hoffmann — Can I ask you to restate what you just said so that I can
understand? Are you saying that the glass being used will be a special kind of glass,
which will not reflect?
Ms. Brieva No. What 1 am saying is, in the glass that we are using, the glass is really
a sandwich between the inside glass that is clear and an outside glass that has the low
15
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
e factors. Those glasses are produced. in a variety of tones, blues, greens and these
specifically that we have selected has a little bit of blue and has a little bit of bronze and
has a 25% of reflectivity:
Board Member Thayer — So it will be reflective then?
Ms. Brieva'— It will have some reflectivity, but not be the mirror kind that you will see in
some of the buildings in the .downtown areas of Chicago or in which you don't see
anything inside because the problem is if we and you can see, actually this is perfect
because look at the difference between this side and this side. This side shows
reflectivity much higher level than what we are using. This is a sample that is produced
by the company so the reason why this is the side shown is because we have selected
this type with a lower reflectivity and the way that they achieve that is putting the
reflective coat in the inside of that sandwich. So when you are circulating outside, you
don't have`„ „this impression that is almost like you are walking by a mirror. If you are
walking by a mirror, then it defeats the purpose of trying to blend with the environment
because it I!'Js so dramatic how it reflects the light that it will be abrasive to the people
around. Also the reason why we didn't want to go a very dark tint is because and mind
you . we have interior light, but if you see it in the sunlight it is quite transparent is
because we don't want the people inside to look outside and see darkness that is
unnatural. I particarly come from a place where there is a lot of sunlight and 1 have a
hard time with the 6 months of winter that we have here. So I would rather have the
most transparency possible with some low e, that is the protection that you should have
to... (not audible)...,
So it does, to answer your question, it does have a minimum amount of
reflectivity put on the inside face of that sandwich so you don't a mirror effect.
Board Member Hoffmann - Thank you.
Mr. Sieverding — The fourth area that we were asked to take a look at was impact on the
neighborhood character.
Attorney Barney — I appreciate the effort that went into drawing the building, but its not
quite the same as seeing a solid building as opposed to seeing more lines with the trees
through there. Is there anyway that digitizing could. have been done in such a way to fill
that in like a building?
Mr. Sieverding - That.is something that I didn't look at.
Ms. Brieva — We, would have
unfortunately we couldn't get this
had. We had to produce the mats
so we did what we could to be as
it with digital imaging.
had to 3 -D model with the current materials and
done in 5 different locations in the time line that we
srial and submit it way in advance of this presentation
accurate as possible with the height and could not do
1[61
Mr. Sieverding - ....,(not audible)...I think that it
relationship
Attorney Barney — It does as to the height, but I
sense of the impact of the building itself because
blue sky and looking through that circle of a build
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
is pretty clear at this level what that
don't. know whether it gives you a real
you are looking at the green trees and
ng.
Board Member Conneman — It is the mass of the building.
Mr. Sieverding — But again I think that it is easy to explain in. terms. of the elevation
that... (not audible)...
Attorney Barney — My only point is that it would be helpful for this board to be able see
what is not only the height, but how much of the space is taken up.
Mr. Sieverding — Just a few words about the impact on the character of the
neighborhood. The building is located in the LDR zone, which would
explain... immediately to the south you have Olivia Restaurant, you have East Hill
Carwash, you've got the back end of the East Hill Plaza and service of the building in a
zone that is community commercial. Immediately to the west you have the size of the
building, of course, but you have Courtside and Ides, I think a site.that has been a
subject of Planning Board discussions and that site will be extensively redeveloped and
is also zoned community commercial. To the north we have the double set of high -
tension electric lines that you see in some of these photographs sort of framing the
north end of the property. It is a commercial district.
The project area itself, I think according to the Town Comprehensive Plan is in
what is considered to be one of the sort of largest concentrations of commercial activity
in the Town. I think your recent rezoning effort in 2003 contemplated similar uses of this
particular site. I `think the environmental impact study that was prepared for that
particular rezoning'` proposal contemplated, I think, the anticipated impact of office use
on this site and we have determined that it was desirable or consistent with the
predominant land use and character of the neighborhood. I think that. the
proposed ... (not audible) ... administrative use, isn't very much different than what would
have been allowed in the office park commercial. I think it was changed to open it to
residential because office park commercial precludes any university use of that site.
think in terms of the point that was made earlier, we are redeveloping a formerly
pretty intensively used site and I think it will be a significant improvement to the
character of the neighborhood by removal of the 11 or 12 barns, cow stalls, concrete
pavement and whatnot that was left over from the Genex use of that property. I think in
terms of environmental impact there is minimal environmental impact when you take a
look at traffic, stormwater runoff. I think there is a plan put together to appropriately
handle and mitigate those. The building itself, I think as Eugenia has very eloquently
expressed has really been carefully composed in terms of the selection of materials and
the composition of materials where I think it will be a very positive addition to the built
17
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
environment in this area and maybe help set a tone for redeveloping other properties.
So I think in summary when you take a look at the site plan, the landscape, the building
design, we really believe that this project will be a very successful intervention in this
area and will be a significant improvement to the overall quality of the neighborhood and
think the fact that this building will bring a fair amount of people to this area will
certainly be a benefit for the various retail activities that exist in that neighborhood. So
our conclusion relative to the impact on the neighborhood is that it's very positive. So I
think that concludes our presentation. Well; I think you know that the next step,
depending on where we end up tonight in terms of the environmental review and the
site plan review, the next step would be a meeting with the Zoning Board relative to the
height and we have submitted an application for that. Whether or not we appear I
guess would really depend on what happens here tonight because clearly they can't act
without first clearing the environmental review hurdle and obviously it would be nice to
go into that meeting with a positive recommendation from the board on the design of
this project.
Board Member Mitrano — So for what purpose.is the building being built? What kind of
offices, do'you know what unit is expected to...?
Mr. Sieverding - General administrative offices.
Board Member Mitrano — You don't happen to know what particular unit?
Mr. Sieverding - No, no specific units have been mentioned to us. What we've been
asked to design is a very generic, very flexible, very adaptable floor plate that could
handle a variety of different uses and different configurations and sizes.
Board Member Conneman — How many employees in the building?
Mr. Sieverding - I think George, if you M
between 200 -250 square feet per person,
our parking on, that's what a lot of the
interior space is finally designed...
'ere to take a look at the ratio of somewhere
I'm figuring around 250, that's what we based
analysis has been based on. But, .until that
Board Member Conneman — I have some questions about traffic and pedestrians, is
Amy the one to ask?
Mr.. Sieverding - Amy is going to be the one sitting next to me to help answer those
questions.
Board Member Mitrano — May I ask a more general question then before we drill down
to specifics? Does Cornell have a general plan for any variety of buildings that might be
done in this East Hill area?
Mr. Sieverding - Not to my knowledge.
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Board Member Mitrano — Are you aware of other plans for other buildings in this area?
Mr. Sieverding - No. Our task was to develop a three story, 60,000 square foot building
on this site. We really haven't had any discussion with them about any other uses. And
the charge was generic office space that, I've mentioned, should be flexible and
adaptable to office plans as they occur at the university.
Board Member Mitrano — Well, I very well can imagine that there might be other building
considerations in this general area. I guess one of my thoughts is to be thinking about
what it would look like comprehensively, rather than in a piece -meal fashion, so it is
unfortunate`, that we don't have a more comprehensive view of what's going on in the
East Hill area with respect to Cornell's plans for office buildings. Go ahead, George,
what wereyouu going to say?
Board Member Conneman — Well, Amy 1 have some questions. You did some traffic
counts at four intersections. How did you factor in the 250 cars or the 235 .cars that
would be now coming into that building in the morning and going out of it at night ?.
Ms. Dake - Well, it's not 250 cars, it's 25o employees...
Board Member Conneman — OK, so how much...
Ms. Dake - and what we do. is look at peak hours, so we look at a morning peak hour
and an afternoon peak hour.
Board Member Conneman — How many cars do you expect to be peak hour?
Ms. Dake -We have new cars coming to the site. 76 entering in the morning and 83
exiting in the evening.
Board Member Conneman — 76, and how many?
Ms. Dake - And 83 exiting in the evening.
Board Member Conneman - That means there are quite a. few people .in each . car,
right?
Ms. Dake - Well, we're expecting carpooling, we're expecting transit usage, because it's
very high with Cornell University, we're expecting some people to bicycle /walk, that kind
of thing, and we're' also expecting that some people won't come during peak hours,
which is very typical for an office building. Some people come in early, some people
come in late. And we're only looking at...
Board Member Conneman — You think that's realistic?
Ms. Dake - Absolutely, yeah.
,
19
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Board Member Conneman — You think so?
Ms. Dake -Yeah,
Board Member Conneman — Is that based on your experience at how Cornell operates
or is that based on some book that you get those numbers out of?
Ms. Dake - No, it's based on information from a study that was done in June of this year
by Cornell.
Board Member Conneman — What did that... has that study been available to us?
Ms. Dake - It's the Cornell Employee Commuter Survey report that was done in June,
and that documented. how many of their employees use transit, how many walk, how
many carpool.
Board Member Conneman — OK. I have concern about getting in and out of that and,
turning.
Ms. Dake ; Internally?
Board Member Conneman —No, turning onto Pine Tree Road. It just seems tome that
it's going to be an awful lot of. traffic there at those peak periods of time and perhaps
other times: I find it. difficult to think about someone turning across traffic in that
situation.
Board Member Conneman — It's going to operate similar to other intersections along
Pine Tree Road. You're correct, there is a significant amount of traffic on Pine Tree
Road, but we don't foresee any problems with getting in and out of the driveway.
Board Member Thayer — You mentioned it was. going to be re- striped, is it going to be
widened also?
Ms. Dake - No, no the width is already there, and the lanes are already there. Right
now it's striped as a two way left turn lane, which means you, can travel in either
direction in' the center lane and make a left turn into any driveway on either side of the
roadway.
Board Member Conneman — I'm concerned about walking. People are going to walk
across there, try to cross there, either over to the Rite Aid, which, unless they are going
to go some circular route, and also crossing from Maple Avenue over to the sidewalk,
and it seems to me the striping for lanes may be good, but if you go downtown Ithaca,
one of the'things I think has worked, I believe it's on Buffalo Street are sort of raised
crosswalks that really slow traffic down: Otherwise I don't see how you're going to get
across on that road.
Rol
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Ms. Dake - Well, it's a county road, and a lot of times, the county is hesitant to put a
mid - block, this would be considered a mid -block crosswalk. They like to direct
pedestrians to cross, for example at a traffic signal, at a signalized location where they
have. a little more protection.
Board Member Conneman — So where is the traffic signal?
Ms. Dake There's a signal at Pine Tree and Ellis Hollow.
Board Member Hoffmann — That's a bit out of the way.
Board Member Conneman — That's a bit out of the way.
Ms. Dake - I know, it is a bit out of the way.
Mr. Sieverding - Part of the idea here would be to try to establish painted crosswalks
across Pine Tree.
Mr. Kanter. — There's the formal crosswalk at P and C entrance, which Rite Aid will be
responsible for upgrading with that project, and then there will be, I think .Sue has
included some conditions in the resolution about discussing with the County crosswalk
down at the MapleAvenue intersection.
Board Member Howe —.We may find that a higher percentage drive here, because I
assume there's not going to be a charge to park in this parking lot. That's one reason
why a lot of people use alternative, because it's very expensive to park.. Is there going
to be a cost to park in this parking lot?
Mr. Sieverding - Not that I'm aware of.
Board Member Howe - So that would probably mean more people will drive than typical
for Cornell's pattern. So that's something to keep in mind.
Board Member Hoffmann — Yeah, that's a very good point.
Mr. Sieverding It's also a decision that Cornell needs to make whether or not they offer
that whole package of transportation [inaudible] programs to [inaudible] package of
incentives will be offered to the occupants of this building, so the incentive will be there
to use it.
Board Member Howe — Well, if there's no cost for parking...
Board Member Conneman — Do your plans include striping from. Maple Avenue to the
sidewalk on Pine Tree road?
4
21
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Mr. Sieverding No.
Board Member Hoffmann — I thought I saw something about that that was a change in
the new...
Mr. Sieverding - There's a left turn lane striping in Pine Tree going into the project site.
Because we do have a sidewalk that we're proposing, and that's certainly something
that we can consider talking to the county about doing. I'm not sure that we show that
on our plan right now, a painted crosswalk from the sidewalk across Pine Tree to Maple.
Board Member Hoffmann — No, I didn't see it on the plans, and I meant to ask. where it's
going to be.
Mr. Sieverding - And I think it's certainly something that we can talk to the County about
doing. My discussions with Bill Sckezny and Gary Stern and I think they would be very
agreeable to what's been proposed so far..:
Board Member Hoffmann — But I think such a crosswalk, just like the one that is now
existing between East Hill Plaza, between the P and C and the Ide's Bowling lane,
those crosswalks need to be striped in order to be more visible.
Mr. Sieverding - I agree with you.
Board Member Hoffmann — Because the traffic there is just much too fast and much too
dangerous?.
Mr. Sieverding - Absolutely. And we definitely need one, I think, opposite the site
driveway, because we have a bus stop there, the bus stop is only on the Northbound
lane, so people want to take a bus that's going south would have to cross, and I think
having a painted crosswalk there is essential.
Board Member Conneman — I'm concerned about the safety and that's an issue. and I
doubt that you are' correct on the number of cars.
Board Member Hoffmann —.Yeah, that really puzzles me too, because that means two
thirds of the people who are going to be working there are going to be coming in other
ways than in their own cars, and that makes me wonder why do you need to have 250
parking spaces?.
Mr. Sieverding - You're also looking at it from the point of view of everyone arriving at
the same time, but they don't. What this number represents is peak hour traffic that
traffic is really spread out over a period of time, both in the morning and the afternoon.
The way the study`is constructed, it's done on the basis of peak hours.
Board Member Hoffmann - All right, but still most people would be arriving during the
peak hour; otherwise you wouldn't call it the peak hour.
22
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Ms. Dake Well, peak hour of commuter traffic on the roadway, it's not necessarily the
peak hour of traffic coming to and from the site.
Board Member Hoffmann — OK, but can you tell us something about the peak amount of
traffic to and from the site then?
Ms. Dake -Total volume...
Mr. Sieverding - total site generated traffic over the course of the day.
Board Member Conneman — What do you consider peak, or what do you consider peak
hour?
Ms. Dake What do we consider peak hour? I can tell you that. It's based on the traffic
counts... what we do is we count a two hour window from 7:30 to 9:30 and from 3:30 to
5:30 and then define the one hour peak within that window, which was 7:30 to 8:30 and
4:30 to 5:30.
Chairperson Wilcox - Those of us who work in offices, I'm just thinking about... we have
an official starting time of 8:30 and we have an official closing time 5:00, but how many
people show up between 8:15 and 8:45 for example? People have different work hours.
People have doctor's appointments in the morning. I don't know whether these
numbers are right,. but I'm thinking about my own situation, but not everyone shows up
at a given ''time. People have days off, people are traveling out of town on business,
and there are lots of reasons why all 100 employees don't show up at 8:30 and all 100
employees don't leave at 5:00.
Board Member Hoffmann — But would you say...?
Board Member Conneman — But they leave during the peak hour.
Chairperson Wilcox — No, no, my point is they don't necessarily, if they have a doctor's
appointment, if they're not even in town, they're on vacation, they're traveling, if they
come in after the peak... if peak hour, I think you said, in this instance, 7:30 to 8:30, you
know, many of them don't arrive until quarter of 9:00, even though we open at 8:30.
Board Member Hoffmann — But would you say the majority of employees come during
the peak hour and leave during the peak hour?
Chairperson Wilcox - Don't know, don't know.. Well, if you define peak from 8 -9 then I'd
say yes, b'ut if it's defined from 7... but again we're looking at peak on the traffic, the
entire traffic network.
Mr. Sieverding - and part of it, Amy and Steve [inaudible] and I had this discussion in
part, and more from the point of view of that, if you were to take away the credit that we
23
Planning Board Minutes
November29, 2005
Approved
took for the transportation management program and just looked at. the peak hour
without making adjustment for that, in terms of the level of service of the operation of
that intersection, it l doesn't change. It adds a few seconds of [inaudible] on it, but in
terms .of the level of service, there is no change in the operation of that intersection. So
there is a ^margin before there is a deterioration of the service.
Board Member Hoffmann — This is the intersection of Pine Tree Road and the
driveway...
Mr. Sieverding - our site..: and Pine Tree road.
Board Member .Hoffmann — Because there are other intersections where the level of
service will 'go down as a result of this, according to your report.
Ms. Dake -'I don't think we have any actual changes in the level of service.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, I think you said it specifically here. In one place it was,
the level of service would go from E to F, and I'm trying to remember where I read it
now among all these papers. You saw it too, right?
Ms. Dake There is one change from an E to an F, and it's on the driveway.for traffic
coming out of the Rite Aid side of the development.
Board Member Hoffmann — That's one of them.
Ms. Dake - That's the only one.
Board Member Hoffmann — No, there was another one, too.
Mr. Sieverdling - Not at our site.
Board Member Hoffmann - As a result of your.building.
Ms. Dake - I don't see any changes at other intersections. I see one that goes from a C
to a D but the increase in delay is only 2 seconds, it's one of those conditions .where it's
right on the,, borderline between a C and a D already.
Board Member Hoffmann— OK, but it did go down. Anyway, I'd like to leave this and
talk about another aspect of the traffic and the parking, that is in your report, under site
design. The pages jaren't numbered so I can't tell you exactly where it is. It's the area
where it talks about parking, it talks about the parking spaces that are available in
general at East Hill Plaza, and it talks about it in such away that I am wondering if you
are planning to. have employees at this building, or you were anticipating that
employees from this building will park at other parking areas at East Hill Plaza.
N
Planning Board Minutes.
November 29, 2005
Approved
Mr, Sieverding No, we're not anticipating that that's what's happening, we're
responding to a question that was raised. I think the question was raised when we
talked about providing 250 parking spaces, there was some discussion about is that
enough to handle the demand that's created by the building, and is there a possibility
that you can have overflow parking to some of the surrounding parking lots, and if that's
the case what's the condition of those parking lots. So we were asked to. take a look at
how those parking lots are currently being used. So that's what we're addressing here,
a question raised by either Planning staff or Planning board during sketch plan. We
have no anticipation of having to use those parking spaces then. We don't think there's
going to be a need:
Board Member Hoffmann — OK, because some of this...
Board Member Hoffmann — Some of those parking spaces I know are used by Cornell
employees who are working at offices at East Hill Plaza, but a lot of those places that
are vacant i there are vacant because they are used by people who shop at East Hill
Plaza and they just come there for a short time and then they leave and then they come
and go. So there are places that have to be vacant of course. They are not available
for all day parking.
Mr. Sieverding — I think that the parking analysis that was done relevant to East Hill
Plaza. breaks it out between parking spaces behind that are used by the office
population there versus the parking spaces in the front that are used by the retail.
Chairperson Wilcox — I wanted to follow up on traffic: You asked me a question and I
was thinking about peak hour. I work by the airport. Peak hour on Warren Road is
probably, with Borg Warner down there; peak hour is probably 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. because
the peak hour at night is like between 2:30
done. In that case, we contribute little traffic
In this case, you have identified the peak on
which. is possible, I don't know. We always
information.
p.m. and 3:30 p.m. when that shift gets
to the peak hour traffic on Warren Road.
Pine Tree Road as 7:30 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.,
rely upon paid consultants. to provide us
Board Member Conneman — When you were here the last time I think something was
I
aised, a question was raised about salt that is stored on the property. What is going to
happen with that? Is that going to be relocated?
Mr. Sieverding — Cornell apparently has... Sue and I; actually she called and asked me
to take a look at that. Cornell has a salt storage facility on Palm Road, which is their
permanent salt storage facility and that is where that will get moved to. Whereas
whether or not they needed to move it now, we said no, because we don't
anticipate ... (not audible) ... this winter.
Board Member Conneman — But it will be moved?
041
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Mr. Sieverding — Yes. It will disappear once the site is developed and it will be part of
their Palm Road facilities.
Board Member Mitrano — Have you folks
traffic comprehensive study for Cornell?
talked much with the folks who are doing the
Mr. Sieverding — No, we haven't. In part because this traffic study preceded any real
serious work on that larger, broader, regional traffic study and our take .on that, frankly,
was that the information that was generated as a result of this traffic study would
actually feed into that process and provide them with some additional information.
Board Member Mitrano - I'm sure it will because we were all interested to find that
Cornell's definitional boundaries of its intercampus, main campus, extend all the way
out this way. That,is why it seems very obvious that the building is going to continue out
in this general area so I think that these questions about traffic might be contained
according to the particular studies that you folks have done here, but there really is a
larger question and one is sort of left at a disadvantage to be able to answer any of
those questions without more information. So it is easy to take this one particular thing
and take this study and say, okay this is appropriate and this is appropriate, but it is not
clear whether each of the pieces add up to the whole that might eventually emerge once
the plan ofI'this whole area of the main campus is completed.
Mr. Sieverding — Right, but that is not to say that then take into account this information
won't lead to some series of recommendations relative to what might transpire down the
road once the project is built. My understanding is that, I guess that we have only just
gotten the scope last time; it is a very long -term study that they are developing.
Board Member Mitrano — It is along term study, so what is interesting to me about this
is that a parking area is developed that, you help me out here, looks to be 2 or 3 times
the footprint of the building itself. I doubt very much in a Comprehensive Plan that they
are going to continue to build parking lots that are three times the size of each building
that they are going to build. So it is interesting.
Board Member Howe — Plus, as I've said before, I think you are taking away the
incentive to encourage people to take other modes of transportation, which goes
against what we are trying to do.
Board Member Conneman — I just want to go on the record as saying that I don't believe
your traffic and pedestrian counts and everything. I assume that if this doesn't turn out
to be that way, there will be some adjustment to this in how the intersection with Pine
Tree Road 'goes because I just don't believe it. I worked at Cornell for a long time and
know something about how people come and go and I don't believe this.
Chairperson Wilcox — Jon?
26
i
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Mr. Kanter'— Since, you were talking about the TGEIS study that will be underway soon,
what that study will do and what it won't do might be relevant here. What it won't do is
provide in a sense.a development plan for this area. That can only be done when and if
Cornell enters intolsome kind of campus master planning process, which I think we are
all really hoping that they do, but they are not going to do it until the GEIS study is done.
So what the GEIS will do is look at magnitudes, total, and impacts of traffic if growth
happens under different scenarios and then what can be done to mitigate that kind of
traffic situation, as an example of which we are looking at right now. So what could
Cornell do to mitigate the maximum amount of traffic from this development? So some
of the things that they may be looking at would be things like, which they are already
doing, I don't think that they are going encourage a parking lot like this, but what they
could certainly is provide reverse incentives not to drive for instance, given the free
transit passes for those who have access to buses. Then the study could also look at
where some people may not have access to buses what needs to be done to extend
transit to those people and where could carpooling or park and ride lots help people
leave cars" out there and come in either without the car or on a.bus or whatever. So
those are examples of things that hopefully the TGEIS will help address. So when we
do come up with the next 60,000 square foot office building that Cornell is developing,
we will have a better idea and each time it happens an even better, idea of what the
cumulative''; impacts are, but we are not quite there yet.
Board Member Hoffmann - What you are saying reminds me of another concern that
had. I also know that up at East Hill Plaza there are many Cornell employees that park
at the East Hill Plaza parking lot all day and then they take the bus .into main campus
and they get free parking that way. I suspect that there might be people who are
tempted to use the parking lot that you are proposing to build the same way unless
there are some restrictions on who it allowed to park there. That just subverts the
system and it creates traffic where one doesn't want traffic and where maybe, l mean
the university is trying to create incentives but people are thinking of other clever ways
to have even better deals. That is a problem and I think that one must have one's eyes
open and realize that that might happen. I am certainly concerned about that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Creig? You have been sitting here very quietly and I know you
are here "to provide or answer questions about the review of the stormwater
management and :the drainage plan. So if we have questions that we would like to
address to Creig. Any comments you.want to make?
Mr. Hebdon —This is something new for us. This was the first one that we have done
where it has been a redevelopment of an existing site. So it was a little bit of a learning
curve for us also. There is a different set of criteria out there based on pre and post is
based on what was pre with the impervious area and what is post with the impervious
area. So it was a little different for us and we had some meetings and stuff to go over it.
.There is going to be some thought put into what our ordinance is going to look like for
that type of stuff. For this site in particular, it is based so far down the watershed that
there is not going to be any real impact on Cascadilla Creek because everything down
hill of it has been pretty much developed out for that hydraulic sizing of the pipes and
27
� y
1yj
i
i
r.,
r
u -
}
•
.i.
t
x
A � 2
iN
t �
X.
7 f'
au'd�4 `x
kz
i k+��
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
everything. If this was way further up the watershed up on Hungerford Hill or
something, it might need some detention or something to help mitigate something
happening down at Cascadilla Creek we would probably look at it differently, but where
it is located right now, its right down on top of the Pine Tree Road bridge that they just
rebuilt and; they have all the hydraulic openings they need and they are not changing
what it happening now and what is happening now isn't affecting anything.
Chairperson Wilcox — Floor is still open for questions.
Board Member Hoffmann — I have one more concern about the sidewalk that I am very
happy to see going north along Pine Tree Road from this site to connect up across
Maple Avenue with access on foot or on bicycle to the main campus. I keep calling
what most of us think as the main campus as main campus, not the area from Hanshaw
Road to Snyder Hill Road that we heard of recently. I'm just a little bit concerned that
there be enough thought put into safely channeling that traffic both across Pine Tree.
Road, but maybe also along Pine Tree Road up to Route 366 where they can cross and
join up with other walkways and such and I know that that is not necessarily a part of
this particular project, but it is something to think about for the University and it should
be brought up for the Cornell people who are thinking about these things. When you
extend a sidewalk like you are going to do now, it is going to provide an incentive for
people to try to get to campus on foot and on bicycle more, but then they are going to
be stuck there with no sidewalk continuing the straight way and having to go through
under the railroad overpass there where it is very narrow and very dangerous to get to
where it is really close to another hookup to another walkway. It is almost creating
another dangerous; situation and I am concerned about that.
If I can move onto something else, there are two things that I wanted to talk
about. You talk about the impact on the neighborhood and you define the neighborhood
very narrowly. You just talked about the areas immediately next to this site and I think
of the neighborhood as much larger than that. I think of East Hill Plaza as a commercial
area in a much.larger neighborhood all around there. That neighborhood includes a lot
of open land, which is owned by Cornell just north and east of this particular site,
Cascadilla Creek and west across next to Maple Avenue; there is a cemetery, which is
a large area of open space right across from this site. Then there are the large fields
and other open areas just south of East Hill Plaza. In your environmental assessment
form, in fact, I would like to see added. where you had indicated, but in part I it mentions
some. of the areas ' +right immediately next to the site and I would like to see added the
things that] feel should be included, like the cemetery, like the open space, which by
one of your. consultants is called vacant land to the north end and east. Yes, it is on
page 9 of 21. It says the surrounding land uses include: office, retail, commercial,
institutional; and residential, but it also does have the vacant lands, it has the cemetery,
and it has the recreation way and the Cascadilla Creek Unique Natural Area and I think
they should be in here.
Chairperson Wilcox — All set with that?
ZA
r
f .
F , F
1
1
1 -
y:
_ g
.d t
dty - jHF�
�q'k IF
.f
i
6
d
" � r
l
i
Y
.G
L
' w'r:
`1 il
� a
I x ?
r
f.
1
ti
1 64
fF
• -t t
a,
s
4.
,ia og,3F
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
.Board Member Hoffmann — Yes, but I also think that if one does include a larger area as
a neighborhood, I think there is more of an impact on the neighborhood than you
indicated. I'm not saying that it is necessarily too big, and I think one of the things that
save this building is your changing color scheme. When I went around again today and
_ looked at the photos and looked. at the views from the -places- where you took the
photos, the buildings that stand out are the apartment buildings that are stark white and
the Duffield Hall, which is stark white in the picture and had they had other color
schemes.they would not have been as objectionable, I think.. To my mind anyway, I am
hoping your building is going to blend in better and I hope that the glass is going to
work. I do still have a bit of a problem about the height because it really stands up quite
high when you are close. At the same time I do understand that there are benefits in
building taller to having them spread out. I am totally aware of that. In the presentation
about this being a building that uses some of the sustainability criteria that we have
heard a lot about lately, I was sitting here wondering, we have no guarantees.that this is
going to happen. Cornell University has not said, that I'm aware of, that this is what
they want to do. If made. me think that this sounds more like wishful thinking rather than
something,that might become a reality. I would like you to address that.
Mr. Sieverding — Sure. I think, Eva, if we focus on those things that pertain specifically
to the site design and to the building, they will get done. There is a reason, as Eugenia
explained, for the height in terms of the building to bring natural light as deep into the
core of that building as possible. That will get done. There is a benefit in terms of
building a footprint that is the 20,000 square feet instead of 30,000 square feet as far as
the amount of material that you use, the amount of impervious surface area that you
create.
Board Member Hoffmann — I'm totally aware of all of those.
Mr. Sieverding — That will be done. We are carefully looking at those lead items that we
can get done. We are not making promises here that this is going to be a green
certified building because it is not, but we do look at that list to see as many of those
objectives as we can possibly address and achieve. I think that the ones that we
explained that pertain to the composition of the elevation, the amount of glass, the effort
to bring natural light into the building, the effort to use indirect and direct lighting
because it creates much more conducive environment for office employees. All of those
things are part of the project that I think ... are going to get built.
Board Member Hoffmann But I thought that I heard things that might happen that are
not in their plan, too, to make it even better from this green point of view and that's the
part that made me think, I'm wondering if this is wishful thinking or if in fact Cornell
University is likely to want to spend a little bit more money to make it that way if they get
an approval.
Mr. Sieverding — I think that what you see is what we are proposing to build. It won't go
beyond that.
29
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Ms. Brieva - I just wanted to clarify something. The points that you will get in these
area that we mentioned, minimizing the runoff, minimizing the site disturbance, when we
get the approval for the way that this is sited and the height that we have, that is what
you need to do to get the point. It is not that we would need to do something else to
meet those criteria. The things that are already incorporated meet those criteria. For
example, maximizing of the daylight and the views by having a higher floor to ceiling
height. There is no additional in that criteria that needs to be added. What is true is
that there are multiple things that you can continue to do in lower levels when you
continue the development of the design, but the criteria that I have mentioned, the way
we have right now this incorporated in the project is the way that I would need to do it if
,were to claim that.. (not audible)... I don't want to give you the impression that to.meet
the least site disturbance, we have gone, lets say, 50% of the way and there would be
another 50 %, if I'm proposing a smaller footprint, I could claim the way that we
have... (not audible)... I have not mentioned other issues like percentage of recycled
materials that we are going to incorporate. What I have not mentioned, so basically, the
few items mentioned in the presentation are items that if the project gets approved, we
would have already met those criteria.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay.
Board Member Thayer - I would just like to say that I am very satisfied with the lighting,
the landscaping, the walkways, the color of the building and I would like to move the
SEQR.
Chairperson Wilcox - So moved.
Board Member Mitrano - Don't we have a public hearing?
Chairperson Wilcox - We are still doing SEQR. Second on SEQR?
Board Member Mitrano.- Yes.
l
Chairperson Wilcox — Seconded by Tracy Mitrano. I just want to mention that we do
have a letter from Doug Bianco and we will bring that up during site plan. I think it is
appropriate where that belongs and we will address the issue further, East Hill Car
Wash and potentially the other businesses that are located there. Bear with me, we
have been through a lot in the last 45 minutes. You are satisfied with the salt storage
removal off to Palm Road?
Board Member Thayer —.Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox,— I think we are all set.
Board Member Hoffmann — I just see something in the... now I see where I got the
information about the traffic delays and such and its in the third part of the SEQR review
where it talks about the two intersections at Dryden Road and Pine Tree Road and Pine
30
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Tree Road and 79 where there are already very bad conditions and the analysis
indicates that turning movements there will continue to worsen and that is what I was
thinking of.
Chairperson Wilcox — For the record I think the draft SEQR motion in front of .us needs
the date changed from the 15th to the 20 in two places.
Mr. Kanter — As will all the resolutions.
Chairperson Wilcox — Any other discussion on environmental review?
There being "none, Chairperson Wilcox called for a vote on the motion.
63 -1 -3.4
Tax Parcel No.
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Mitrano.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and a height variance from the Town of
Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building
project located due east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing
several dilapidated barns and other structures associated with the previous
agricultural livestock operation and constructing a new three story, +A 60,000
square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include
new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250
parking spaces. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition &
Development, Applicant and
2. This is a Type I Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has indicated
its intent to; act as Lead Agency in a coordinated environmental review with
respect to Site Plan Approval, Special Approval, and a height variance, and
3. The Planning Board, on November 29, 2005, 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, and drawings and site
details included in the site plan submission entitled "Preliminary Site Plan Review
Application, Pine Tree Road Office Project, Pine. Tree Road, Ithaca, New York"
dated October 15, 2005, submitted by Integrated Acquisition & Development
Corp. and other application materials and,
31
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
4. The Town ,' Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval,
Special Permit and height variance;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the, Town of'' Ithaca Planning Board hereby establishes itself as Lead Agency,
having heard no objections from other Involved Agencies.
AND BE I T 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 action 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.
A vote on tlhI e motion resulted as follows:
+
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
1
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit for'I!the pro "posed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located to the east
of 391 Pine Tree; Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density
Residential Zone.. The proposal includes demolishing several existing barns and
related abandoned buildings and constructing a new three story, +/ 60,000
square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include
new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250
parkingspaces.j,, Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition &
Development, Applicant.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 8:52 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Herman, do you want to come back? I want to ask you about,
before we give the 'public a chance to speak, (..want to ask you about Mr. Bianco, who is
either and owner or a partner in the East Hill Carwash. He has a concern about access
to his business; I think the same concern would apply to Olivia, and to the parking lot
behind East Hill Plaza. But his other issue is his sign, which... do you want to address
those?
32
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Mr. Sieverding — Yeah, sure. I have met a couple of time with Doug Bianco and began
early in September before we actually came here for sketch plan: He pointed out then
that his two principal concerns are the phasing of the construction of the improvement to_
the driveway because he is afraid people are going to go into his carwash, they are
going to wash their car and then they are going to drive out and if the road -is -under
construction it is all dusty then the cars are going to get dirty again. Then his second
concern is that he has a sign that kind of sits on that grass area between the existing
site driveway and the driveway.that goes in besides it. He has talked to. me about trying
to maintain some sort of a sign presence on Pine Tree to announce his business. I told
him that we are willing to work with him on that. We meet weekly with Cornell and
have forwarded his letter to our contact there so that at our next meeting we can.
discuss at least the sign issue. Construction of the road is construction phasing and
coordinating with him how that gets done. I think once we have a general contractor we
will be able to sit down and talk to him about how we can work that out.
Chairperson Wilcox — Can you point out where his sign is right now?
Mr. Sieverding — The sign right now would be right in here. The sign comes
perpendicular to the road.
Chairperson Wilcox — I'm scanning the audience and I don't think anyone from Cornell
or representing Cornell is here. Does the gentleman own the property on which .the
East Hill Carwash is located?
Mr. Sieverding — Yes. He owns the site where the carwash is located. I can't tell you
what right he has in terms of easement or some other form to where that sign is
currently located. That is one of the issues that we are going to research and try to
work something out.
Chairperson Wilcox — Would this board consider a condition of some sort, to me, almost
requiring and agreement that this current sign...
Board Member Thayer — Is the sign going to be removed?
Chairperson Wilcox — I think what we are saying is that where this sign is, is going to be
part of the lentranceway and there is nothing shown as to where his sign will go. I am
not sure whether this is an off premise sign or not. It's an interesting case because he
has no frontage, but nonetheless it exists today and I would hate to do anything to
remove it.
Mr. Sieverding — At the same. token Fred, I think at this point, I would hate to see a
condition to an approval. We have to come back for final site plan. It- would give us
some time, between now and then before there is a condition about what you are
suggesting to at least research...
33
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
. Approved
Chairperson Wilcox - I think what we would do is make it a condition of final that you
have an agreement; well I haven't gotten the concurrence of the board.
Attorney Barney - I think that you want to be a little less formal than an agreement,
maybe a condition that an arrangement satisfactory to this board be made for continued
maintenance of Mr. Bianco's sign assuming he is entitled to... (not audible).
Chairperson Wilcox - I think that is the only site plan issue I had. We will need a
potential condition dealing with revised drawings reflecting movement of the light poles
in the parking lot.
Mr. Sieverding - Do you want those now or do you want those as part of final?
Chairperson Wilcox - If you have the revised drawing, we .will take it. now that way we
don't have to deal with that as a condition.
Board Member Hoffmann - I would like to suggest some other conditions...
Chairperson Wilcox - Well, I still have to do the public hearing. I still want to give the
public a chance to speak. So I wanted to get those out of the way before we started
really word- smithing. Anything else? Thank you, Herman. You may have a seat.
Chairperson Wilcox invites members of the public to address the board. There being no
on present to speak, Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay, there are three things. One is the sign at the
carwash. We talked about that. The other is the possibility of asking to have some sort
of restriction put on who can park in the parking lot so that it doesn't end up being a
commuter lot for whoever feels like parking there and going on into main campus. Do
you think we could 'do that?
Chairperson Wilcox - Do you not think Cornell will control that themselves? I think it is
in their best interest to control that.
Board Member Thayer - Oh, absolutely.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes, but they don't really control it at East Hill Plaza.
Board Member Mitrano - There is no question in my mind that they are going to control
that through the traffic department.
Board Member Hoffmann - Okay, then the third suggestion. is to have some condition
about the crossings across Pine Tree Road to connect the sidewalk along Pine Tree
Road that they are proposing with the sidewalk along Maple Avenue.
Chairperson Wilcox - I think we have that, actually. It is condition h.
34
.Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann — Okay. Fine. I had forgotten it was there.
Mr. Kanter — Are we on additional conditions being suggested?
Chairperson Wilcox— Yes:
Mr. Kanter — Well, I guess the understanding is that Cornell University would be
responsible for maintaining and repairing the walkway, but I don't know that we have
I
aid that anywhere. So I was thinking that maybe we want to include something that is
a submission of a statement from Cornell committing to their responsibility for
maintenance, repair and upkeep of the walkway along Pine Tree Road. If that is what
the Planning Board wanted to do.
Chairperson Wilcox — Does the walkway stay on the particular parcel. in question or
does it extend beyond the parcel? It's all on the same parcel? Okay, but nonetheless
you would like to....
Mr. Kanter — That is the only reason I was thinking of it because it is all just Cornell land
that goes all the way down to Maple Avenue and beyond.
Chairperson Wilcox — It. doesn't hurt anything. Anything else?
Attorney Barney — Just one minor change, in d, the connection with the Ramada Inn. It
should be Best Western.
J
Board Member Howe moves the motion and Chairperson Wilcox seconds the motion.
With no further discussion, the board votes on the motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005412:
Preliminary Site Plan
Approval
and
Special
Permit, Cornell University Pine
Tree Road Office Building,
Tax
Parcel.
No.
63 =1
-3.4
MOTION made by Board Member Howe, seconded by Chairperson Wilcox.
WHEREAS.
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit
from the Town of Ithaca Planning Board and a height variance from the Town of
Ithaca Zoning. Board of Appeals for the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building
project located just east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No.
63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing
several dilapidated barns and other structures associated with the previous
agricultural ;livestock operation and constructing a new three story, +/- 60,000
square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include
new lighting, landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250
35
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
parking spaces. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition &
Development, Applicant, and
2. This'`is a Type l Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval, Special
Approval and a height variance, has, on November 29, 2005, made a negative
determination of environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted
as adequate a Full Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the
applicant, and a Part /1 prepared by Town Planning staff, and
3. The : Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on _November 29; 2005, 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, and
drawings and site details included in the site plan submission entitled
"Preliminary Site Plan Review Application, Pine Tree Road Office Project, Pine
Tree Road, Ithaca, New York" dated October 15, 2005, submitted by Integrated
Acquisition & Development Corp. and other application materials, and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:
That the P {,tanning 'Board hereby grants Special Permit for construction of the Comell
University Pine Tree Road Office Building finding that the standards of Article XXIV
Section 270 -200, Subsections A -L, of the Town of Ithaca Code, have been met, with the
exception that in Subsection G., the proposed building height would exceed the height
permitted in the Low. Density Residential Zone (Section 270 -59), therefore, this Special
Permit is conditioned upon receiving the necessary variance from the Zoning Board of
Appeals in ;regards to Section 270 -59,
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives certain requirements for
Preliminary Site Plan Approval, as shown on the Preliminary 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 Site Plan
Approval for the proposed Cornell University Pine Tree Road Office Building
located just east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63 43.4
as shown on drawings and details included in the site plan submission entitled
"Preliminary,, Site Plan Review Application, Pine Tree Road Office Project, Pine
Tree Road, I Ithaca, New York" dated October 15; 2005, submitted by Integrated
Acquisition & Development Corp. and other application materials, subject to the
following conditions:
,i
36
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
a. granting of a height variance by the Zoning Board of Appeals, prior to
Final Site Plan Approval, and
b, modification of the stormwater management plan to show that. storm water
runoff from the building roof is directed into the bioretention filter pond
prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and
ca submission of materials showing the size, location and design of all
proposed signs, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and
d. revision of site plan drawings to include a connection . with the - Best
Western Inn parking lot, to provide emergency access prior to Final Site
Plan Approval, and
e. submission of plans to include the name and seal of each registered land
surveyor, engineer, architect, or landscape architect who prepared any of
the site plan material, including topographic and drainage plans, prior to
Final Site Plan Approval,
f. submission of a stormwater Operation and Maintenance Plan /Schedule for
the bioretention pond satisfactory to the. Director of Engineering, prior to
issuance of a building permit, and
g. submission of record of application for and approval status of all
necessary permits from county, state, and /or federal agencies, including
but not limited to the Notice of Intent for NYSDEC, and curb cut permit
from Tompkins County Highway, and documentation from the Ithaca City
Fire Department that access plans pertaining to fire and emergency
services are acceptable, and
h. documentation of correspondence with the Tompkins County Department
of Public Works regarding the possible addition of striping for a crosswalk
at the intersection of Pine Tree Road and Maple Ave., and striping on Pine
Tree Road near the site entrance for northbound and southbound left turn
lanes, prior to Final Site Plan Approval, and
i. submission of details of the proposed bus shelter and documentation that
TCAT or the applicant will install said bus shelter, prior to Final Site Plan
Approval, and
j. developer and Douglas Bianco reaching an arrangement, prior to final site
plan approval, satisfactory to this Board for the continued maintenance of.
Mr. Bianco's carwash sign on Pine Tree Road, assuming he has a legal
right to maintain the sign in its current location, and
37
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
k. receipt by this Board, prior to final site plan approval, of an agreement
satisfactory to this Board by Cornell University to maintain the walkway
running westerly to Pine Tree Road from the proposed building and along
the east side of Pine Tree Road northerly to a point opposite the northerly
line of Maple Avenue.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED.
1. That the Town of Ithaca. Planning Board hereby authorizes a reduction in the
number of required parking spaces, pursuant to Sec. 270 -227 of the Code of the
Town of Ithaca, from the +/- 300 parking spaces required in Section 270 -227, to
the +A 250 parking spaces shown on the proposed site plan, finding that such
reduction will not adversely affect traffic flow on the project site, will leave
adequate parking for all the reasonably anticipated uses or occupancies in the
project, and will not otherwise adversely affect the general welfare of the
community, and
2. That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby waives the conditions relating to
the reduction in parking spaces outlined in Section 270 -227 (A) (3) of the Code of
the Town of Ithaca.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe
NAYS: None.
The motionlr was declared to be carried unanimously.
SKETCH PLAN
Consideration of 'a Sketch Plan review for the proposed Skilled / Adult Care
Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community, located at 1 Bella Vista Drive,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Planned Development Zone No. 7. The
proposal involves the construction of a +/- 24,000 square foot addition on the
north side of the existing building to serve up to 30 additional residents. The
proposal will also include approximately 16 new parking spaces and a new
driveway. The Town Board also referred the proposed amendment of Planned
Development Zone No. 7 to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Ithacare
Center Service Company, Inc., Owner /Applicants Mark A. Macera, Executive
Director, Agent,
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Mark Macera, Executive Director of Ithacare Longview
Clearly, as'� far as ''Ithacare Longview, our opening act, so to speak, began with an
application to the Town Board, petitioning the Board to consider amending the current
ffito
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Special Land Use District (SLUD 7) to accommodate this project because based on our
discussions in consultation with staff, I think management concluded that the current
SLUD as worded would not permit.this project to move forward without changes. I
guess my spin on the Town Board's activity is concurrent with their consideration of this.
They refer it to the Planning Board for appropriate review and recommendations before
they collect decisions regarding the amendment and approval of changes to the SLUD
as well as changes approval for the site plan to go forward. I will defer to the Town
authorities on what !happens first and what .happens second and so on and so forth. .
Let me also say that given our history, we are coming back to you today in
consideration of what was our long range or strategic plan that was referenced several
times, I think, during the course of the initial application of the Longview project in which
in relocating from the City to the Town and expanding, certainly a growing population
and providing housing options and youth services and many needs of a growing elderly
populations, plans would evolve and would include additional phases.. We didn't have
the details then because we didn't have the experience that we have now. That
experience is pretty much outlined in the narrative as part of your packet that basically
says that approximately 7 years into our operation on South Hill, our community is aging
and clearly many of the individuals who are residents both at opening and have come
during the course of the last several years, have reached the point in time when their
need for additional services, specifically skilled and health related services, are
requiring us to consider whether or not we can provide them or whether they should be
asked to move out an move on to other facilities to receive the services. Certainly our
Board of Directors .in consultation with our residents, our organization's decision is to
put together this proposal and this project that would expand the current community to
include this additional level of care, as you outlined in the introduction that would be
called an additional adult home /skilled facility based on technically the licensing that we
would obtain with us licensed as an assisted living facility under the new legislation
whether it is licensed as what is called an RHCF or Residential Health Care Facility,
more commonly known by members of the public as a skilled facility or a nursing home.
So we come before you with an application to begin the process as .a sketch plan
review. Perhaps two objectives, three objectives, and that is to introduce this number
one and number two, perhaps outline the scope or the nature of this project so that we
know... in addition to answering your questions, what additional information, certainly,
the board will need to conduct this full review before reaching . a decision on
recommending whether to approve such a project. So we have given you the
preliminary information that we shared with the board as well as part of the sketch plan
review we are prepared to discuss the schematics, you know, perspectives, the
preliminary,information, our estimates and our calculations and we will go from there.
Chairperson Wilcox — David, do you have a presentation?
David Schopfer, Schopfer Architects
will walk you through this quickly. Longview controls approximately 34 acres on 96B,
28 of it is within the SLUD area and 6 of it is adjoining to the west: Right on Danby
W9
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Road, there is approximately 850 linear feet of frontage. There is a single access point
at the northeast corner at elevation 950. 1 am going to give you some elevations
because the site has a rather dramatic drop and dramatic distance across it. In the
southeast corner of the site, the elevation is approximately 985 and it drops diagonally
across the site approximately 65 feet. When it was constructed, it. was actually
constructed on two terrace levels. The main entry level, which is around 950 or
essentially 430 feet below the New York State Scenic Overlook, which is this area right in
here. Then a lower plateau area, terrace level, which sits at 930 or. approximately 20
feet below the main entry point.
The public basically enters at this location at a midlevel, referred to as ground
floor, and then there are two stories, two levels that drop down from it to the lower
plateau area and one story above. So if you are on Danby Road, you see two levels
exposed and if you are in this far corner over here, you would actually see four levels
exposed. There are 109 parking spaces broken up into smaller parking lot areas.
There is a community nature trail that is maintained in this particular corner that walks
around the existing, pond. The pond is used for stormwater control as well as part of the
communityi nature walk.
The facility itself, all the senior living opportunities from independent to adult are
housed under one roof in this sprawling shaped building that is shown here and
basically so the peak of the roof of the existing, which is shown in the existing
photograph we have given you here. It sits at approximately the same elevation as the
scenic overlook or approximately 985. This is a view from the overlook itself. We have
actually given you small copy versions of these in your handout. The lake you can see
off the side. That particular view is taken right up at this location looking across, looking
essentially north in this direction. We have given you a view from Danby Road south
looking north into the site, which is here and essentially looking at the target area that
we will have for development and we have given you a view of the lower parking lot and
the nature walk area back in here.
What is proposed is an expansion of the continuum of care. Taking what is now
market independent housing and adult facility to the next level of potentially skilled and
catering very heavily to the dimension needs of the aging. residence. Looking at this
particular lower plateau area, again at approximately 60 feet below the overlook and
masked almost 100% from Danby Road at this lower elevation. It is a one -story
addition, approximately 22,000 square feet. When serving the skilled population it will
serve. 30 residence as a potentially, a temporary adult facility, it will serve anywhere
between 15 and 16 residents in apartment living. There is a multilevel addition hugging
the existing building, which is, we have actually shown you a perspective here, which is
taken from this location looking back at the horseshoe shape of the existing building in
the background here with the one -story addition at this location. The expansion that is
the multistory expansion here is for connection purposes, tying this facility to the
existing services, laundry, trash, receiving, dietary, all of which are going to remain as is
and this addition is strictly living. On site our shipping and receiving. is located over in
this area and that will remain untouched. What is proposed for modification of
Ut
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
development is approximately 2.4 acres of the 34 acres. This roadway going down is
actually a gravel roadway now and their service vehicles use it. It will be cut to a slightly
different elevation for pedestrian vehicles. There is a cul -de -sac turnaround and 11
parking spaces. Again, as a skilled facility this is serving a population that does not
drive. So this is primarily for visitor. Employees will generally enter at two locations, the
main door of the addition or the employee entrance back at the existing facility.
Again, the skilled because of the nature of the population, it is given its own front
door, which you can see in the perspective. Again, the difference between the skilled
population and the independent population, each has its main entry connected at the
back door for service purposes. The multilevel expansion is actually enclosure of an
existing deck that already exists. It exists at the main entry level, the midlevel as an
outside dining deck, which is under utilized and by enclosing it in the area below, it
gives additional square footage to the main dining room of the facility. We have given
you sections through the site, a cross section, just to try to give you a better relationship
of the views and vistas with the high points shown on the left hand side being the
overlook, the existing building in gray, and then our one -story building shown down at
the lower plateau area. The design and we have established the elevation of the
finished floor of the addition at 5 feet below the lowest level of the existing building for
purposes so that we basically balance cut and fill on the site. The plateau that was
created at this elevation was actually fill material, crushed stone that came out of the
construction of the existing building. We will remove 5 feet of that and use it up to
basically balance the cut and fill on the roadway. That is a very quick overview of the
project and, Mark or I will address questions.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, David.
Mr. Macera I had a couple of observation unless I ruin someone's train of thought in
terms of trying to pick up on that.
Chairperson Wilcox — Go ahead, Mark.
Mr. Macera — Just some perspective because going back, and David mentioned it, but
I'll just close the loop on what is it, the Environmental Review Committee's comment
about the potential for having to import soils. I think David mentioned that well and that
is the single level addition facility is going to be sunk some 5, 6, 7 and in the final site
plans will reveal an exact elevation below the existing grade and once we excavate all
of that that is the cut and fill part of the site so there is no net change in that.
The other point that I want to make
a dozen concerted schemes that we had
not only what we want to put together
utilization patterns and our histories and
the past 6, 7 years, but also recognizing
the site located near what we call the C
is what you see here is probably part of a half
through this evolutionary process to determine
involving the number of units relative to our
our needs as we know it given our practice of
do we locate it further to the northeast part of
wing, which is the wing closest to our road cut
CII
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
or whether we locate even further to the west and closer to the B wing, which is near the
woods and the western part of the site. We considered whether it should be attached to
the building. We considered whether it should be removed from the building and moved
to some other part of the existing site, either south up to this additional land that we
acquired since Longview _ was - built or -actually to petition Ithaca College for some
additional land further to the north that we might be able to use. All of our summaries
and reviews and ''assessments and analysis and input were resulted in this for
everything from space utilization and efficiencies and cost of construction and program
application',' That is what we came up with. So I just wanted to give you a history on
why this is ,looking the way it did. There is a lot of what went on behind the scenes to
create this.' This didn't happen overnight.
Mr. Schopfer — The other element that Mark brings up. This planning group actually
had several representatives from the resident council as well. So the concept that is
here was reviewed by these individuals, taken back to the residents and this is the
result.
Chairperson Wilcox — Who wants to go first?
Board Member Conneman — I was surprised that you come to us at this time because
would think that you would want to get a letter from the State Health Department of
whoever it is first for approval.
Mr. Macera — No. '' It actually works in reverse. They would ask us a similar question,
like before we would get into the Certificate of Need, components of that would dictate
that we have to show them that we have the finance in place and the municipal reviews
and approvals in line to do it. So it is always a chicken and egg issue. So it's not an
issue of licensing first and build something. They would have to review, to give you
another example, the actual construction documents and plans. Until this body has
determined exactly where it should be and what it looks like, they would not even touch
the project for review purposes.
Board Member Conneman - You're confident that they will approve it?
Mr. Macera — I am very confident that it will be approved. There is nothing that it would
.prohibit it under the current regulations. One of the stumbling blocks and why we
referred to 'it as licensing it perhaps as a one form or level such as an additional adult
home versus under a different level licensing of the skilled nursing home is to take
advantage 'of what the circumstances would be at the time that we go before the State.
Conditions could change tomorrow. They. are being discussed now with regards to
lifting the cap on nursing home beds. Issues with expanding and licensing assisted
living residences under a law that was passed August of last year signed by the
Governor in October and implemented as recently as February of this year. So we are
looking at all of our options and we have actually engineered this building to be basically
a creature that can serve all purposes., either licensed as a skilled facility or licensed as
42
a lesser level of care
profession. ,.
So it is a facility for basically all seasons
Planning Board.Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
in our discipline our
Board Member Conneman — Are skilled facilities adaptable to adult living units? I mean
certainly that wouldn't be-true at Kendall for example where I know something about...
Mr. Schopfer — Actually the extension of the continued care levels on. a common
campus is consistent with the Department of Health's current quality of life standards.
What they are trying to do is make is so that 1) when they get used to the facility and
they get comfortable with the facility and the campus and the environment around it are
able to stay there and not move to a foreign environment for the skilled level and that is
what is currently occurring at the facility and that is why l think there was this concept.
Originally I was approached, Mark had said it came as a request from the residents so
one they would not have to split up from spouse or a family or neighbors or friends.
Board Member Conneman _ So you did a survey of some type? .I happened to go up
there the other day because I was interested in seeing what was going to happen to this
pavilion, which I guess you never built? You came to us, for a pavilion and you never
built it.
Mr. Macera — We are in the process now of letting that contract for construction. An
application is in the .pipeline for a building permit with the Town now. It is behind
schedule. It will go in the location that has been designated. The siting of this facility
doesn't interfere with that. It complements it.
Board Member Conneman — When I was up. there,
things struck my mind. One is that I was curious
exist there already. I'm old enough to get Senior C
has these terrific views and everything else, but the
of them, said that it was going to ruin their, views. Is
I ran into some people. In fact, two
about the views of the people who
1rcle and in it, it says that Longview
lady who was up there, at least two
that true?
Mr. Macera — Absolutely and there are many more who feel that way that are down on
the garden level that now won't be able to look over the expansive lawn and promenade
and childcare play area that we have go. They will now be looking at a building.
Absolutely.
Mr. Schopfer What was actually done on the design purposely because of this issue
the peak of the roof of this one story is the sill height of the second level from the rear.
So the only individuals affects are those that are at the garden level, the ground level at
the inside of this horseshoe.
Board Member Conneman — How many people would that be?
Mr. Macera Probably in the neighborhood of 13 on the garden or lowest level.
George, you make a very good point, but it is relevant and relative at the same. time. If
for example this population is aging, the people you are referring to, once they move on
43
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
the next person who moves in will not have that same perspective that you are
reflecting and that is it is ruining their view. We knew this at the time. The residents
involved knew it then and know it now that there is going to compromises. As this body
knows and when we proposed the promenade, which is the covered walkway, there
were the same people there who felt that now we were going to impose, create -traffic,
violate privacy, but it is one of those balancing acts and compromise that occurs.
because the objective is the benefit and the well -being of the community, not the
individual and for those people located there who then now will not look across the
expanse, but perhaps look at a building, I completely agree with them that it is a
compromise in which they believe would be their quality of life where they would rather
see grass and now there is going. to be a building there.
Board Member Conneman — .There is no way around that?
Mr. Macera — Not `unless we locate it perhaps close to where you live and leave the
current building where they are and have to transport people back and forth.
Board Member Conneman — Smart remark. Well, I am just concerned about people
always and I think that is a legitimate concern.
Mr. Macera — And that is why we met with the resident councils and they had lengthy
discussions and dialogs and if you feel more comfortable with it, I can bring their;elected
representatives to speak to this issue, but again I want to be honest with you. There are
some people who are disappointed because of what it will mean to them and others are
tickled pink and can't wait and some are disappointed because it is taking as; long as it
is. It is likely given their age and their frailty that they will never have a chance to use it.
Board Member Conneman — The other question that I have, which someone else may
have is the amount of fill. I know something about contour lines. There looks like there
is a tremendous amount of fill that has to. go in there. Where are you going to get it
from?
Mr. Schopfer - 1 think we addressed earlier. We basically lowered the elevation of this
for several reasons, one was sight line issues and the second is to balance cut and fill.
We will be taking" 5 feet of the former fill off the site and moving it around. The only.
areas that we really only have fill is as it begins to head toward the north property line.
That is a very prominent plateau area, relatively flat, then it starts to drop off as it heads
toward the north property line. The roadway that we are talking about, I know it was
suggested in the environmental review that that would have to have a lot of fill put in it.
Actually on the 96B side of it, it is actually a cut. As it gets down towards the site we are
basically putting a. little fill in it. This was actually done on a computer with a contractor.
The contractor is on board as part of the design team and the pricing team. The initial
concept was to put it right at grade, in which case we actually had a lot of excess
material. So basically lowered it and moved the dirt around. The building itself will sit
on existing material.
MA
Planning Board.Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Mr. Hebdon — On the cut and fill the only comment I had is that I noticed that you have
some fill that you are going to be putting across the property line. You are going to
have to get an agreement or something, to...
Mr: Schopfer — That's right. We've addressed that a little bit in the environmental review.
Mr. Macera —Given the history that Ithaca College owned this property, we have both
an institutional relationship, an intergeneration programmatic relationship, I can produce
the documents, but reveal, to you that discussions with the college and their support for
this project involves any documents, any agreements for use of the property, acquisition
of additional property, right -of -way, whatever is necessary, but we .would obtain that
from Ithaca College,
Mr. Hebdon — I just think that should be part of the final site plan.
Board Member Hoffmann — I remember from when you first came in with the plans for
the existing building that there were discussions about building a number of little
separate cottages for independent living and as I remember, if that were to happen, it
was in the future, part of the current building would be changed into skilled nursing
facility. I may be remembering it.wrong, but is that something you have considered?
Adding the cottages?
Mr. Schopfer — Interestingly enough, with the changing in quality of life, this particular
facility is designed in a way in which it is actually creating a skilled facility with
neighborhoods. So the 30 residents that will occupy this are actually in neighborhoods
of anywhere from 6 to 8 each surrounding an open enclosed courtyard with. wander
ways. Everything is private. The rooms are private or semi - private. There are no
doubles or quadruples or anything like that. The standards, we are approximately 700'
to 800 square foot per resident excluding all the services that would normally
compliment a skilled facility. By comparison to try to adapt the existing building into
skilled, we did look at trying to push this building back into it and it was actually
displacing almost all of the garden level residents.
Mr. Macera — It would be 8 of the. 13. That was part of the discussions with the
residents. When they looked at that, the residents who were being displaced didn't
want it and then the issue of then, as you suggested in your question Eva, including the
skilled facility as part of the current structure, although having. to renovate that, they
thought it was a very poor option plan going forward and then was dismissed with the
residents input and the cost. We would lose some of our market rate units.. Our
revenue projections involving revenue, revenue decrease, our debt would increase, we
would have cost of new construction associated with remodeling and renovation. We
couldn't afford it. It just didn't work any way looked at it: So we abandoned that. You
did mention another piece, which I think is an important piece and one of the reasons
why we acquired the additional approximately 7 acres, we subdivided that and sold
home that is located on that and we do have a remaining 6 acres, the 28 plus or minus
the 6 for 34 that we have control of, which is contiguous to our property line, on the
45
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
south and the west could be used for that, but the issue for the board and the residents
was the continual care. They had no interest, in terms of the current resident
population, to look at introducing new people while currently being served; they are.
concerned with their ability to stay and remain in age and place and their needs come
before what they . view as what they view as the organization's consideration of
expanding continuing on the direction, on the more well elderly, but .that will happen
some day, I believe`. It is still included in the plans.
Chairperson Wilcox - Comments?
Board Member Thayer — I know one of the biggest problems with the original building,
was the viewshed; I hesitate to use that, word. This eliminates that problem . anyway,
right?
Mr. Macera — Larry; absolutely. I know it is a matter of perspective, but I can honestly
say that I am quite pleased with the last 6 or 7 years that using as a benchmark the
people who felt that the project was most impost on the viewshed, destroying the view,
the majority of which, not all of them have come and said that they feel it did not do that.
In fact all the rederick about the loss. of the views of the lake, the loss of the panorama.
and so on and so forth. Didn't cause a problem. The benefits clearly outweigh any
negative building on something that was otherwise a pasture.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you for that short answer... I have one comment. Go
ahead.
Board Member Conneman — There was a comment someplace here that the recreation
garden areas would be lost and replaced, but it's not on the plan.
Mr. Macera — We have to fully develop the plan,
stormwater plan. All that stuff has to be...
Board Member Conneman — But you'll show us that?
Mr. Macera — Oh, absolutely
Like you'll see that there is no
Chairperson Wilcox — David, I looked at the existing road and the proposed new
driveway. I, am looking at where they meet relative to the curbcut. I'm just wondering if
there might be safety issues. If you are exiting this addition, you have to kind of ... you
understand' what I mean?
Mr. Schopfer — I understand.
Chairperson Wilcox — You've got to kind of cut across and you have cars coming in. I'm.
just worried;, about the confluence of cars there at that little triangle.
ie
I
Mr. Schopfer — We will take a look at it
degree turn rather than that v shape.
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
We might be able to turn that so it's a 90-
Chairperson Wilcox — But if its 90 degree, you've got to pull out to get onto Bella Vista
and there has...
Mr. Schopfer — It is a safer means because you actually have to stop.
Mr. Hebdon — I would prefer to see it come up and turn into a 90- degree because the
people there aren't trying to shoot the gap. They know they have to come to a stop and
make a left'turn.
Chairperson Wilcox — We do have one bit of business and that is we have a draft
resolution to establish the Planning Board as lead agency for environmental review.
Mr. Kanter - Also needs a new date.
Board Member Thayer moves the resolution and Board. Member Conneman seconds
the resolution. The board votes on the motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 413: Lead Agency Designation, Longview Addition
and Amendment of Planned Develonment Zone No. 7. Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 4.31. 1
Bella Vista' Drive
MOTION made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Conneman.
WHEREAS'ff
1. The Town of Ithaca Planning Board is considering a Sketch Plan for the
proposed Skilled/ Adult Care Addition at Longview, an Ithacare Community,
located at 1 Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 39 -1 -1.31, Planned
Development Zone, No. 7. The proposal involves the construction of a +A24, 000
square foot addition on the north side of the existing building to serve up to 30
additional residents. The proposal will also include approximately 1.6 new
parking spaces and a new driveway. The Town Board also referred the
proposed amendment of Planned Development Zone No. 7 to the Planning
Board for a recommendation. Ithacare Center Service Company, Inc.,
Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent, and
21 The proposed site plan approval by the Planning Board and amendment of the
Town of Ithaca Zoning Code are Type I actions pursuant to the State
Environmental Quality Review Act, 6 NYCRR Part 617, and Chapter 148 of the
Town of Ithaca Code regarding Environmental Quality Review, because the
proposal involves the construction of 30 new residential units in an adult care
facility, and
47
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
3, A Full Environmental Assessment Form, Part 1, and additional application
materials have been submitted by the applicant for the above- described action,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED;
That the Town of .Ithaca Planning Board hereby proposes to establish itself as lead
agency to coordinate the environmental review of the proposed site plan approval and
zoning amendment for the proposed Longview Skilled /Adult Care Addition, as described
above, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby requests the concurrence of all involved
agencies on this proposed lead agency designation, said concurrence to be received by
the Town of Ithaca Planning Department within thirty days from the date of notification
,of the involved agencies.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Hoffmann, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None.
The motion was declared to be carried unanimously.
Mr. Kanter — Can I just ask one quick question?
Chairperson Wilcox — Absolutely.
Mr. Kanter I'm still not clear on the actual height of the connecting part of the building.
wonder if you could just clarify what...
Mr. Schopfer — It will be approximately... its about 10 foot above the floor so it will end
up measured from the lowest elevation of the addition so approximately 35 feet.. The
existing building on that side is around 65 feet.
Mr. Kanter' — Okay, because we may need to address that in the amendment to the
Special Land Use District. I think it would be better to address it there than to get a
height variance since we are doing a policy change in the zoning. It is better to do it
there.
Chairperson Wilcox — Is there anything else that you need from us in "terms of
feedback? Okay. Thank you very'much.
Chairperson Wilcox closes,this segment of the meeting at 9:35 p.m.
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1, 2005 AND NOVEMBER 15, 2005
48
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 =114: Approval of Minutes: November 1. 2005
MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Conneman,
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the November
1, 2005 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the said
meeting as presented with corrections.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Hoffmann
The vote on the motion was carried.
!ESOLUTION NO. 2005415:
November 15, 2005
MOTION by Chairperson Wilcox, seconded by Board Member Thayer.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve and adopts the November
151_ 2005 minutes as the official minutes of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board for the
said meeting as presented with corrections.
The vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: None,
ABSTAIN: Hoffmann
The vote on the motion was carried.
SEQR
Continuation of SEAR Determination: Bowes Dock & Boat Lift, 955 Taughannock
Blvd.
Chairperson Wilcox opens this segment of the meeting at 9:38 p.m.
Ron Knewstub, 180 Calkins Rd
This is John and Joy Stanton. They are the neighbors to the south.
Chairperson Wilcox -. Welcome. Thank you for coming.
Do you want to talk about what is, different?
We will get to. you in a little bit.
,.
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Mr. Knewstub - The owner, Luke Bowes, wanted to address the concerns that the
Stantons had. They were concerned about accessing their dock from the north side
and to address those concerns we have redesigned the dock to shorten it by 10 feet.
So it is now 60 feet long. It goes out 30 feet and then jogs to the north 28 feet and then
goes our another 3.0 feet and jogs to the north again 24 feet. And I think that they find
this, well, they said so in an email. I think you might have a copy of it.
Ms. Balestra - Yes.
Mr. Knewstub - It said they endorse the new plan.
Chairperson Wilcox - The proposed dock is now 10 feet shorter than what we had seen .
before?
Mr. Knewstub - It is 10 feet shorter now and further away from their. north access.
Chairperson Wilcox - The area increases. ,
Ms. Balestra - Slightly.
Chairperson Wilcox - So there must be more 10 foot wide than 8 foot wide or ?
Mr. Knewstub - More section to the north.
Chairperson Wilcox - Oh; 60 feet is measured from starting point to furthest point away.
Linearly... got it. Understood.
Board Member Conneman - It was 8 foot in the original proposal and now its 10?
Mr. Knewstub - No. It is still 8 feet. The main dock is 8 feet going out and it still has the
10 x 24 deck at they. end.
Chairperson Wilcox - And that 10 foot extension was there before?
Ms. Balestra - Correct.
Board Member Mitrano moves the resolution
motion. The board votes on the motion.
and Board Member Thayer seconds the
Parcel No.
MOTION made by Board Member Mitrano, seconded by Board Member Thayer.
WHEREAS:
50
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed dock and boat lift project located at 955
Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -24, Lakefront
Residential Zone. - The proposal involves demolishing the existing dock and
constructing a new 60' long dock, with a 14' x 24' covered boatlift and total
square footage of 1,136 square feet. Luke Bowes, Owner; Ron Knewstub,
Agent, and
21 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 Special Permit, and
3. The Planning Board, on November 29, 2005, has reviewed and accepted as
adequate a Short Environmental Assessment Form Part I, submitted by the
applicant, and a Part II prepared by Town Planning staff, plans entitled "Luke &
Mary Bowes, 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County,
New York," date stamped November 21, 2005, and other application materials,
and
4. The . Town Planning staff has recommended a negative determination of
environmental significance with respect to the proposed Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED.
That the Town of Ithaca Planning Board hereby makes a negative determination of
environmental significance in accordance with the New_ York State Environmental
Quality Re view Act for the above referenced action as proposed, and, therefore, an
Environmental Impact Statement will not be required.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe,
NAYS: Hoffmann.
The motion was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Wilcox closes this segment of the meeting at 9:41 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING
Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for
the proposed dock and boat lift project located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 =2 -1, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal
involves demolishing the existing dock and constructing a new dock (8'x 60' with
51
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
a 10' x 24' "L" extension at the end of the dock) with a 14' x 24' covered boatlift.
Luke Bowes, Owner; Ron Knewstub, Agent.
Chairperson Wilcox opens the public hearing at 9:41 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox Do we have a problem with the public hearing notice similar to
what the Zoning Board had?
Ms. Balestra - In 'my opinion no because the public hearing notice for the Planning
Board was not as specific as far as dimensions. The public hearing notice for the
Zoning Board had specific dimensions of 1,056 square feet for the overall surface area
and the Zoning Board needed to make a determination or vote on that.
Chairperson Wilcox - This public hearing notice does reflect the previous plan, not the
current plan.
Ms. Balestra - No, this one should...
Mr. Kanter It reflects the earlier version, but we think if you look at the dimensions, the
new configuration can fit within that description. Because if you look at the 60 foot total
length, that is accurate and it still has the 10 x 24 "L" at the end although the end is,
without having said it, is in a different place than it was before.
Ms. Balestra - What is doesn't say in this particular public hearing notice is the overall
square footage.
Chairperson Wilcox - I also note that there are no members of the public here. other
than the neighbor. John, you're okay?
Attorney Barney —Sure.
Chairperson Wilcox - We okay?
Board Member Hoffmann - I'm not okay with this.
Chairperson Wilcox - Are you okay with the public hearing notice? That's the .question.
Board Member Hoffmann - Yes. That's fine.
Chairperson Wilcox - Questions of Mr. Knewstub while he is here with regard to the site
plan? There are none.
John Stanton, 941 Taughannock Blvd
My wife, Joy, who is sitting in the front row here, too. We both have. talked with the
Bowes and have seen the revised plan in terms of where they have reset the dock and
have set the proposed boat hoist over a ways. We were in concurrence with the revised
52
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
plan that it meets our needs of having to get to our dock from the north side and we are
in concurrence the revised proposal.
Chairperson Wilcox — You are the reason we held it over for two weeks, essentially.
Which is fine. It is so much better when the neighbors work it out so that we don't have
to decide.
Mr. Stanton — And the Fairbanks, who have been to a couple of these meetings, who
are not here tonight, also support the revised change, too. They were at this meeting in
the beginning representing us because we were not in Town at that time.
Attorney Barney — They actually indicated support at the BZA.
Ms. Balestra — I have a quick question for them
Mr. Stanton 60 feet.
Ms. Balestra - Okay.
Chairperson Wilcox — Thank you, sir.
How long is your dock?
Chairperson Wilcox closes the public hearing at 9:45 p.m.
Chairperson Wilcox — Like I said, it is so much nicer when the neighbors resolve these.
We have had two of these now recently..
Board Member Hoffmann — That is true, but that is not enough. What I am upset about
with this is that it exceeds the dimensions that are allowed, in the very recent
regulations that the Town. came up with, in so many ways. It is almost 4 times as large
as the area .permitted. It is twice as long into the water. It has a width of the dock,
which is greater, which is not by much, but my main concern is that its just so huge
compared to what is permitted. There is a reason why the Town set, up these
regulations and I do not think, I do not agree with staff that just because there are other
docks that are big' that one needs to permit new docks to get bigger and bigger and
bigger all the time:,. I do not agree with that.
Board Member Thayer I .do not think that the Town looked into their dimensions very
carefully when they established the,.,.
Board Member Hoffmann — That may be, but I know that I was involved in the
discussions of this because I was on the Codes and Ordinances Committee. I know
that we looked at what we considered, we looked carefully at it, what we considered the
needs of people who owned boats or lived on the lake were. I think many of these very
huge docks do not need to be as big as they are.
Board Member Thayer — It depends on where you are on the lake.
53
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Board Member Hoffmann That is true, but if you happen to have land on the lake
where it is very shallow and you cannot get your boat in maybe you have the wrong
boat or you have to put the boat some place else. You don't necessarily have to expect
to keep your boat where you have your land, if the water is too shallow.
Chairperson Wilcox - We are heading down where we were two weeks ago. Can
have a motion?
Board Member Conneman - Wait a minute. I think that Codes and Ordinance has got
to look at this otherwise we have got to look at every dock and we will come up with the
same arguments. I think it is gross also in terms of how big it is because what it is, is
saying I don't have enough property so I am going to build out in the lake. I mean
agree with Eva on ' �that, but I think Codes and Ordinance has to address this. I don't
know how we get that done, Jon.
Mr. Kanter - That's a good start.
Chairperson Wilcox - And since Eva and I are both on Codes and Ordinances then...
Board Member Conneman - Lets do something about it.
Mr. Kanter - Here's a suggestion. If you get through this resolution, I would suggest the
Planning Board pass a simple resolution asking the Codes and Ordinances Committee
to look at the issue of length and area of docks on the shorefront.
Board Member Conneman - Can we do that tonight?
Mr. Kanter Absolutely.
Board Member Thayer.- I think it should be done with water depth rather than length.
Board Member Hoffmann - We looked at that
Chairperson Wilcox - Can I have a motion?
Attorney Barney - Let me point out something to you before your proceed. If the
ordinance had said that you could have a 60 foot dock with a square footage of here,
you would not be able to deny the dock on the ground that it was that large. As you sit
here tonight, that is exactly what you have. The Board of Zoning Appeals has granted
the variance. That variance is binding unto you so that you now have the law as to this
particular property is that�they may have, it. is the same thing as if the statue had 60 feet
by whatever the square footage is of the area. So I just wanted to point that out to you.
Mr. Kanter - I should let Chris do it, except I know for a fact that the Zoning Board did
not take any action at their meeting...
54
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox— Because the public hearing notice was faltered.
Attorney Barney — Oh, I beg your pardon.
Chairperson Wilcox — But if they had gone to the Zoning Board before getting approval
here and the Zoning Board had approved then we become bound by the fact that they
said 60 feet was legal..,
Board Member Thayer — For this particular..:
Chairperson Wilcox — For this particular project, right. -
Attorney Barney. — I think it was fairly clear that the Board of Zoning Appeals was
prepared to grant, but we did run afoul with the fact that we had a square footage
discrepancy.
Board Member Conneman — So if we pass a resolution tonight that will prevent the
Board of Appeals from doing anything about this until we...
Chairperson Wilcox —' I think what Jon was saying is we could entertain a resolution
asking that the Codes and Ordinances Committee consider looking at the dimensions
for docks and address them. Can.I do this first so they can go home?
Board Member Conneman No. My point is does that permit anybody else. from
coming in? A rush of people say you better get it in there before Codes and. Ordinances
look at it?
Ms. Balestra — Well we have another application that is tentatively scheduled for the
December 20th Planning Board meeting.
Mr. Kanter George, I think if you ask COC to look at it, it is not going to go a shorter
dock length with less surface area. It is going to be the other way around because what
we will ask them to do is look at the actual character of the shoreline, the actual water
depths and 'what dock lengths and surface areas are now because what we are finding
is that, in my opinion, the dimensions that COC came up with were far short of what you
may need in certain circumstances.
Attorney Barney — Short from what the vast majority of the docks are
Chairperson Wilcox'— Can I have a motion?
Board Member Conneman — It's just that I don't want to get even bigger. That is my.
point.
55
Board Member Thayer moves the resolution and Board Member
motion. The board votes on the motion.
S
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Howe seconds the
Permit, Proposed Dock and Boat Lift, 955 Taughannock Boulevard
MOTION. made by Board Member Thayer, seconded by Board Member Howe.
WHEREAS:
1. This action is consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit for the proposed dock and boat lift project located at 955
Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -24, Lakefront
Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing dock and
constructing a new 60' long dock, with a 14' x 24' covered boatlift and total
square footage of 1,136 square feet. Luke Bowes, Owner, Ron Knewstub,
Agent, and,
21 This is an Unlisted Action for which the Town of Ithaca Planning Board, acting as
lead agency in environmental review with respect to Site Plan Approval and
Special Permit has, on November 29, 2005, made a negative determination of
environmental significance, after having reviewed and accepted as adequate a
Short Environmental Assessment Form Part 1, submitted by the applicant, and a
Part 11 prepared by Town Planning staff, and
31 The Planning Board, at a Public Hearing held on November 29, 2005, has
reviewed and accepted plans entitled "Luke & Mary Bowes, 955 Taughannock
Boulevard, Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York," date stamped
November 21, 2005, and other application materials, 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 construction of a new dock and boat lift located at 955
Taughannock Boulevard, as shown on the submitted plans, subject to the
following conditions:
a. Granting of the necessary variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals, in
particular, the requirements of Section 270 =45 (A)(1)(b)[6] regarding the
60
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
width of the dock and Section 270 -45 (A)(1)(b)[8] regarding the maximum
allowed surface area, prior to the issuance of a building permit, and
b.. That the applicant maintain the NYS. water quality standards listed in the
letter:; from the NYSDEC dated August 16, 2005, and the specific permit
conditions outlined in the Army Corps of Engineers permit for the project.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board hereby grants Special Permit for the. project subject to
the conditions listed in 2 and 3 below, determining that:
a. the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community, in
harmony with the general purpose of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code and
the specific purposes, are being promoted, and
b. the premises are, reasonably adapted to the proposed use, and such use
will fill a neighborhood or community need, and
co the proposed use and the location and design of proposed structures are
consistent with the character of the district in which they are located, and
d. the proposed use will not be detrimental to the general amenity. or
neighborhood character in amounts sufficient to devaluate neighboring
property or seriously inconvenience neighboring inhabitants, and
e.. operations in connection with the proposed use will not be more
objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibrations,
illumination, or other public nuisance, than the operation of any permitted
use in the zone in which the use is located, and
f. community infrastructure and services are of adequate capacity to
accommodate the proposed use, and
g: the proposed use, facility design, and site layout comply with all of the
provisions of the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code with the exception of
Section 270 -45 (A)(1)(b),. Subsections [6], [7], and [8] regarding maximum
width, length, and total surface area, and to the extent considered by the
Planning Board, with other regulations of the Town, and with the Town of
Ithaca Comprehensive Plan, and
h, the proposed access and egress for all structures and uses is safely
designed and the site layout provides adequate access for emergency
vehicles, and
57
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
L the general effect of the proposed use upon the community as a whole is
not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community,
and
j. the lot area and access are sufficient for the proposed use, and
k. natural surface water drainage is adequately managed in accordance with
good engineering practices, and existing drainageways are not altered in a
manner that adversely affects other properties, and
to the extent reasonably deemed relevant by the Planning Board, the
proposed use or structure complies with all the criteria applicable to site
plan review set forth in the Town of Ithaca Zoning Code, and
2. That the Planning Board hereby authorizes the length of the proposed dock to
exceed the 30 400t maximum length, pursuant to Section 27045(A)(1)(b)[7], with
the condition that said dock shall not exceed 60 feet, as shown on the submitted
plans, and
3. That this Special Permit is further conditioned upon the approval of the variances
by the Zoning Board of Appeals as referenced in condition 2.a. of Site Plan
Approval in regards to maximum width and surface area.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: Hoffmann, Conneman.
The motion was declared to be carried.
Chairperson Wilcox.- Minutes are out of the way. So I'm going to put in your mouth.
You want the Planning Board to recommend to the Codes and Ordinances Committee
that the dimensions associated with docks be reviewed.
Board Member Conneman - Yes.
Chairperson Wilcox - For the purpose of reasonability? For?
Board Member Conneman - For the purpose of again considering what the criteria were
and what the criteria should be it seems to me.
Attorney Barney - The size and length.
Board Member Conneman - The size and length, but in the meantime if you are going
to have another come before us...
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Chairperson Wilcox — Hold on. So moved by George.
Board Member Howe — Second.
The board votes on the motion.
PB RESOLUTION NO. 2005 -118: Recommendation to Codes and Ordinances
Committee
to Review the
Dimension
of Docks in Zoning
Ordinance
MOVED by
Board Member
Conneman,
seconded by Board
Member Howe.
RESOLVED, that the Planning Board hereby Recommends to the Codes and
Ordinances Committee that the dimensions associated with docks be reviewed for the
purpose of reconsidering what the size of docks specified in the Lakefront Residential
Zone in the Town of Ithaca Code should be.
A vote on the motion resulted as follows:
AYES: Wilcox, Conneman, Mitrano, Thayer, Howe.
NAYS: Hoffmann.
The motion was declared to be carried.
Board Member Hoffmann - I am not voting in favor of that because I think that there are
other reasons that are equally important.
Board Member Conneman — But what happens if the next time someone else comes in
and before COC looks at this, just as we had a rush of people who . wanted` to get
around the new zoning laws.
Ms. Balestra — I don't think practically speaking you are going to get a rush of people
who want to build less than what we allow currently.
Board Member Mitrano — About.how much would you estimate is the cost of this project,
for this one family?
Ms. Balestra — I honestly don't know.
Mr. Kanter = They also started building it before getting the necessary approvals so
some costs may have been associated with that. Then again, this is the first one that
ever came before the Town, too, so. we can't be too critical of that.
Board Member Mitrano — But is this a $20,000 project, a $40,000 project?
Ms. Balestra - I don't know.
59
Planning Board Minutes
November 29, 2005
Approved
Mr. Kanter — Its probably a per square foot.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Kanter mentioned the open house for Hanshaw Road Reconstruction, December 1,
2005 from 2 :00 p.m'. until 7:00 p.m, at the Cayuga Heights Fire House,
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Wilcox, adjourns the November 29, 2005 Planning Board meeting at 10:56
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ca 'e Coates Whi ore
Deputy Town Clerk
60
7:00 P.M.
7:05 P.M.
7:05 P.M.
r6311102 MT
8:30 P.M.
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
.215 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
Special Meeting
Tuesda,November 29, 2005
AGENDA
Persons to be heard (no more than five minutes).
SEQR Determination: Pine Tree Road Office Building, Pine Tree Road.
PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for
the proposed Pine Tree Road Office Building project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road,
Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone: The proposal includes
demolishing several existing barns and related abandoned buildings and constructing a new
three story, +/- 60,000 square foot office building for Cornell. University. The project will also
include new lighting, landscaping, walkways; stormwater facilities and approximately 250
parking spaces. Cornell University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant.
Consideration of a Sketch Plan review for the proposed Skilled / Adult Care Addition at
Longview, an Ithacare Community; located at 1. Bella Vista Drive, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
- No. 39- 1-1'.31. Planned Development Zone No. 7. The proposal involves the construction of a
+/- 24,000 square foot addition on the north side of the existing building to serve up to 30,
additional residents. The proposal will also include approximately 16 new parking spaces and a
new driveway. The Town Board also referred the proposed amendment of Planned
Development Zone No. 7 to the Planning Board for a recommendation. Ithacare Center Service
Company, Inc., Owner /Applicant; Mark A. Macera, Executive Director, Agent.
Continuation of SEQR Determination: Bowes Dock & Boat Lift, 955 Taughannock Blvd.
8:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING: Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special
Permit for the proposed dock and boat lift project located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Town
of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 25 -2 -1, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves.
demolishing the existing dock and constructing a new dock (8' x 60' with a 1'0' x 24' "L15.
extension at the end of the dock) with a 14' x 24' covered boatlift. Luke Bowes, Owner; Ron
Knewstub, Agent.
7. Persons'to be heard (continued from beginning of meeting if necessary).
81 Approval of Minutes: November 1, 2005 and November 15, 20051
9, Other Business: .
10. Adjournment.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
NOTE: IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNABLE TO ATTEND, PLEASE NOTIFY
SANDY POLCE AT 273 -1747.
(A quorum of four (4) members is necessary to conduct Planning Board business.)
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
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 at a special meeting on Tuesday, November 29, 2005; at. 215
North Tioga Street, Ithaca, N.Y., at the following times and on the following matters:
7:05 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed.Pine Tree
Road Office Building project located to the east of 391 Pine Tree Road, Town of Ithaca Tax .
Parcel No. 63- 1 -3.4, Low Density Residential Zone. The proposal includes demolishing several
existing barns and related abandoned buildings and constructing a new three story, +/- 60,000
square foot office building for Cornell University. The project will also include new lighting,
landscaping, walkways, stormwater facilities and approximately 250 parking spaces. Cornell
University, Owner; Integrated Acquisition & Development, Applicant,
8:30 P.M. Consideration of Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval and Special Permit for the proposed
dock and boat lift project located at 955 Taughannock Boulevard, Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel
No. 25 -2 -1, Lakefront Residential Zone. The proposal involves demolishing the existing dock
and constructing a. new dock (8' x 60' with a 10' x 24' "L" extension at the, end of the, dock)
with a 14' x 24' covered boatlift. Luke Bowes, Owner; Ron Knewstub, Agent.
Said Planning Board will at said times and said place hear all persons in support of such matters or objections.
thereto. Persons may appear by agent or in person. Individuals with visual impairments, hearing impairments or
other special needs, will be provided with assistance as necessary, upon request. Persons desiring assistance must
make such a request not less than 48 hours prior to the time of the public hearings.
Jonathan Kanter, AICP
Director of Planning
273 -1747
Dated: Monday, November 21, 2005
Publish: Wednesday, November 23, 2005
TOWN OF .ITHACA
PLANNING BOARD
SIGN -IN SHEET
DATE: November 29, 2005
(PLEASE PRINT TO ENSURE ACCURACY IN OFFICIAL MINUTES)
PLEASE PRINT NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS /AFFILIATION
j O C I IBS 7- Lz�s
Wrn�-� ,I�AK�
`�iS ti�,►.� -rv►� Pu Inc F�S��n
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, November 29, 2005
commencing at 7:00 P.M., as per attached.
Location of Sign Board used for Posting: Town Clerk Sign Board - 215 North Tio ate.
Date of Posting:
Date of Publication:
November 21, 2005
November 23, 2005
aa&��
Sandra Polce, Senior Typist
Town of Ithaca
STATE OF NEW YORK) SS:
COUNTY OF TOMPKINS)
Sworn. to and subscribed before me this 23`d, day of November 2005,
Notary Public
CONNIE F. CLARK
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01 CL6052878
Oualified in Tompkins County
Commission Expires December 26, 20,Q(1?
1